Sitting of 4 November 1993

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

    VAT
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the imposition of VAT.
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding the proposed imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have received a large number of representations about VAT.
    Mr. Barron: Is the Chancellor aware that a survey published today shows that many Conservative-controlled councils and their councillors have refused to support the Government's imposition of VAT on fuel, because, like many people, they believe that it does not recognise the ability to pay and therefore is grossly unfair? Will the Chancellor review that tax, withdraw it and take notice of what the country is saying—that millions of people believe that it should be stopped now?
    Madam Speaker: I understand that question 5 is linked with this question.
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Since the Act was passed, there has been—.[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear."] The reason why people cannot hear me is that the microphones are not working.
    Madam Speaker: If the microphones are not working, the Chancellor can raise his voice.
    Mr. Clarke: I first came here when music hall was really music hall and us old troupers can make ourselves heard in the House when we try.
    Since the Finance Act was passed, there has been a large campaign. I accept that many people, particularly the elderly, have been made quite fearful of the tax before it has been imposed. However, there was such a fall in gas and electricity prices during the 1980s that, even with the tax imposed in full, fuel bills will be no higher than they were 10 years ago. Moreover, the Government will come forward with a package of measures to help those who have difficulty paying the new tax. In my opinion, the sensible
    500
    approach for a House of Commons that passed the tax some months ago is to wait to see the package of help that will be forthcoming.
    Dr. Godman: I was not informed of the linking of questions, Madam Speaker, I thought that it was a common parliamentary courtesy to be informed of such a linking.
    Madam Speaker: Indeed it is. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to put his question now, though?
    Dr. Godman: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you.
    Dr. Godman: You are on top form again, Madam Speaker.
    I have received many representations on the imposition of the tax. It is frightening many elderly people everywhere. Will the Chancellor give an assurance that he will fully protect those on low incomes, especially those on incomes that are just slightly above income support? It is a lousy rotten tax and it has caused a lot of fear among elderly people, particularly those on small occupational pensions.
    Mr. Clarke: As I have said, we are all receiving a lot of representations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not join those who are arousing the real fears felt by people throughout the country. When my right hon. Friend announced the introduction of the tax we said that before it was introduced we would create a package of measures to give help to that section of the population who would have difficulty paying. That package will be announced at the usual time—my Budget statement.
    Sir Terence Higgins: In framing his Budget will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the principles that guided lain Macleod and myself when we steered the original legislation on value added tax through the House? We believed that there should be only one positive rate of VAT, with relief through zero rating for those items of greatest importance to those on low incomes. If my right hon. and learned Friend decides that there should be a tax increase in the Budget—although at this stage of the economic cycle I think that that would be a mistake—before considering anything else will he introduce VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. immediately, with an adequate compensation package?
    Mr. Clarke: I well remember my right hon. Friend steering VAT through the House of Commons—it was a controversial tax, although the replacement of purchase tax was popular. The measure did not enjoy a smooth passage then; I remember voting unsuccessfully with my right hon. Friend to try to exclude at least one of the zero-rated items. Although the initial measure was good, it was not perfect, and, since its introduction, successive Governments have, from time to time, extended its scope. In the climate of our commitment to the Rio targets and a need for more revenue in the spring of this year, it seemed logical and sensible to raise part of the revenue in the March Budget from that measure, with a promise of a package of help. Between now and 30 November, I will bear in mind my right hon. Friend's other representations about the Budget.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the people who are most worried about VAT on fuel are those who do not qualify for benefit? Will he give a complete and categorical assurance that those people's

    501
    interests will be taken into account? Will he promise that we will never again be given an announcement, then have to wait almost a year for the package?
    Mr. Clarke: As to the assurance, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. While we wait for the package of measures, may I repeat that people should not arouse fears, but should explain to today's pensioners that the level of bills that they will pay will be no greater than those previously faced by pensioners. Some pensioners will receive help before the measure is introduced. As to introducing tax measures that do not take effect until 12 months or two years hence, my hon. Friend's political message is right. If we had immediately introduced the tax earlier this year, we would not be debating it in the autumn. It is the campaigning which has aroused feeling. The downside of that process is that it means that many hon. Members' long-standing hope that there should be more consultation about the details of complicated tax measures which Chancellors believe that they should introduce becomes ever less likely. The moment that one gives advance warning of anything in the British system one merely arouses noisy campaigns to try to stop the measure.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor confirm the report in the Financial Times that £600 million was wrongly paid in tax refund to the Kuwaiti Government—more than enough money to prevent any pensioner from having to pay VAT next year? Will he also confirm that if the loopholes, about which everyone knows, in the business expansion scheme, executive share options and advance corporation tax were closed, no family would have to pay VAT next year? He could announce the closure of those loopholes this afternoon. Is it incompetence that prevents the Government from acting, or is it that too many people who benefit from abusing the system are too close to the Conservative party?
    Mr. Clarke: When we investigate the matter closely, to discover whether closing the hon. Gentleman's so-called loopholes would raise any revenue, it becomes obvious that that would be about as much use as brass washers. Individual tax issues are looked at in the ordinary way by the Inland Revenue, but the rules on sovereign immunity are partly determined by international law which cannot be repudiated. The hon. Gentleman's list of other so-called loopholes does not stand up to the slightest examination. He claimed that £1 billion could be raised by not abolishing stamp duty; we have not abolished stamp duty, so that is not relevant. The difficulty is that the Labour party, which was committed to high taxation, no longer knows whether it is. It tries to pretend to the country that it can get away with everything it promises by making claims about illusory loopholes being abused by millionaires. Examination shows that those loopholes do not exist.
    Mr. Forman: Returning to the original question, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he realises that many Conservative Members would be pleased if he were to adopt a robust and reforming approach to VAT? In that context, is he aware that the broader the base of that tax, the lower can be the rates—other things being equal —and the simpler can be the structure?
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That has guided successive Governments and that is why both Labour and Conservative Governments have broadened the base over
    502
    the years. One improvement that the Government made when they first came in was to get rid of the separate bands which were much complained about after the Government's predecessors introduced them.
    The important thing about the taxation burden is that it should be fair and should be bearable by the less well-off. The VAT on fuel provision in the March Budget was only one measure in a Budget where most of the revenue was to be gained from those in work, including the better off. Understandably, the campaign has focused on VAT on fuel, but it has been an exaggerated campaign which has aroused groundless fears among many people who are now feeling vulnerable about paying their heating bills.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve the competitiveness and capacity of Britain's manufacturing industries.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The Government's role is to create the best climate for industry and to ensure that economic recovery is sustained through low inflation and sound public finances.
    Mr. Michie: It is a pity that we have not yet seen the evidence of their success. When the Chancellor draws up the Budget, will he take note of the British shipping taxation proposals and create a level playing field for our merchant fleet, bearing in mind the terrible crisis in our shipbuilding at the moment?
    Mr. Nelson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor met representatives of the shipping industry this week. I assure the hon. Gentleman that his representations will be taken carefully into account.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that during the past three years interest rates have gone down from 15 to 6 per cent. and that that has wiped £11 billion off interest charges for British industry? Is not that particularly helpful to manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. That is £11 billion of cash flow going through businesses which otherwise would not have done. That must be added to the facts that unit wage costs have declined and that we have low inflation and a more competitive exchange rate. Our manufacturing industries, as well as other businesses, have the edge in competition at home and abroad.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister realise with what cynicism the workers of Cammell Laird, who are listening to his reassurances about the future of British shipbuilding, treat his remarks? Despite assurances and pleas of sympathy from the Government, Cammell Laird has now closed and the rest of our once-great shipbuilding industry is under constant threat. It looks as though the legacy of the Government will be that Britain, as an island nation, will have no shipbuilding industry left. What value are the Minister's reassurances when the industry is being devastated?
    Mr. Nelson: Of course, I understand the problems in the hon. Lady's constituency to which she refers. I acknowledge the importance of the shipbuilding industry

    503
    nationally, as well as the importance of other manufacturing industries which employ some 4.2 million people.
    In the previous Budget, we introduced a number of measures, not the least of which was the time-limited enhancement on capital allowance. That was specifically to assist those industries and to enhance the export credit facilities that are available to them. We still have a shipbuilding capability, which admittedly is much smaller, but specialist. Some areas have benefited from orders from the defence and other spheres, and I hope that that will continue to be the case.

    Unemployment
    Dr. Liarn Fox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what he attributes the fall in unemployment earlier than expected in the economic cycle.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Unemployment has fallen by 84,000 since January of this year. This may in part reflect the improvements that we have made to labour market flexibility as part of our supply-side reforms and our continuing efforts to keep the level of non-wage costs on employers down to levels lower than those in other European economies. Our opt-out from the social chapter is an important element in encouraging the growth of employment in the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Fox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that as the economy gathers pace, it will do so not only because of the labour reforms of the 1980s but because of a whole range of supply-side reforms? Does he further accept that those reforms were totally opposed by the Opposition and have been possible only because we have had consistent and consecutive Conservative Governments?
    Mr. Clarke: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Not only have we improved the labour market, but we have created a much better climate for investment, for small businesses and for business start-ups and we were much more successful than most of our competitors in creating new jobs before the recession from which we are now emerging first struck us. Almost all the relevant measures were opposed by the Labour party, which still seeks to impose on us the costs of the social chapter. Labour still harks back to a regulated labour market and, as we saw only last night, its vision of the future is to keep in nationalisation the great traditional industries of this country.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Chancellor realise that the rosy picture that he has painted is not true of the construction industry, in which the recovery is still very fragile? Has he noted the representations of construction employers, to the effect that as many as 100,000 jobs could be lost in the industry if there are cuts in capital expenditure in the Budget? Does he realise that this is the right stage in the cycle to ensure, if possible, higher capital expenditure in construction—expenditure that will bring rewards in terms of taxes paid by employees, fewer benefits paid out and assets obtained for the future at a good price?
    Mr. Clarke: I am well aware of the troubled state of the construction industry. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is a matter for great concern. The Government sustained the level of public sector capital
    504
    investment in the last Budget and we are making great progress in delivering private sector investment in capital projects in the public services. We must certainly build on that. The recent placing of contracts for the Jubilee line shows what can be achieved and there are a number of other projects across the country in which private sector management skills and finance could boost capital investment and help the construction industry.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to protect and promote employment is to ensure that our industry is competitive by reducing unit costs and by precisely the sort of productivity improvements that have been and are being achieved by manufacturing industry? Is he aware that companies in my constituency are bringing over from Germany capital equipment that can be used profitably here to re-export goods? Because Germany is weighed down by the costs of the social chapter and other social costs, that is not possible there. Should not we therefore avoid the social chapter as far as possible, to enable our industry to be competitive? Do not the Opposition fail to recognise that?
    Mr. Clarke: British industry's achievement—of continuing to improve productivity throughout 1993—is an extremely important basis for our strengthening recovery. Productivity increased by 41/2 per cent. That is an extremely good record which I am sure underlies our good performance in non-EC export markets. We will do better in our EC markets once our European competitors and their markets start to show the sort of recovery that is beginning here in Britain.
    My hon. Friend's other message is one that we need to reiterate over and over again. German employers are envious of the conditions that we have created, which are more attractive for inward investment and the creation of new jobs.

    VAT
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has recently held with representatives of the publishing industry concerning the widening of VAT.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): Treasury Ministers have recently met representatives from all sectors of the publishing industry and their views are being carefully considered in the preparations for the Budget.
    Mr. Bennett: What income would the Government obtain if they imposed VAT on newspapers, books and magazines? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any estimate of the number of local newspapers that might close as a result of its imposition? What would happen to minority authors? How many books might not be published as a result and how many magazines would close? If the Minister addes up the figures perhaps he will agree that such a move would do far more damage to the spread of information and knowledge than benefit to the Treasury's revenues.
    Sir John Cope: We have had suggestions of a large number of figures in answer to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I will not anticipate anything that my right hon. and learned Friend may want to say later.
    Mr. James Hill: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has taken into consideration the fact that there is only one local paper in some areas and that, if they have to pay VAT, such papers are likely to go out of business. But they serve a community purpose. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will sympathetically consider single-paper areas such as Southampton.
    Sir John Cope: That point has indeed been made in the representations to us.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Was not it an election pledge by the Conservative party that no VAT would be imposed on magazines, newspapers or books? Will the Minister confirm that the imposition of VAT on these items would be regressive, would fuel inflation and would lead to the direct loss of well over 20,000 jobs? Will he also confirm that the same sum of money could be raised without any of these consequences if the Government blocked the inheritance tax loopholes that are abused by the very wealthy?
    Sir John Cope: Once again the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that everything can be done by stopping-up tax avoidance in some way. He knows perfectly well, as I do, that every Finance Bill that has ever been introduced has involved closing loopholes. He is chasing a mirage. Of course the figures that he mentioned have been brought to our attention in the various representations to which I referred.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publishing community's campaign against VAT on books would be a jolly sight more convincing if it were prepared to scrap the net book agreement that has pushed up and keeps up book prices?
    Sir John Cope: I realise the point made by my hon. Friend, but I do not think that it arises in this context.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much an average family paid per week in VAT in (a) 1979 and (b) 1993.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): A couple with two children on average earnings paid VAT of £12.95 per week at today's prices in 1979–80 and an estimated £19.30 per week in 1993–94.
    Mr. Mullin: Is not it clear that the public have been conned and that for four general elections the Conservative party has posed as the party of low taxation that cuts taxation, but has been quietly transferring the burden of tax from income tax to VAT? Is not it the truth that taxation has gone up under the Conservatives and is not that because it is expensive to maintain 3 million people who are permanently out of work? Is not the best way to cut tax to cut unemployment?
    Mr. Dorrell: To take up the hon. Gentleman's phrase, the truth is that since 1979, we have been improving living standards for British people, which is what matters. Since 1979, take-home pay measured in today's terms for the same family to which the hon. Gentleman referred has risen by £81.50 a week. The hon. Gentleman is right that £6.35 of that increase has gone to pay VAT, but the other £75 a week has gone to improve living standards.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that VAT is an essential aspect of spending-side economics and that
    506
    if we did not have the income from VAT we would not be able to meet the spending programmes, especially those in which the Opposition are constantly demanding increases?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right that VAT is, under this Government, and was under our predecessors, an important part of the total revenue-raising package. I ask the House to reflect on the significance of the fact that in Labour's Britain the standard rate of tax on a wage-earner involved in wealth creation was 33 per cent., while the standard rate of VAT on spending was 8 per cent. I should have thought that in a society where wealth creation was regarded as important, we would want—as the Government have—to cut the rate of tax on wealth creation even if that means an increase in the rate of tax on spending.
    Mr. Marlow: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to give an assurance that there is no way in which the Government will consider imposing more VAT on families in Britain if, later in the next Session, the Government intend to bring forward a Bill to re-route more taxpayers' money through Brussels to corrupt regimes in southern Europe so that hands may be greased and money can find its way into the pockets of some people's cronies?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has introduced a general all-purpose question on taxation. I do not propose to get involved in speculation about our future tax policy. As for our obligations to our European partners, I am sure that my hon. Friend would want us to honour obligations entered into by the Government of the United Kingdom.
    Ms Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman still refuse to recognise that VAT on gas and electricity is even more unpopular than the poll tax? Does he realise that it is dreaded by the public and that now 1,000 Tory councillors are backing Labour's demand that the Government should drop it? The Chancellor has a choice: either he can ditch it in his 30 November Budget or see it go down in the Finance Bill. Which is it to be?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady is scraping the bottom of the barrel in suggesting that our tax policy should be determined by the views of individual councillors. The one thing that all sides should agree about is that tax policy should be decided by the House. The Government's proposals for VAT on fuel and power have been repeatedly endorsed by the House. It is the House which makes that decision, not councils.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is not the important aspect of value added tax the fact that until the recent decision to impose it on fuel and power, it was broadly neutral? That was because of zero rating. All other taxes except income tax are regressive, which means that VAT hurts most those who are least well off. As I have said, income tax is our only progressive tax, and the Government are determined to reduce that to help the most well off.
    Mr. Dorrell: I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that it was the Liberal Deomcrats and not the Government who described the exemption of fuel and power from VAT as an anomaly. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) proposed the introduction of an energy tax and asked the public to write to him with their reactions. Perhaps some of the letters that The Sun suggests should be written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor should be addressed to that

    507
    hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, I think, that it was not the Government but the Institute for Fiscal Studies which analysed the income distribution effect of the last Budget, and concluded that it was broadly neutral across all income groups.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are missing the key point, which is that as we changed the structure of direct and indirect tax we lowered the indirect taxation level, leaving most people with money to spend? That is one of the key reasons why we shall move faster as we come out of recession than our European counterparts who have failed to learn that lesson.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right: not for the first time, the Opposition are missing the point. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that the prime objective of tax policy must surely be to encourage wealth creation. We cut the marginal rate of tax on wealth creation because we want to make people better off. That is why the man on average earnings with two children now enjoys take-home pay that is £81.50 a week higher than it was in 1979.

    Trade Deficit
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the deficit on visible trade for the first seven months of (a) 1993 and (b) 1992.
    The Chief Secretary io the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): The visible trade deficit was £8.75 billion in the first seven months of this year and £7 billion in the first seven months of last year.
    Mr. Enright: Are not those figures deeply depressing, especially in view of the huge sums of taxpayers' money that were poured down the drain last year to devalue the pound and make us more competitive? Does not the Chief Secretary agree that it is crucial for us to sell more if we are to have a cat in hell's chance of a sustained non-inflationary recovery?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman shows unusual enlightenment for an Opposition Member when he says that the crux of the matter is that we should sell more. The Government are concerned to make Britain more competitive. That is why we have kept Britain out of the social chapter. The hon. Gentleman's party is concerned to make Britain as uncompetitive as possible. I hope that, like me, he takes pleasure from the fact that during the past year our exports to areas outside the European Community rose by 11 per cent. and that Britain is more competitive. I hope that he will join me in saying that those are good achievements.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of yesterday's Touche Ross report on business prospects in Yorkshire and Humberside which points to clear signs of economic recovery in that region? As the economic recovery gathers pace, enabling us to make an impact on our trade balance, does he agree that the Government's policy must be to continue to bear down on inflation and encourage greater productivity and competitiveness in British industry?
    Mr. Portillo: I am, indeed, pleased with the results of that survey. Recently, British management has got on top of its costs. Unit wage costs in this country have been
    508
    falling while they have continued to rise in Japan and Germany. Our productivity is at record levels. Manufacturing productivity growth in Britain has been the strongest of all the G7 countries during the past year. Those are great achievements, and they offer good prospects for British industry.
    Dr. Berry: Is the Chief Secretary aware that we have never had such a large trade deficit at this point in the business cycle, and that, for the first time ever, we have a record trade deficit in the midst of a recession? Who does he believe to be responsible for that?
    Mr. Portillo: I would prefer the deficit to be less than it is. However, I notice that foreign investors are showing great confidence in our country. They are investing more in Britain through inward investment than they are in any other European country. We are benefiting from one third of all the inward investment coming into the European Community, and foreign investors are also willing to buy our stocks and gilts. That shows that the trade deficit is fundable and I believe that the Government should continue to pursue policies that make Britain more competitive and also act on the fiscal deficit to bring it down.

    Public Spending
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to cut public spending.
    Mr. Portillo: The Cabinet agreed in June to stick within existing ceilings for the new control total for the next two years, and to allow a maximum growth of 1 per cent. in 1996–97. Our spending plans will be set out in the Budget on 30 November.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that every function of Government should be examined for possible savings? Is he aware that millions of pounds could be saved by reducing the size of the civil service bureaucracy, that £5 million could be saved by abolishing the unnecessary Equal Opportunities Commission and that further savings could be made by putting a stop to the absurd inquiry by British policemen into alleged war crimes in the Falklands? Many people are outraged by that inquiry, and feel that it should be ceased forthwith.
    Mr. Portillo: As is his wont, my hon. Friend chooses some controversial topics to raise and, as one who likes to avoid controversy as much as possible, I shall not follow him down those lines of inquiry. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's basic point, which is that we need carefully to scrutinise what Government do to ensure that the Government do only what is necessary and that they pass to the private sector that which they do not need to do. That is the basis of the fundamental reviews being conducted into a number of Departments at the moment, which will be extended to other Departments in the new year.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that if we are to rid ourselves of the scourge of mass unemployment, rather than reducing public expenditure, the Government should be increasing it and introducing exchange and import controls to stop 20 million tonnes of coal coming into Britain? We should be exporting coal. In case the Minister is going to ask me how we bridge the gap on the public

    509
    sector borrowing requirement, I shall tell him now. We should be taxing the rich, the richest 5 per cent. of whom have had more than £50 billion in the past 14 Tory Government years. That is the way to resolve the problem, not by imposing VAT on fuel and light for the elderly and others in Britain.
    Mr. Portillo: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member. His is the authentic voice of the Labour party and I am pleased that, at this Question Time, he has reaffirmed that the policy of the Labour party is to raise taxes and increase public spending and controls. I am sure that he will join me in the pleasure that I feel that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has retained her place in the shadow Cabinet because I believe that she, too, is sympathetic to all those policies.

    Retail Sales
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much retail sales rose in the last three months for which figures are available against the same three months in the previous year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In the three months ending September, the volume of retail sales was nearly 4 per cent. higher than a year earlier, and at record levels.
    Mr. Dunn: Do not the encouraging sales figures underline the current EC forecast that Britain's economy will grow faster than any other EC country, both this year and next year, and that this, taken alongside other positive economic indicators, means that we are now facing a sustained economic recovery?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, we are the only major European country that seems likely to record growth this year. There has now been growth for six successive quarters. Most forecasters expect that it will strengthen somewhat next year. That steadily rising level of consumer demand is reasonably encouraging. I therefore reinforce my hon. Friend's message and point out to him that this morning's figures for new car registrations–15 per cent. up on 12 months ago—are a further encouraging feature. We have a long way to go, but the recovery is very much there and shows every prospect of strengthening ahead of our European partners next year.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is literally taxing consumers until the pips squeak, by imposing VAT on fresh orange juice, will not retail sales be depressed and jobs destroyed in that rapidly growing industry? Is it not the case that the Government extend VAT in a knee-jerk reaction to their financial incompetence? Will not the public fear that that orange juice VAT is just the first course in a whole menu of Government VAT on food? Should not the Chancellor tell us now that there will be no imposition of VAT on any further food products?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that the measure that we passed last night, in the middle of a number of another type of votes that attracted more attention at the time, was a minor technical change. We have always taxed manufactured fruit juice in this country. There was a dispute and there have been tribunal cases about whether orange juice produced in factories was a manufactured fruit juice. When the matter was scrutinised
    510
    in Committee it took about half an hour and the vote last night was eminently sensible and fair to apple juice producers. [Interruption.]
    The Labour party has abandoned its previous economic policies and its previous proposals because they proved to be unpopular, but it cannot substitute for that all the nonsense about paying for everything out of non-existent loopholes and scratching around trying to build cases against technical amendments taken late at night.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: While I fully support my right hon. and learned Friend's declared determination to reduce the fiscal deficit, I urge him to compensate for the deflationary effects that that is likely to have on retail sales by reducing our interest rates to nearer the much lower levels of Japan and the United States. There, real interest rates are less than half those in this country, even allowing for the somewhat pessimistic recent forecasts of the Bank of England about future inflationary trends here.
    Mr. Clarke: We shall continue to determine monetary policy following the guidelines that we set out as a necessary discipline upon ourselves after our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism. There has been a steady reduction in interest rates in this country for a considerable time—about two years. That has helped to boost the recovery here and we shall have to ensure that the right conditions are retained here. We continue to have some of the lowest interest rates in the European Community and we are sustaining the strongest level of growth of any major economy within the Community.

    VAT
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of total Government revenue raised by value added tax (a) in 1978–79 and (b) in 1992–93.
    Sir John Cope: VAT accounted for 7.3 per cent. of general Government receipts in 1978–79 and 16.9 per cent. in 1992–93.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister comment on figures that were quoted in the May 1993 issue of Economic Trends? Those figures showed that as household disposable income decreases the proportion paid in VAT increases and that although the top 10 per cent. of the population pay 6.1 per cent. of their net income in value added tax, the bottom 10 per cent. pay 11.5 per cent. of their income. Does not that mean that any increase in VAT will hit the poor twice as hard as it hits the rich?
    Sir John Cope: No, it does not necessarily mean that. It depends how it is done and what is done. In any case, it is well known that the Government's policy has been to shift some of the weight of taxation from direct to indirect taxation, and the hon. Gentlemen has enabled me to demonstrate how we have been doing that.
    Sir Michael Neubert: What estimate does my right hon. Friend make of the VAT that is lost as a result of builders operating legally, and in a significant number of cases illegally, under the VAT exempt ceilling and, worse, those in the black economy evading tax altogether? In view of the critical need to reduce the current deficit, what action will he take to recover that revenue and restore fair competition to the building industry?
    Sir John Cope: There has always been some argument about where we should fix the bottom level of VAT for that purpose—the turnover level. Those immediately above it tend to argue that it should be increased; those who feel that it would not be increased sufficiently to include them would, on the whole, like it moved further down to ensure that the smallest firms and one-man businesses are 'within the net. We try to reach a balanced judgment between those two pressures to fix the bottom level of VAT so that there is not too much burden either on the Customs and Excise in collecting it or on industry in filling in the forms. However, at the same time, we collect as much VAT as possible.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appropriate conditions and criteria for adoption policy should be common sense and the interests of children, not the curse of politically correct thinking? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Health on her statement yesterday that makes a clear preference in adoption policy for married couples?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement yesterday. I agree with what my hon. Friend has to say about the importance of common sense in adoption policy. There is no place for ideology in adoption; it is not about social engineering but about providing loving homes for children in need.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether, following the discussions in Belfast yesterday and the reported comments by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, there is unlikely to be an early resumption of all-party talks among the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland? After the tragic events of recent days, is not there an inescapable moral obligation on all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to co-operate in a new dialogue without hesitation or reservation, and for the Government to make that point clearly and firmly to them all?
    The Prime Minister: I very much hope that it will be possible for the talks to resume, and I shall be meeting the leaders of all the constitutional parties over the next few days. My right hon. and learned Friend and I certainly hope to resume those talks as speedily as possible.
    Mr. John Smith: While I appreciate the importance that was rightly attached to dialogue between the Governments and to a proper response to the initiative taken by the Irish Government recently, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take the lead at the
    512
    earliest opportunity to call together the constitutional parties so that what might be a window of opportunity is not lost?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am seeing the leaders of the parties individually in the hope that we can map out a suitable ground so that the talks can resume. I very much hope that that will be possible. However, I do not want an artificially staged event where the talks are called together with no probability of making progress. In my private discussions with the leaders of the constitutional parties, I hope that we can find a way through that will enable talks to resume with a practical chance of proper progress.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Did my right hon. Friend see an article on social security fraud in the Daily Express last week, which estimated social security fraud to be somewhere in the region of £5 billion? It mentioned multiple applications using false identities, phantom children and minicab moonlighting. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House today that he will take whatever action is necessary to stamp out social security fraud, including the use of ID cards for claimants?
    The Prime Minister: Like my hon. Friend, I am attracted to the principle of identity cards to combat social security fraud. Of course, there are some practical and serious issues that need to be resolved, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are examining the matter extremely carefully. We will certainly keep up the pressure on social security fraud. We refer to it as fraud, but in practice it is theft from the taxpayer.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has a justified reputation for his skill as a negotiator—[Interruption.] Does he realise—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are hoping to be called and such interruptions are very time consuming.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how important it is that he should take personal charge of Britain's efforts to achieve peace in Northern Ireland? In the light of his remarks a moment ago, is that what he has decided to do?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly taking a very direct interest, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the possibility of moving towards a proper peace in Northern Ireland. By that, I do not just mean a temporary ceasefire. What the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve is a permanent end to the hostilities and movement towards a proper constitutional structure for local government within Northern Ireland. On the question of negotiation, that is rather like poker—it is best to keep one's hand to oneself for as long as possible.
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Milligan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hardly surprising that football hooliganism is so prevalent in this country when Labour Members provide the role model that they did during last night's debate? They used lavatorial antics to divert attention away from some of the real issues that should have been debated—in particular, the future of the railway pension fund.
    Will my right hon. Friend repeat the assurance that railway pensioners will continue to enjoy precisely the same benefits as they have hitherto and that on the one outstanding issue the Government will continue to seek the agreement of the railway trustees and report back to this House before orders introducing the new pension fund are laid?
    The Prime Minister: There were some unusual scenes last night, but perhaps it is best not to dwell on them—not least because I wish to spare the embarrassment of the Opposition Chief Whip and his colleagues.
    On my hon. Friend's substantive point, the Government remain committed to protecting the security of the pension rights of existing, deferred and future British Rail pensioners affected by our privatisation proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made that clear on innumerable occasions and I am happy to make it clear yet again this afternoon.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the objective of his talks with the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Reynolds, is to facilitate an agreement among the divided people of Ireland that can command the respect of each sector of that diversity and command the support of everyone within the island of Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: The Taoiseach and I have made clear our view of the direction in which the talks need to go and what needs to be achieved. It is helpful that the principle of consent has now been acknowledged for Northern Ireland. That is vital if progress is to be made. It is a noticeable advance—as, indeed, was the speech of the Tanaiste last week.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that political correctness, so called, has become a pernicious exercise in social engineering that undermines traditional decencies and codes of conduct? Can he confirm that we are the party of "Mrs", "Miss" and "Chairman" and that we will have nothing to do with anyone who describes himself as "Chairperson", "Chairholder" or "Chair"?
    The Prime Minister: In the House we have a Madam Speaker. I believe that that is right.
    Mr. Canavan: Is it true that the Government are now considering another U-turn and, introducing a Bill to abolish the House of Lords?
    The Prime Minister: No.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the 10 years since British Telecom became a private company, it has become more efficient, offers greatly improved services and now, under the pressure of competition, is reducing its prices? Is not it a fact that that has been achieved because of privatisation? Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that one day those who opposed the privatisation will admit that they were wrong?
    The Prime Minister: I live in hope, but perhaps not quite as much hope as that. There is no doubt that privatisation has produced better services from BT—prices have fallen dramatically, there are more payphones, in better condition and more speedily repaired when vandalised, and installations are carried out more efficiently. With the solitary exception of the Labour party, everyone recognises the improvements brought about by privatisation. Perhaps that is a little unfair to the Labour party; I neglected to mention that the Liberal Democrats are another exception.
    Mrs. Adams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Adams: Does the Prime Minister recall that the last time I asked him a question in Parliament, I asked him to give a guarantee that he would not increase value added tax? The Prime Minister gave me his word that he would not. He has since broken his promise and increased VAT by putting it on domestic fuel, which will undoubtedly cause great hardship to many pensioners and ordinary families. Why did the Prime Minister give me, and the country, his word and then not keep it?
    The Prime Minister: From the innumerable times that this question has been answered, the hon. Lady knows that we will protect people who are vulnerable. She would be well advised to wait until she hears what those protection measures will be.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend remember the unlamented Greater London council, with its very high taxation on Londoners and its massive and damaging bureaucracy? Has he heard the calls for higher taxation for Londoners, on cinema seats, on videos, on tourists, on businesses, on jobs and on much else? Is he aware that calls for a mark 2 Greater London council, and a large number of taxes in a wide range of areas, are now being made by the ever-loony Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: Over the last few weeks the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), on a national level, has moved the Labour party's position from no more taxes, to some more taxes, to lots more taxes. It is hardly surprising that in London the Labour party wants more

    515
    layers of bureaucracy; it also wants it in the regions, in Scotland and in Wales. It is not the way to produce efficient government, but it is their policy.
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tyler: Does the Prime Minister recall visiting north Cornwall exactly nine months ago to the day and promising my constituents that he would take action to halt the inexorable rise in water and sewage charges—not this year or next year but as soon as he possibly could, and certainly not at the end of the century? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that undertaking with the United Kingdom's £500 million contribution to the EC cohesion fund, which will be used to clean up the water and sewage problems of Portugal, Greece and Spain?
    The Prime Minister: I begin to suspect that it must be 1 April. The hon. Gentleman should remember his party's remarks about the cohesion fund at the time that we debated the matter and the moral support that it gave the richer nations of Europe in providing a cohesion fund for the smaller nations. This is yet another example of the Liberals saying one thing in one place and something else in another.
    Mr. Sykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on his announcement yesterday about sending squatters to gaol if they do not leave the premises in question within a specified time limit?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend has set out some proposals to deal with that problem, which has been a frustration for many people for far too long. Some time ago, we indicated that we would take firm action to deal with the problem. My right hon. and learned Friend has now set out our proposals.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country how his Government got into a shambolic mess yesterday over the railways privatisation Bill? Despite those events, next week and the week after five sitting days will not be used.
    The Prime Minister: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was last night, but clearly he was not in the real world, in here. The leader of the Labour party speaks fine words about the need to improve standards in public life, but he let some of his colleagues below the Gangway behave in a way that disgraced Parliament.

Regional and Urban Policy
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): It is widely agreed that there is considerable scope locally to bring Government programmes and Departments together. They should be more responsive to local needs and acceptable to local people. We acknowledged that in our manifesto. Today, I am announcing changes to bring that about through a new single budget and new integrated regional offices in England. This signals an important shift from the centre to the localities.
I am making this announcement on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Education and the President of the Board of Trade, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
From April next year, we are establishing a new single budget for regeneration and development. It will combine 20 separate programmes worth, on current plans, some £1.4 billion. Continuing commitments under those programmes will be met.
We intend to consult widely about how the budget will work in each locality and how bidding arrangements will operate, but in most cases we expect that bids will come from partnerships within the local community and that local authorities and training and enterprise councils will take the lead in assembling partnerships and putting forward bids. However, we want to encourage local innovation and imagination, so there is no intention of excluding other bodies from promoting bids.
The budget will mean that priorities are set locally in the light of local needs, not in Whitehall. It will give local authorities, businesses and local communities real influence over spending priorities. The budget will help to mobilise public-sector money and will complement the provision of business support services. It will support measures to improve education and training, tackle crime, meet ethnic minority needs and improve rundown housing. Those measures will be combined in a comprehensive way to meet local needs.
I shall be accountable to Parliament for the budget. I and colleagues will sit on a new ministerial committee for regeneration which will oversee the budget. At the same time as introducing the budget, we shall bring together the existing regional offices of the Department of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment.
We will therefore meet the widespread demand that there should be a single point of contact for local authorities, businesses and local communities. That will provide a better service without increasing the power or cost of central Government one iota. In fact, there should be some room for savings in overhead costs.
The new integrated offices will administer the single budget and will be responsible for the other departmental programmes that, at present, are operated by individual regional offices. Ministerial responsibility to Parliament for programmes not in the single budget will be unchanged.
Each office will be headed by a senior regional director, who will be accountable to the relevant Secretary of State for programmes carried out by his office, and to me for the single budget.
518
With the new offices, the Government's response to the needs of localities will be better informed. The various elements—housing, training, business support and transport—will be considered together, and local priorities emphasised in the advice that is given to Ministers. Local needs, rather than departmental interests, will be the prime consideration.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has now heard me talk about the new budget and offices, he will be less inclined to accuse me of a sinister act of centralisation. He will see that we are devolving responsibility from Whitehall. We are cutting back red tape and bureaucracy. We are making it easier for local people, business men, local authorities and training and enterprise councils to talk to Government.
Training and enterprise councils will be key private-sector partners with the new offices for the full range of regeneration and economic development activities in their localities. To help with that, a team of sponsor Ministers will continue their links with our major cities and other areas. They will support regeneration initiatives, advise the new offices and raise local issues in Whitehall. I have placed a copy of the revised list of sponsor Ministers in the Library.
I am issuing a challenge to the civic and business leaders of our three greatest cities of international standing—London, Birmingham and Manchester.
Mr. Bob Cryer: What about Bradford?
Mr. Gummer: They were chosen simply because they happen to be the largest cities in England.
I want the civic and business leaders to get together with their private and public-sector partners to define their vision and to set up what practical steps can be taken to build on the strengths of their areas and on the things that they believe most command their areas.
This is not some arid planning exercise or an open invitation to bid for more resources. Central and local government, as well as the private sector, will continue to spend large sums of money in the cities.
City pride is about making the most of the investment and providing a lasting foundation for growth. I am sure that London, Birmingham and Manchester will rise to the challenge. We will concentrate first on those cities to pilot city pride, but if other cities want to adopt the approach, I would not want to dissuade them.
We have already achieved great successes. Initiatives such as city challenge and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's new business link scheme have shown what can be accomplished when local authorities, businesses, local communities and voluntary groups work together. I am pleased to see that, at least in one respect, the Labour party's plan for London underlines the fact that it has taken over some of the Government's belief in partnerships. The TECs have brought about the most significant partnership between Government and industry for decades.
The single budget and integrated regional offices will make Government more accessible and responsive. We shall be altering the balance from the centre to the localities. That will give new opportunities for partnerships to create prosperity and to build on local strengths.
Mr. Jack Straw: We welcome any measures that improve the relationship between central and local government. We, and Labour local councils, will strive hard to ensure that these arrangements work.
But the Secretary of State must surely understand that after 14 years—during which 144 separate Acts of Parliament have removed one power after another and have taken control of £24 billion of public spending from democratic local government to unaccountable quangos and Government offices and during which time Government have taken control of every council budget —councils and the communities who elect them are right to be highly sceptical about the Government's motives.
In his press statement, the Secretary of State said that these were
"sweeping measures to shift power from Whitehall to local communities."
If that is, at long last, an admission by the Secretary of State that he and his colleagues have, over the past 14 years, centralised on a scale unknown in western Europe, we shall be the first to cheer. However, does the Secretary of State not understand that, if his words are to have any meaning, universal budget capping must be removed, the right of councils to spend their £5,000 million of capital receipts—their money, but locked in a bank by Government order—must be reinstated, and the vast and growing network of quangos packed with Tory placemen, and the odd Tory placewoman, has to be dismantled? Is it not true that the Secretary of State's announcement highlights the democratic deficit that is undermining the whole of our political system?
Does the Secretary of State agree with the following words from a pamphlet published several years ago, dealing with the case for elected regional government:
"The decision makers who are handling … regional problems … are not answerable to any elected representatives … A democracy is not healthy if large geographical areas or important sections of opinion feel that the Government is remote or not open to question"?
The writer suggested that the answer was "elected regional authorities". Would the Secretary of State like to know that those words were written by the then secretary of the Birmingham Bow Group and prospective Conservative candidate for Rushcliffe, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He wrote them in a fine pamphlet; his advice then was right, but his current view is wrong.
At the Conservative party conference last month, the Secretary of State said that he would
"consult Londoners on what they want for their city".
Is he therefore going to listen to the compelling evidence published today which shows that four out of five Londoners want an elected strategic authority for their city?
On the new budget arrangements, the Secretary of State had some carefully crafted words about the cash available. He said that the programmes were
"worth on current plans some £1.4 billion. Continuing commitments under these programmes will be met".
What is the value of those "continuing commitments"? Is it less than the £1.4 billion to which his statement refers? Do "current plans" mean those published last autumn or those that will be announced on 30 November? Can he give any guarantee that the current plans for 1994–95 will not be cut in the Budget? For example, is the £813 million., which was earmarked for the inner cities next year in this year's annual report from the Department of the Environment, to be maintained as part of the overall budget?
520
Does the Secretary of State recognise that city pride and the new regeneration budget announced today are the 22nd repackaging of inner-city and urban aid programmes, from urban capital partnerships to city action teams, enterprise zones, urban programme schemes and long-forgotten business breakfasts? Does he accept that, as the packages get ever glossier, the money gets ever smaller? Bitter experience has taught us that what starts as fanfare always end as thin fare. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is true.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that housing investment, already down from £8 billion in 1979 to £3.5 billion this year, has been cut again and that councils will be forced to shed thousands more jobs as a consequence of the Secretary of State's reported surrender to the Chief Secretary in the latest spending round? Does he not recognise that the effectiveness of the Government's urban and regional policy will be judged not by today's announcement but by whether, at long last, the Government are to back their rhetoric by giving the necessary resources and powers to councils so that they can create a better quality of life for the communities they serve?
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earliest words, which were more supportive than anything I have heard him say on radio or television. However, he then went on to say much of what he said on radio and television, so I have checked up on some of his comments.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to quangos, because he announced today the creation of the Thames Park authority, a new accountable police authority, a strategic health authority, a cultural education commission, a London film commission, a new development agency, a royal docks agency and a register of private landlords. He did all that today. The hon. Gentleman cannot teach anyone about concern for quangos.
What I have announced today is not a new body. It brings together the civil servants who already provide Government services in the regions so that they can provide those services more effectively and so that they can be influenced more directly by the borough councils, county councils and district councils. They are brought together in such a way that they can make decisions about
the priorities locally, instead of being forced to keep the budget apart as a result of decisions that are taken centrally.
When the Labour party was in power so long ago, it had exactly the same problem, but it did nothing about it. Labour accepted that departmental divisions were more important than local needs. We are insisting that local needs come first, and that is what the proposal will achieve.
The other change is a matter of considerable importance. Those who bid for help with projects for which they have enthusiastic support will no longer have to ensure that their projects fit the various departmental programmes. They can present their projects, and if they fit the needs of the area, they will receive the support, irrespective of the programme from which it comes. That makes a considerable difference.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked a question about regional government. I have not had the pleasure of reading the early contribution to this debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). However, I have had the pleasure

521
of talking to him about the matter. His view is very clear. He wants a lively local government system which is close to the people who pay for it and vote for it.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe does not want—and nor do I—regional government, which is an entirely fictitious concept, to cover the overweening devolution plans of the Labour party and to excuse the problem of what has properly been called the "Dalyell" difficulty. In the latter case, people vote in Scotland for their own projects and then come to the imperial Paliament, as it was once called, and make decisions on behalf of other people who have no say in those decisions. That is what the Labour party is trying to cover up. Anyone who lives in East Anglia and believes that there is a connection between Norfolk and Thurrock has not lived in any part of that area.
The hon. Gentleman referred to my "carefully crafted" words. They were carefully crafted and, if I may say so, they were better crafted than the last joke that we heard from the hon. Member for Blackburn. They were carefully crafted to say that this is a decision about improving the way in which we provide services. Even if I receive more money next year, less money next year or the same amount, it will be important to provide the best value for the money that I receive. The problem with the Labour party is that it prefers to have twice as much money half as well spent. Labour would consider that a victory.
Labour does not understand that we need to achieve 100p value for every £1 that we spend. That would be true if we had twice as much to spend, half as much to spend or any amount of money to spend. The money would be better spent.
Finally—[Interruption.] I think that you will agree, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Member for Blackburn asked many questions. With regard to his last question, I promise to consult Londoners on the 22nd of this month. There will be a major consultation exercise which will be open to all Londoners so that they can identify their priorities and say what they are proud about in London. They will be able to say what they would like to see changed. We will take that into account as we will listen to Londoners, instead of inventing a series of new taxes for Londoners, which is what the hon. Member for Blackburn would provide.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any policy designed for rejuvenation, as he has outlined in his statement, should be welcomed on both sides of the House? The emphasis on local needs, paying particular attention to local views and local government, is also something that most of us would wish to welcome.
However, can my right hon. Friend deny that the regional office for the south-west will be in Bristol? Does he think it sensible that half of London should be a region controlled by Bristol? If he wishes to have the regional headquarters in Bristol, a third of the south-west is further away from Bristol than London is. If he is to emphasise the local side, he must come down to a regional centre—
Mr. David Harris: In Cornwall.
Sir Peter Emery: Even Cornwall would be acceptable, but perhaps Plymouth or Exeter would be more appropriate for the south-west. Without such a regional centre, my
522
right hon. Friend's views on that aspect of local government will not ring quite as true in the south-west as we would want them to.
Mr. Gummer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his general comments. At the moment, the majority of the regional offices are in Bristol. It is my intention to keep them there in the integrated regional office. The offices that currently exist in Plymouth and Penzance will remain there. It is not a question of taking away those offices; there is no question of that. But I acknowledge the problem of the south-west, which is the difficulty of finding the right centre. My hon. Friend will remember that, when I was Minister of Agriculture, I spent considerable time trying to get that right, and I retained—with great difficulty—the office in Cornwall to ensure that we were properly represented. When I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall be happy to see whether there is a better answer, he will understand that I mean that, and that they are not merely words.
Mr. Simon Hughes: After 14 years and a manifesto commitment, some co-ordinated regional urban policy is better than none. But are not six locally linked Whitehall Departments no substitute for one democratic town hall with adequate finance? Is not the reality that, sadly, this—apart from the sting of the "Tale of Three Cities" at the end, which is rather selective and unfair to all the cities in the country —is a tale told by no democratic Minister, with Government Departments still full of civil servants, above all, signifying no more democracy, no more money and local people having no more ability to choose their local priorities through locally accountable democratic representatives?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman misses the point altogether. These are Whitehall offices that have been there even since the long time ago that his party was in office. [Interruption.] Some of them have been here as long as that. It may have been when horses and carts were used, but the offices were there.
The hon. Gentleman must remember that, even with such a preposterous concept of regional government, national policies would have to be delivered. Surely one does that better by co-ordinating them more sensibly, and by having more influence from the locally elected people, as well as local business and local voluntary organisations. That is why this has been widely welcomed by local authorities not in the hands of the Conservative party.
Sir Anthony Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his regional office for the Berkshire area is also in Bristol? There is also a good Department of Trade and Industry office in Reading. Will he consider moving one of his offices to Reading and amalgamating a number of offices there?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. There is a DTI area office in Reading. There are offices in a number of other towns. We shall seek by consultation to find the place most accessible to the largest number of people, particularly to the local authorities, business interests and the voluntary bodies.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My constituents in inner-city Manchester will welcome any action that improves their lot. However, when the

523
Secretary of State says that local needs come first, has he any idea of the needs of my constituents, many thousands of whom live in deep poverty? They suffer such unemployment that, in parts of my constituency, there is male unemployment of 32 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman talks about existing programmes, but what benefits will my constituents gain from the urban programme which buoyed them up under a Labour Government?
The right hon. Gentleman says that his plans are designed to meet ethnic needs. I represent a large number of people from ethnic minorities and want to know how the right hon. Gentleman can claim to meet ethnic needs when, at the same time, the Government are massacring section 11 funding, about which my constituents write to me all the time. My constituents live in deep poverty; what assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give me that his plans will be more than a shiny veneer on top of the deprivation in which thousands of people live in inner-city Manchester?
Mr. Gummer: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I understand many of the problems of Manchester, as I have visited it often and spent much time talking to the Labour leader of Manchester city council, which covers pan: of the area more colloquially called Manchester—beyond which are many other districts of equal need. The plan is designed to bring the programmes together and make it easier to focus the response to meet the specific needs of Manchester. The right hon. Gentleman will probably find that the problems of the ethnic minorities in Manchester may lead to a greater proportion of the budget being used on that sector; there may be other districts where the need is not so great.
The right hon. Gentleman—I say this with care—should reflect that the Government have put great resources into inner cities, and their efforts dwarf some of the poor efforts made by him and his right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in power. It would be more responsible of the right hon. Gentleman to acknowledge what we have done, even if he wants to ask for more.
Mr. Richard Tracey: We will need time to digest my right hon. Friend's statement in full. It is pleasing to hear him say that there will be full consultation on future progress. Does he agree that, particularly in London, the greatest priority within the consultation should be given to the 32 London boroughs? The London unitary authorities are the model of local government and unitary authorities in the rest of the country. Will he take the opportunity this afternoon to say that there is absolutely no chance of returning to a single London authority, which would be—as it was before—disastrous?
Mr. Gummer: The London boroughs are a very proper way of democratically representing the people of London. There is no need for an over-arching authority in London. The reason for that is simple: London is a collection of different communities that are gathered together in different groups for different purposes. When we talk about the Thames, we must talk about the communities that stretch far beyond the Greater London area; otherwise we would not be dealing effectively with the Thames. If we want to talk about the problems of London theatres, we need deal only with that part of London that lies in part of the London boroughs of Camden and Westminster and a bit of the borough of Lambeth. The variable geography of London means that it is better to deal with it in that way.
524
I hope that my hon. Friend has read the reported statements of the Labour party. If he has, he will see that not only does it propose that we should have an over-arching body, but it dictates—there is no choice—that half of the democratically elected people should be men and half should be women. It also proposes handing back independent grant-maintained schools to the educational expertise of Lambeth, Southwark, Camden, and Hammersmith and Fulham. Is that giving people a decently run education system?
Mr. George Mudie: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £1.4 billion that he has mentioned contains no new money? Will he state whether that means that section 11 funding will be restarted after it was disgracefully stopped during this financial year?
The Secretary of State said that he has chosen the three cities on the grounds of size. Will he have another look at that, and look at the great city of Leeds? Outside London, Leeds is geographically the biggest city in the country and, outside Birmingham, is the second largest in population. If size is the criterion, will the right hon. Gentleman look again, because he seems to have left out the great city of Leeds by error?
Mr. Gummer: I had the pleasure of living in Leeds for some years, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of the city. If Leeds feels that it would like to apply itself to the scheme, I would not discourage it. I had to find some way of choosing the three cities for the pilot scheme, but if Leeds comes to me about the scheme I should be happy to look at it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to money, and I say to him that it is about the delivery of service. I will confirm that the amount of money that is available for next year's programmes is £1.4 billion. The hon. Gentleman also referred to section 11 grants. The new system will enable people locally to have real influence on the decisions about whether a larger proportion of the budget might be spent on section 11 purposes.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local government has for a long time complained about the opacity of present regional arrangements, and should therefore welcome most strongly the proposals announced today? Will he also confirm that it should support the concept of one office, one contact point and one set of priorities, and should welcome the opportunities for greater accountability which the new arrangements will create? That is unlike the Opposition, who seem to dislike all forms of accountability. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the arrangements for all the Departments will now been on a conterminous boundary?
Mr. Gummer: For the first time, there will be conterminous regions for the Departments, and that is a vital change. It has always seemed ridiculous to me that different Departments had different regions. That made any sort of planning almost impossible.
I am sure that the House will agree with the words of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) who said that co-ordination between Departments on urban policy is an idea "whose time has surely come". I am sad that the hon. Gentleman has not carried that information to the hon. Member for Blackburn. There is much in the announcement which has been asked for by politicians from all

525
parties. It is a pity that, apart from a slim sentence at the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Blackburn could not say that it was a good idea, although the Opposition might have liked it to go further. If he had said that it was a good idea and that the Opposition supported it, I am sure that the public would have believed him much more.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I know that the Secretary of State has just come off the farm. May I tell him that the city of Birmingham has long and deep experience of the council, the private sector, the chamber of commerce and industry working close together to deliver the national exhibition centre, and, more recently, the magnificent international convention centre and national indoor arena?
How will the Secretary of State match his claim that the changes will better recognise local needs and aspirations, when, in fact, the process remains a lottery? Will not one community be bidding against another, and one city or town bidding against the rest?
Mr. Gummer: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that, because those were not terms used by either the Labour leader of Birmingham or, indeed, her Conservative opponent; they have welcomed the proposals. The hon. Gentleman will find that there is widespread support for what we are doing, and I do not think that he helps his case by making general comments about one's bucolic past.
I want the better delivery of Government services to the people of Britain, much closer to their localities. I want local authorities, business communities and voluntary bodies to be able to influence decisions more effectively; and I want those decisions made on the basis of need, not departmental desire.
Mr. Hartley Booth: I hope that the Secretary of State realises that there will be a wide welcome for his proposals, not least because they will be seen not to add another tier of government. Moreover, they will not conflict with local government. Some years ago, I came to this place wearing another hat as chairman of the British Urban Regeneration Association, so I know that these proposals deal with a persistent problem. There was always a conflict between Departments in local areas when we were attempting urban regeneration.
I hope that my right hon. Friend also realises that the proposals will be welcomed because, in many areas, not least crime prevention, Government Departments need to get their act together. Finally, they will be welcomed because, unlike the Labour party's nanny state vocabulary describing strategies of the past and proposing new taxes, the Government propose none of that. The proposals achieve what they are meant to achieve without taxes or the nanny state.
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. This is, indeed, the sort of answer that the Audit Commission, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other organisations had sought, and I am sure that it is widely accepted. It is right not to impose another tier of government or more taxes. We understand today that the Labour party would be liable to produce, if it were ever elected, a tourism tax, an
526
entertainment tax, a television tax, an airport tax and a robust and diverse group of new taxes on Londoners. On such a day, the public will once again be pleased to know that they have a Conservative Government.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Minister will know something of the problems of the borough of Tower Hamlets. He will know that, in recent weeks, those problems have been enormously compounded by outbreaks of racial violence and by the election of the first British National party candidate to a council anywhere in Britain, in the ward of Millwall. The Minister will also know that these events reflect, perhaps more than anything else, the chronic shortage of social goods in the borough of Tower Hamlets.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the crisis in the provision of housing is such that adequate resources should come from his Department? What do these new proposals do to increase the supply of housing at rents that people can afford in Tower Hamlets, which is desperately short of housing and where competition for available housing leads to serious racial dispute and disturbance?
Some of my colleagues have already mentioned section 11 funding. Tower Hamlets is the largest recipient of such funding in the country, because we have a large Bengali population. Section 11 funding, however, is to be cut by one third over the next two years. How can the Minister tell the House that he is doing something about inner cities when he and his predecessors have let them rot?
Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should finish his question in that way, because I have been to the very estate where that disgraceful election took place. I noted that the estate which elected the person in question was one in which we are in the course of spending £25 million. I noticed, too, in that same area an entirely new housing estate of high-quality homes for people on low incomes. It has just been completed, and it was the selection of people to go into those homes which caused some of the problems.
I noticed at the same time that the London borough of Tower Hamlets has a housing action trust. I noticed that city challenge in the area has been especially focused on Bengalis. So we are doing a whole series of things, and the right hon. Gentleman might have started by saying how pleased he was about that. He might like more, but there is no doubt that we are doing a focused job. It will be easier in the future, with the integrated London office, to ensure that the programmes dealing with Tower Hamlets and its special problems will be more open to pressure of the local authority and more able to meet local needs in the way in which local people want.
I remind the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that, until recently, Tower Hamlets had an uninterrupted history of Labour government, so Labour must accept the very highest fault for the situation that now exists in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman blaming this Government when he has served in Governments for many years and, as a Labour Member, has represented an area for which he has not done the best.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend will know well that, to local people, one of the most incomprehensible features is the way in which large Government projects can be dreamed up and planned with apparently no concept that they will lay enormous costs on

527
the roads programme to serve those projects, especially potential railway stations for example. His announcement is encouraging because in future we may find civil servants in the regions taking into account the total effect on the region's budget, rather than taking the disparate approaches that we have suffered hither to.
Mr. Gummer: That is our purpose.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the Secretary of State accept that, on the day that he has announced his plans for London and other parts of the country, it is a mark of defensiveness that he refers in disparaging terms to a draft Labour party document, which was rejected by the policy committee of the Labour party six weeks ago—as he knows? In relation to his own document, will he accept that no amount of reshuffling of desks in Plymouth, in Exeter, in Bristol or in my region, in Newcastle, Durham or Middlesbrough, can compensate other parts of the country for any reduction in resources? Will he accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are sceptical of his comment that £1.4 billion is available at the moment? Many believe that that £1.4 billion could be £1.3 billion or £1.2 billion or £1.1 billion by 30 November. Will he give a firm guarantee to the House that that £1.4 billion will be available for economic regeneration on 30 November?
Mr. Gummer: It is a remarkable moment when one discovers that the Labour party's plans for London got such a bad press in half a day that they were withdrawn immediately. That is the kind of U-turn that we have not known before—the U before the turn. The hon. Gentleman admits that, after two years, the Labour party produced a plan for London that was so bad that it was thrown out by the Labour party. I hope that the House will recognise how little it has to offer local government. However much more money I have or however much less money I have, it is much better to get 100p in the pound value than not to get full value for money. Why cannot the Labour party accept that now? Why will it never accept good news? Why does it always want to make people miserable?

"Competing for Quality"
4.14 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the progress of the Government's competing for quality programme.
As the House will know, the aim of this initiative is to introduce competition into the provision of public services. We are asking central Government to operate under disciplines that the private sector has long taken for granted, and which local authorities, through compulsory competitive tendering, have been handling successfully for many years.
For a number of years, there has been a small central Government market testing programme, amounting to little more than £20 million a year. Two years ago, in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", we announced our intention of turning this small programme into something much larger. We wanted a step change in the amount of work that was market-tested. I can now announce that we have achieved that goal. I shall outline the progress that we have made, the savings that have been produced, and the action that we intend to take to increase the scope of market testing over the coming year.
The House may recall that, in the "Citizen's Charter First Report", published last November, the Government set themselves the target of reviewing activities worth about £1.5 billion and involving more than 44,000 staff, over the 18-month period from 1 April 1992 to 30 September this year. Those activities have now been intensively examined to see how value for money can best be improved.
In some instances, we took a strategic view that, in future, the work in question should be done by the private and not the public sector. In others, we found that the work no longer needed to be done at all. In several cases, we found ways of increasing in-house efficiency without going out to tender. In a host of others, services have now been successfully market tested, with the public and private sectors competing for the work.
I can report to the House that just under £1 billion-worth of this programme is now complete or nearing completion. Specifically, provisional figures show that by the end of September, just under £700 million worth had been achieved. Worth to the value of a further £250 million, approximately, will be achieved shortly, representing tenders involving the Inland Revenue's information technology services. A decision on those will be taken soon. A number of other decisions that were initiated in this first tranche will also be taken in the coming weeks.
As I have said, this £1 billion programme contrasts with the previous annual programme of about £20 million. That represents a remarkable achievement by the market testing units in Departments and the efficiency unit in my Department.
The increase in the size of the market testing programme as such is not the most important matter. What really matters is the scale of the gains in value for money that have been achieved for the taxpayers and users of services. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, in relation to the £700 million of work completed by the end

529
of September, the "competing for quality" programme has already saved approximately £100 million. Not only that, but this benefit will recur year after year.
These savings should be welcome to the House because at the same time Departments are reporting that standards and quality are being maintained or improved. That is what market testing is all about. The House will be interested to learn that in the first year, where in-house teams competed, they won about 57 per cent. by value. That is a clear indication that Departments are giving proper consideration to the merits of both external and in-house teams.
I should like to make it clear that some of the very highest quality and most innovative winning bids have come from in-house teams, and I pay tribute to those who have won competitions from inside. None the less, in other cases private sector bids have offered the best quality and value for money. Either way, it is a very great gain that we will now have confidence that the best provider, private or public, will be doing the work.
I turn now to the Government's programme for the next 12 months starting on 1 October. Departments' plans are again ambitious. In addition to any work that is necessary to complete their 1992–93 programmes, they will be looking to market-test work currently worth a total of £800 million, and covering more than 35,000 civil servants.
In staff terms, this 12-month target will be more challenging than the 18-month programme that I have just described. I am confident, however, that further good progress will be made. A Department-by-Department breakdown of these figures has been placed in the Library, together with a copy of the new monthly "Market Testing Bulletin", which was published for the first time today.
I have announced the progress that we have made with market testing, the savings produced, and the scale of our 1993–94 programme. I should also inform the House of the Government's intention of introducing legislation, when a suitable opportunity arises, to remove some of the statutory obstacles to market testing in both central and local government.
As hon. Members may be aware, some statutes are framed so that activities have to be carried out by a Minister. The principle that such activities can be carried out by civil servants on a Minister's behalf is well established. We now propose a common-sense extension of that principle to allow contractors as well as civil servants to carry out such work in appropriate cases.
The aim of our "competing for quality" initiative is simple. It is to ensure that public services are provided in an efficient and cost-effective way. It is an integral part of the citizen's charter: it is improving the quality of our public services. It is improving value for money on behalf of the taxpayer, and it is a policy that other countries are keen to adopt. Market testing is here, and it is working. I hope that all hon. Members will give it their support.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his statement today represents another major step along the road to the dissolution of a national civil service? Is there any limit to that process, or does he simply envisage central Government as a collection of contracts? Will he confirm that he is announcing a further tranche of civil service
530
privatisation when more than half of last year's programme is still uncompleted, even though £25 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on it?
Why is the right hon. Gentleman so confident that the exercise next year will be about value for money when last year saw Mailforce sending 84,000 annual tax advice packs to the wrong addresses, Group 4 losing a string of prisoners, expensive RAF Tornados being seriously damaged by a private contractor and privatised Astra skills centres running up thumping debts and ending up in the hands of a proven fraudster?
If the right hon. Gentleman is as interested in value for money as he claims, why did he recently override an in-house bid at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea that was £1 million cheaper than that from the private contractor? Is it not clear that the whole obsession with privatisation has a great deal more to do with political dogma than with greater efficiency and better services?
Is it not now clear beyond doubt that any savings that have been made are the result not of improvements in quality of services but overwhelmingly the result of cuts in jobs, pay and terms and conditions? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the £100 million savings that he mentioned have come wholly from reductions in the living standards of civil servants? On that point, is he aware that recent changes to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 has led John Hall of the CBI's competing for quality committee to say:
"If this clause goes on the statute book, then there will be little point in our members getting involved in public sector tendering"?
If the potential for cutting costs by reducing wage levels has been virutally removed, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he expects cost savings to come from in future?
The right hon. Gentleman says that he is in favour of fair competition. In that case, why is it that, when the work of the Inland Revenue information technology office was market-tested, he disallowed any in-house bid, despite an excellent record in delivering work on time and within budget? Why has the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the risk to confidentiality posed not only by his proposals today but by the other eccentric proposals to privatise taxpayers' records and the Patent Office? Will this not undermine the fundamental right of citizens to guaranteed privacy?
Finally, with regard to the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman announced, how will he ensure the public and parliamentary accountability of private contractors carrying out work formerly undertaken by civil servants under the direction of Ministers? Will this not mean replacing the ethic of public service for essential functions by contractors operating solely in the pursuit of profit?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), in that long list of questions, made one thing clear—he is not one of those who are called modernisers in the Labour party. He is the old-fashioned dinosaur who represents nothing but the producer interest, and on this occasion the interests of the civil service unions and not those of the users of services.
There is no question of the dissolution of the civil service. There are 550,000 central Government civil servants—hundreds of thousands more than there were 50 years ago. They provide services that cover a hugely expanded range. It is essential that we modernise the civil service to recognise the fact that it is now a supplier of

531
goods and services and not the small policy advisory service that it once was. The Labour party is simply out of date on those matters.
The figures of savings that I gave are net of the expenditure on those contracts. If one takes the example of my Department, there was expenditure of about a quarter of what was necessary to get that saving. One in four—repayment of the investment four times over in the first year—is a remarkable investment, and very good value for money.
On the DVLA, as the hon. Gentleman should know, there will be a market test with an in-house bid next year.
On ideology, the hon. Member is out of touch with the people in his party in local government who, in spite of our efforts, are actually running some services.
Mr. Skinner: What about Westminster council?
Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, we would rather that they were all run by good Conservative councils. None the less, there are Labour people who actually run things—unlike the hon. Gentleman—who know that what he is talking about is complete nonsense.
For instance, listen to Jeremy Beecham, Labour leader of Newcastle city council, who has gone on the record as saying:
"the development of service-level agreements between the provider of central services within authorities and client departments have caused a re-examination of performance, with generally beneficial results".
Or Margaret Hodge, former Labour leader of Islington council:
"Real improvements have been achieved through competitive tendering".
Or Dr. Lawrence Silverman, Labour leader of Berkshire county council:
"If the private sector can provide computing, payroll and other financial services cheaper than the in-house bureaucracy, then we owe it to the people of Berkshire to make these savings".
Labour people outside in the real world are rather more up to date than the hon. Gentleman.
To return to the lists of questions, TUPE has been no threat to the programme whatsoever. Many of those bidding for central Government services—for example, in information technology—have found TUPE helpful. People have transferred with their terms of service protected—often finding, incidentally, that in the private sector the terms and conditions of service are better than they are in the public sector.
We shall take a decision about the Inland Revenue shortly. There are two bids for Treasury Ministers to evaluate, and they will compare those bids against the service that is currently provided and get the best value for money and the best quality of service for users and taxpayers. Of course we must closely examine any contract that involves the handling of confidential information to ensure that safeguards exist. There is no inherent reason why private sector workers should be less trustworthy than public sector workers, and it is extraordinary to suggest that they should be so.
Finally, on the bogus point of parliamentary accountability, for years services have been provided to Parliament and on behalf of Parliament by private sector contractors. The rules of ministerial accountability remain absolutely the same for them as if the services are provided in house, and nothing in what I am saying changes that one jot.
Mr. James Couchman: In considering what parts of the Inland Revenue's work may be market-tested, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Inland Revenue, especially when it has gone on fishing trips, has indulged in some of the most appalling excesses in dealing with small businesses and private individuals? Does he agree that, with proper training, the private sector can deal just as effectively with people's tax affairs as the public sector has demonstrated for many years?
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend, in that, if the relevant Ministers take the decision to contract services out, they will seek to increase quality; and there is nothing inherently impossible in finding good private sector contractors to do that work properly. They will take the decision, in that case and in all the other cases that we are considering, on the basis not just of money but of quality of service.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Can the Secretary of State explain why the announced programme of £1.5 billion has become a less than £1 billion programme in practice? Can he explain why the 25 per cent. savings that he suggested would result from the programme have become only slightly more than 10 per cent. savings? Has he read the annual report of the National Audit Office, and can he explain why the head of the office suggested in that report that contracting out leads to weak financial monitoring, lack of clear lines of responsibility, conflict of interest and improper application of financial controls?
Will he set up a review into the costs of his programme, as it does not seem to be meeting his own efficiency targets?
Mr. Waldegrave: The head of the NAO said no such thing. He said that those were important matters which must be examined in every case—they can be and will be. There is no reason whatsoever why the British Government and civil servants cannot become just as good at handling the process of contracting out as British local authorities and many other Governments around the world.
We have made savings way above 25 per cent. I have a list showing that some are more than 50 per cent. I have one example from the Stationery Office in my constituency, where an in-house bid won. That refutes the hon. Gentleman's slur that the White Paper is all about lowering people's living standards.
The staff suggested that a move to new premises would provide a better service and save £800,000 a year. It was their idea and shows the benefits that can be achieved for services by asking those on the front line for ideas and challenging them to be innovative.
Mr. James Paice: Is it not rather peculiar that people who would not think twice about going out to tender to have their car repaired, their house built or their drive mended have a totally different approach to public services? Why are people happy to be careful about getting value for money when it is their money, but when it is taxpayers' money they are far more cavalier and seem to be more concerned about the jobs in the civil service?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is a very high duty on the House, and on Ministers who report to the House, to get the best value for money when there is a great battle to preserve front-line services in every area. If we are wasting money on the bureaucracy in our Departments, it is a serious

533
matter. If, by exercising a challenge to the in-house teams that the "competing for quality" initiative represents, we can produce real savings which can then be ploughed back into the services for which the House votes, that is what we must do.
I agree with my hon. Friend. The answer to his question is that once again, when push comes to shove, the Labour party represents not the users of services, but always the producer interest.
Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): If the right hon. Gentleman means what he says about competition, why have the Government refused to allow those who work in the Inland Revenue to compete with private business by bidding for their own work under the £2 billion contract for the computerised operations of the Inland Revenue?
Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, as a former member of the Inland Revenue Staffs Federation, there are two bids which will compete with each other and with the in-house service. The contract will not be put outside unless there are clear gains of quality or value for money over the service as provided at present.
Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a welcome for the progress that he has announced, but that there has been criticism of a number of what seem to be disincentives to those seeking to bid for out-sourcing? Does he accept that there is concern about the way in which specifications are drawn up, in such a way that they appear to be favouring the existing task rather than opening up more imaginative opportunities?
Does he also accept that there is some concern about the way in which some of the tenders have not been allowed full access to information about the tasks being done in house, thus making true comparison difficult? Finally, will he assure the House that, in all cases, the 17.5 per cent. VAT which applies to outside tenders has been disregarded in making proper comparisons?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that, as set out in the original "Competing for Quality" White Paper, the VAT is taken into consideration in such a way that the playing field is level.
My hon. Friend makes a point that I have heard from one or two outside contractors, and I shall make one general point. As both sides of the competition appear to claim that the field is sloped against them, I suspect that that means that it is pretty level. The fact that 57 per cent. were won in house and 43 per cent. out shows that the competition must have been broadly fair.
My hon. Friend touches on some real points. The purpose of our policy is to attract innovative bids from the private sector, and we must not over-specify the contracts. We are interested in the outputs—the actual service provided to the customers. We must allow innovative bids from both the private sector and in house, and must not over-specify. We are becoming better at that as Departments become more familiar with the process.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why not market-test the Government? Certainly, if this Minister was market-tested he would be out on his neck. When the Scott inquiry ends, he will be out on his neck anyway.
534
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a £100 million saving in public services. However, in an attempt to shift power and democratic control away from local government, the Government have set up a commission under John Banham to abolish certain authorities in and around counties, the result of which will be to remove competition, because there will then be only unitary authorities. It is costing £1.1 billion to finance that commission. Would not it make more sense to scrap it rather than go down the road of market testing?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the Government of the country was market-tested recently, and his party lost.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read a document entitled "The Citizen's Charter", written in 1921 by Herbert Morrison—then secretary of the London Labour party? The document states that the best way to improve public services is to introduce competition. Does not that show that no amount of tacky red plastic roses, sharp suits or slick PR can disguise the fact that, far from progressing, Labour is regressing?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. I shall read that document if he would be so good as to lend me his copy. The point my hon. Friend makes is absolutely fair. I made it about Labour councils, but it is also true that the parliamentary Labour party has gone steadily backwards, despite its modernising image, on all these matters.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the quality and integrity of the British civil service are the envy of the world? Wherever Members of Parliament go throughout the world, great tributes are always paid to our civil service.
The public are clearly hostile to what is happening—the development of what many of us can only describe as the spiv state. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the honesty of people in the private sector, but the issue is not honesty, but loyalty. To whom are the new servants responsible? It is clear that they are responsible not to the state but to the private management that controls them.
Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever worked in the private sector or outside the House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, all my life.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was loyal to his employer and observed proper confidentiality. I certainly did when I worked in the private sector. Presumably he seeks votes from private sector workers, so it is hardly helpful to him to pursue his line of argument.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about public support. In the summer, we published an opinion poll showing that about 70 per cent. of people questioned answered yes to the question, "Should services be provided by the private sector if value for money is found to be better there than in the public sector?" It is interesting that two thirds of those working within the public sector took that same view.
Mr. Eric Pickles: In my right hon. Friend's statement, he cited a list of Labour

535
luminaries in local government who now favour compulsory competitive tendering. I offer him a further name—that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). In Tribune in February—Labour Members can still read it—the hon. Gentleman said that he recognised the case for CCT in basic services.
Is not the simple truth that we want to provide quality services? We want to look at the way in which services are provided and test them against the needs of the market. So often, all that the Government do is provide services because they have always provided services, without looking for value for money. We pay an average of £230 a week to civil servants, so we have the right to ensure that that money is well spent.
Will my right hon. Friend urge Labour Members to tell their friends in the trade unions that tomorrow's strike is a waste of time? It is not about improving the public sector; it is about trying to wreck the public sector.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. He also makes the point that the hon. Member for Blackburn is often much more sensible than he pretends to be. He quotes him rightly; this is about value for money and providing the best quality of service that we possibly can. Those running the services on behalf of parties in all parts of the country well understand that.
The sums that my hon. Friend quoted as being paid by every citizen in the country towards the support of the public sector are correct. It is right that we should seek to provide value for money in return for expenditure on those huge resources.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Privatisation, agency agreements and quangos have taken power from the House and its ability to check the executive. These proposals, and the contracts that will follow them, will also take away many of those powers.
The Minister's position has arisen because there was a gap in the number of issues that could be dealt with by his Front Bench—the Government having scrapped the Department of Energy—and he has been given a non-job in connection with charters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) had to push to get answers from the Benefits Agency. Answers were published in Hansard, but should be produced not by the Benefits Agency but by the Ministry. When will we return to a position in which the House can check the executive and seek to control it?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure how my Department relates to the Department of Energy in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the public sector unions clearly regard this policy as important. I agree with them. It is an important policy for which to answer to the House, and important because it will secure better quality and value for money for taxpayers and users of services.
Nothing in the policy detracts from the accountability to, and power of, the House. If services are provided by private contractors or civil servants in house, the accountability to the House remains the same, just as it does in local government if exactly the same thing is done.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to emphasise that it is a question not of cheaper services, but of better services? That is the
536
purpose of market testing. Does he further agree that that is often achieved by a better specification of the service to be provided by the public or private sector?
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said in his scandalous opening remarks, Group 4—which provides a prison escort service—is a classic example of such a better service. Group 4 has lost precisely half the number of prisoners who were lost when the service was provided by the public sector, and it is also cheaper.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. As in other matters, the hon. Member for Oldham, West is out of date in his briefing. Others who lobby me about these matters have given up using that as an example, because it is true that Group 4 has done better than its predecessors in the public sector.
The fundamental point that my hon. Friend makes is right: this is about value for money, about cash and about quality. In 30 per cent. of the cases reported by Departments as part of the initiative, they have been able to report clear improvements in quality of service and value for money.
Mr. John McAllion: Has the Minister read early-day motion 2587 on the Order Paper today? It calls for an immediate halt to market testing in the civil service, and was signed by more than 100 hon. Members in one night. Tomorrow, 300,000 civil servants will take part in a national strike protest action against market testing. Will the Minister answer the charges that privatisation in the civil service threatens not only the quality of public services but the confidentiality and impartiality of public servants? Above all, it threatens the accountability of those public servants to the elected representatives of the people, who sit in the House.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I have spoken to no Government around the world —on the centre-left, on the centre-right or of any other persuasion—who are not following a similar path. I was in the United States last week, where Vice-President Gore is introducing competition in public services in the same way. I have read the early-day motion. It confirms what I said earlier—that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends simply represent the public service unions, in a short-term sense, and do not think about the users of the services.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) many happy returns of the day, but not many happy returns of the tired, self-serving opinions that we have heard this afternoon? Does my right hon. Friend agree that every contribution that we have heard from Opposition Members—I include the representative of the Liberal party who is here, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)—has served to underline the fact that, time and again, they put the interests of the trade unions before the interests of the public? Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning their position?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend puts his finger on exactly the right point. The Leader of the Opposition has been trying to pretend that his party has changed into a modern social democratic party which looks after the interests of customers and citizens and so forth, but it is still the same old Labour party which, whenever it comes down to it, represents its paymasters in the way that it always has.
Mr. Paul Flynn: If it is about quality, why has the Patent Office in my constituency, which has been awarded the charter mark for its brilliant work, been selected for market testing, management buy-out and possible privatisation? The people who work there feel that they have not been given an award but have been slipped the black spot, and they were here yesterday to complain about it.
Does the Minister not realise that some areas of the civil service, such as the Patent Office, have nothing to do with the market but have to serve the public in a unique way? By encouraging innovation and inventions, they act as the guardian of intellectual property. They cannot be run by Megagreed plc or Group 4. Does the Minister realise what he is doing? We still have—just about—the least politicised and the least corrupt civil service in the world, and the Government will destroy it, bit by bit, for pure ideology.
Mr. Waldegrave: That ideology is one that is shared by many members of the hon. Gentleman's party who are running councils up and down the land. I congratulate the Patent Office on winning its charter mark. The quality of its work is very high, and is no reason why that quality should not be maintained under different ownership. It would have to be if any proposal for a change of ownership was carried through.
Mr. Douglas French: Every Conservative Member wishes to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent progress that the market testing programme is making. As to the 57 per cent. by value in-house bids which have been successful, is he entirely satisfied with the methods of costing used in those bids? Has he any means of verifying whether those costing methods are accurate and sensible?
Mr. Waldegrave: We will be presenting fuller and more detailed figures in the citizens charter White Paper, probably in February. I am satisfied that the figures are correct. I have no doubt that the Departments concerned will get better at the process of market testing in the years ahead as the programme continues. I am broadly satisfied that the figures are right and that the competitions have been fair.
Mr. Alfred Morris: In a parliamentary reply yesterday, I was told that Manchester city council's objections were being carefully considered, together with those of other consultees. What proportion of the consultees does the Minister expect to be content with what he has said today? Will he, in consultation with his colleagues, try to ensure that Manchester has an opportunity to pursue its objections?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to the wrong statement. I do not think that there is any issue about consultation with Manchester city council in particular. I have often consulted the council on a range of matters, but I am not sure that this matter is one for consultation. I am sure that Manchester city council could teach some Opposition Members about the necessity to contract out services in order to obtain the best benefits for the users of such services.
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's question, in which case we can perhaps have a word about it later.
Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that market testing will not only eliminate waste but is the best way of ensuring value and quality in public services? As someone who has recently come from local government, I assure my right hon. Friend that the introduction of competitive tendering for local services results in a real improvement in services to residents, at lower cost.
Mr. Waldegrave: That has been the experience of many local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country. Central Government will somewhat belatedly reap the same benefits. That should have happened years ago, and in that respect we are catching up with local government—and about time, too.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have here the touchstone of difference between the Opposition and the Conservative party? We are about the delivery of quality service at a reasonable and decent price. Time and again, the Opposition fail to realise that the control is in the letting of the contract, not in the giving of jobs. The Opposition are about the delivery of jobs to unions, while we are about delivery of service to the public.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. These exchanges have been extremely instructive in reminding us that, whatever glitz Labour tries to put on with the help of its advertising agency and the rest, it remains the same old Labour party. My hon. Friend exactly defined the difference between the two parties.
Mr. John Garrett: The Chancellor of the Duchy said that the proposed legislation will represent no departure from established principles. If that is so, for which wholly privatised services are any Ministers now accountable to Parliament? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in no case have the results or performance —rather than the cost and apparent savings through redundancy—of market-tested Government contracts been published? Will he undertake to publish the results in terms of quality of service of market-tested contracts? Finally, will any of the work of administrative grades 1 to 5 be market-tested, or is this a mandarin-free zone?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the first issue, we are talking about market testing where the responsibility for the provision of services remains with the Government and there is no change whatsoever in accountability. If an industrial operation such as British Telecom is sold into privatisation, that is not part of a market-testing programme: it is returning to the private sector something that should always have been in the private sector.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was good. I set out in the code of practice in my Department's open government White Paper that it is right to publish the quality measures that attach to service contracts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect.
As to his final point, a scrutiny study of the terms, conditions, selection and recruitment of the first three grades in the civil service will shortly be published. No doubt we shall subsequently have a good debate, perhaps in the Select Committee.

Points of Order
4.52 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order, which relates to events that occurred in the House last night, with some regret, but in view of the scale of the problem and the possibility that Tellers were switched and that votes were spuriously challenged. There was also some difficulty in the Serjeant at Arms obtaining access to the Lobbies at your request, Madam Speaker. As you are the guardian not only of our traditions but of our reputation, would it not be prudent for you to make your own inquiries into what occurred and to give the House your considered advice?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman and the House in general that I will take no more points of order on that matter. At this stage, I am not seeking an inquest across the Floor of the House. Neither do I want a re-run of what occurred last night, when there was disgraceful behaviour on the part of many hon. Members in an attempt to disrupt our procedures.
I assure the House that it will not be left there. I will make my own inquiries. Some hon. Members believe that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee. That is up to them. The House must allow me to make my own inquiries. The matter is best left there.
Mr. Roger Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to last night's events?
Mr. Evans: It does in the sense that the record of the vote—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with last night's events. I am being firm. I will take no more points of order on that subject. I shall make my own inquiries as soon as I am allowed to leave the Chair. Leave it to me now.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be interested to know that the Railways Bill has now passed all its stages in another place very successfully.
Mr. Terry Davis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to the statement made earlier by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to the subsequent exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman misled the House by confusing an in-house bid from the Inland Revenue with an attempted bid from the people who actually do the work in the Inland Revenue. Must we wait for yet another Scott inquiry before we can show the right hon. Gentleman up yet again for what he is?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not mislead the House in any way. I set out the situation exactly as it exists. There are two contracts in, and no strategic decision was taken to contract out. That will be judged against the value and quality of the service provided by those people presently doing the job.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the defender of Back Benchers, I draw your attention to the way in which the statement was
540
introduced on the annunciator, which simply displayed the words "Competing for quality", with no indication of the subject or the Department involved. I do not want to embarrass any Conservative Members, but I asked a number of them whether they knew what was meant by those words and none of them was able to tell me.
You, Madam Speaker, always insist that we are in our places to hear such statements. Few Members, unless they know precisely the title of all Government documents, would have been aware that the statement concerned market testing. That subject might be of vital interest to their constituencies, yet right hon. and hon. Members who were in their offices might have missed the opportunity to hear the statement and to question the Chancellor of the Duchy.
Madam Speaker: It would be helpful if the titles were a little more explanatory. Often, I am not sure what a statement is about until I have read it. Perhaps we may have fuller explanations in future.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, reference was made to early-day motion 2587. Heading the list of those putting their names to that motion is the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), whom I informed of my intention to raise this point of order. No marks appear next to that hon. Gentleman's name to suggest that he has a registrable interest in the issue. He is of course a consultant to the National Union of Public Employees. He is leading the charge on an issue—
Madam Speaker: Order. The new rule does not start until next Session.
Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that the decision that right hon. and hon. Members should in future register their interests if they are to present early-day motions in which they have an interest was taken as long ago as June. In this case, the hon. Members concerned are orchestrating an early-day motion on behalf of the trade unions that pay them.
Madam Speaker: It was made clear at the time that that rule would not apply until the next Session.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: He is thick.
Madam Speaker: No, I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) without wanting to embarrass anybody. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave it at that, but he is free to obtain more information from the Clerk of the Register of Members' Interests.
Mr. Riddick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is attempting a higher quota of points of order than usual.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, amp;c. (negative procedure)), the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. John Smith relating to Sports Grounds and Sporting Events, namely the Question already proposed from the Chair,

541
not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and the said Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will not think me a voyeur, because I am not, but last night I noticed that you were fanning yourself with the Order Paper when you were in the Chair, because obviously it was too hot in the Chamber.
As all right hon. and hon. Members know, the Chamber has the best air conditioning and is the coolest part of the entire Palace of Westminster. If it is hot in here, it is unbearable in the rest of the House. It is hot, sweaty, stuffy, stinky and insufferable. It is a hoary old chestnut that has come back time and again.
You said, Madam Speaker, that you would be inquiring into the events of last night. That is most welcome and worth while. Will you also inquire into the air conditioning, temperature and ventilation in the House? It is well beyond time that something was done about them.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might save time in the Chamber if he referred the matter to the appropriate Committee, but I will do it for him. We now come to the second motion—
Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—just a quick one.
Madam Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman has had one —wait until next term.

Orders of the Day

  Members' Pensions
  4.59 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That this House endorses the proposals to give the trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund power to provide a scheme by which Members may enhance their pensions by making additional voluntary contributions, and to appoint a provider for the scheme.
  I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
  That this House endorses the proposal to consolidate the regulations governing the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in one set of regulations, and to incorporate amendments to the scheme implementing past Top Salaries Review Body recommendations and certain provisions of certain Social Security and Finance Acts.
  Before turning to the details of the proposals for regulations that the House will consider, perhaps I should remind hon. Members of the slightly unusual procedure that we use for dealing with amendments to the pension scheme.
  Since 1987, the parliamentary pension scheme has been contained in regulations, changes to which are made under the negative procedure with the consent of the Treasury and after consulting those likely to be affected, in particular the trustees of the scheme. But so that the House has an opportunity to make its views known on the proposed changes, a debate on an amendable motion is held before the regulations are made—and this is that debate.
  I should add that the documents that the House has seen are proposals for regulations and it may be necessary to make some further minor refinements before they are laid. If there is any question of significant amendment, I shall of course bring it to the attention of the House. I hope, in any event, to begin the making process before the end of November.
  Before reaching this stage, there has been detailed consultation with the trustees of the scheme and I am glad to tell the House that they are happy with the proposals now being considered, as I hope the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will confirm.
  I take the opportunity on behalf of all hon. Members to pay a warm tribute to the trustees and their chairman, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. There is no doubt that they do sterling work on behalf of present and former Members and their dependants, in which they are greatly assisted by Tony Lewis and his staff in the Fees Office, who have earned the gratitude of all of us for their efforts.
  I turn now to the proposed regulations and, first, to those for setting up a scheme to enable members to increase their pensions by paying additional contributions. The House will remember that last year, when we were debating pay restraint, some concern was expressed about its possible effect on pensions. I suggested that the trustees should examine the possibility of introducing an additional voluntary contributions scheme, known to the technicians in the field as an AVC scheme.
  Quite simply, the idea is to increase pension benefits within Inland Revenue limits and to make full use of the tax concessions available for this kind of saving. If an AVC scheme is provided through an occupational pension

  543
  scheme, as distinct from being free standing, there are many advantages in simplifying administration and keeping costs down. I said last year that, if the trustees felt that it would be helpful to explore the possibilities more fully, I would be happy to assist.
  Following the debate, I had a meeting with the trustees, at which we agreed that an AVC scheme could offer Members benefits that would outlast any period of pay restraint. I shall leave them, and in particular the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, to explain the many months of work that ensued in choosing a suitable pension provider and in deciding what benefits should be made available to those who wanted to contribute. My part is limited to the regulations that are before the House today.
  The regulations provide for the establishment of an AVC scheme to provide benefits within Inland Revenue limits for such Members who choose to contribute, and so improve on benefits available under our scheme. The regulations describe how membership of the scheme will operate and the limits on contributions, which are in line with current Inland Revenue limits. The type of any maximum allowable benefit that may be provided by an AVC scheme are set out in the regulations, but I should make it clear that this is permissive.
  When the chairman of the trustees speaks to the motion, should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt explain the particular benefits that can be arranged through the contract with the pension provider. In the unlikely event of that provider's insolvency, the fund would pay the benefits earned by the contributions.
  I shall not say more about the AVC scheme, as my part has been quite a small enabling role to ensure that the trustees have regulations within which they can operate the scheme. I know that the House will be extremely grateful for the work that they and the Fees Office have done in setting it up.
  I turn now to the proposals covered in the second motion on the Order Paper for consolidating and amending regulations. By 1987, the rules of our pension scheme could be found in seven statutes, with subsidiary rules in six statutory instruments. To make further changes entailed amending already complicated legislation, and it was not always easy to find parliamentary time for primary legislation. The Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987 deemed the rules of the scheme to be in regulations and gave me, the Leader of the House, the power to amend the scheme by making further regulations.
  At the time, we expected to be able to consolidate the scheme's existing provisions fairly quickly, but a further Top Salaries Review Body reference led to more proposals for changes. The work of consolidating previous provisions and incorporating changes agreed since that date has been considerable, and again I must pay tribute to the efforts of the trustees and the Fees Office in what has proved to be a very large task.
  The new proposed regulations will now give us a single document incorporating all the current provisions of the scheme. In consolidating, we have taken the opportunity to eliminate from the regulations any obsolete provisions and those that apply only to former Members and survivors have been put in schedules. Old provisions that may still determine the rights of pensioners will be adequately saved.
  The regulations have also incorporated some changes in Inland Revenue rules and other overriding legislation—for example, a right required by the Social Security Act 1986
  544
  for Members to be able to opt out of membership. Perhaps the House would find it most convenient if I were to go briefly through the scheme as it stands and point out significant changes.
  I turn first to part C, which deals with membership and which has some new features. Social security legislation requires occupational pension schemes to give members a right not to belong to the scheme—to opt out. It is for schemes to decide the details of how the option should be made and how frequently it can be exercised. Members can opt out at any time, but because of the special features of parliamentary life, it has seemed sensible to give Members the opportunity, within three months of the date of a general election or by-election, to make the decision.
  We have provided that a Member who has opted out can apply to rejoin as from the date of any general election or by-election at which he is elected to the House. I hope that the House will find the arrangements satisfactory. There is no change for the arrangements for the supplementary scheme for Ministers and other office holders, which were always voluntary.
  There is another change in part C that I should mention. Following a TSRB recommendation in 1988, the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 made provision for Prime Ministers and Speakers, who until then had been excluded from membership, to join the fund with effect from 28 February 1991—the date of the passing of the Act. Part C provides for that.
  Part D deals with contributions and the only change to which I should draw Members' attention is a new limit on contributions required by Inland Revenue rules, which applies to schemes generally. Members joining the House from 1 June 1989 may not contribute in any year on a salary higher than the maximum permitted by the Inland Revenue. However, if Members feel that this is in some way threatening, I should say in view of yesterday's debate that they may find it ironic that the permitted maximum at the moment is £75,000 a year. I do not imagine that this provision will cause huge difficulty for Members.
  Part E, which deals with pensionable service, and part F, pension entitlement, are essentially unchanged, except again that a maximum pension provision now applies for Members joining the House after 1 June 1989. The maximum pension for such Members cannot exceed two thirds of the permitted maximum.
  Part G provides for those retiring to take part of their pension in a tax-free lump sum. There is no change to this, except that, for those joining the scheme at 1 June 1989, the maximum pension limit will serve to limit the lump sum.
  Part H deals with early retirement and early abated pensions, and part J deals with ill-health pensions. There is no change to those provisionssmall,. In part K, which deals with pensions for widows, widowers and children, we have taken the opportunity to eliminate a small discriminatory provision, which, I am happy to be able to assure the House, has never been invoked. The children of deceased female Members are now to be treated in exactly the same way as the children of male Members, instead of equal treatment depending on the trustees' discretion.
  Apart from being desirable in itself, it can be included in consolidating regulations because it is understood to be required by European law with effect from 17 May 1990, or the date of the celebrated Barber judgment with which I wrestled for a long time as the Secretary of State

  545
  for Social Security. Indeed, my successor is, in a sense, still wrestling with the consequences of that judgment, as are the courts in various parts of Europe.
  In part L there is no change to the provision of a gratuity payable on death in service, except one following the imposition of the permitted maximum.
  Part M is entirely new. The House will remember that in 1991 the Top Salaries Review Body recommended—and we accepted—that, if a former Member died during the first five years of retirement, a Member's pension should continue to be paid to the surviving spouse for the remainder of the five years. This part of the regulations implements that recommendation.
  When the other regulations were laid in 1991, arising from the TSRB report, my predecessor, the then Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, and who has had other things on his mind recently, explained that the recommendation had proved difficult to implement, but gave a commitment to introduce regulations at a later date. The regulations will apply with effect from 1 April 1992, which is when the other recommendations in the TSRB report of 1991 took effect.
  The reason for the guarantee is, essentially, to ensure that beneficiaries receive value for contributions paid. The regulations provide that if the total of any pension payable to the dependants of a Member who has died within the first five years of retirement is less than the pension payable had he lived, the difference shall be paid to the spouse. The amount of the Member's pension includes any annual increase under the Pensions Increase Act to compensate for inflation.
  The remainder of part M deals with other possible events during the five years of retirement, and it is necessarily complex. If the spouse also dies, any balance due under the guarantee should be paid to the spouse's estate. If there is no surviving spouse, any eligible children will receive the benefit of the guarantee. If there are no survivors at all, the amount due under the guarantee is payable to the estate. I understand that the proposals are acceptable to the trustees, and I hope that they will also be acceptable to the House.
  I pass briefly over part N, which covers refunds, part P which covers transfers, and part Q, which covers added years. They are technical sections in which there is only one change of substance, with which I shall now deal.
  As I said, the membership of the Prime Minister and the Speaker is one of the outstanding TSRB recommendations falling to be implemented. The TSRB reviewed the Prime Minister's and Speaker's pension arrangements in 1988. It thought it unfair that Prime Ministers and Speakers could not remain in the parliamentary fund on taking office. As the House will know, Prime Ministers and Speakers are entitled by virtue of their office to a special pension from the Consolidated Fund. The TSRB thought that they were still at a disadvantage when compared with Ministers, as they were not able to contribute to a pension scheme on their parliamentary salary.
  The amendments that I am proposing would put that right with effect from 28 February 1991, the date of the passing of the enabling Act. The proposals would allow for a Prime Minister or Speaker who wanted to stay in the scheme to keep any deferred pension in the supplementary
  546
  scheme earned on service between 28 February 1991 and the date of appointment. They would also mean that any contributions that he or she had made to the fund before that date must be used to buy added years if he or she wishes to stay in the fund, of must be returned immediately. A further issue has been raised by the provisions, which we are currently examining. If anything of substance emerges I shall, of course, return to the House with the details.
  Mr. David Shaw: Before my right hon. Friend concludes, may I mention a matter that I know is not wholly within his powers? This morning I attended a meeting of Maxwell pensioners. Can my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the accounts of the Members' pension fund for the year to 31 March 1992 have been audited only in the summer of 1993, some 15 or 16 months after the event? I believe that that is worse than Robert Maxwell's record on his own pension fund accounts.
  That suggested—on examination, I found it to be true —that the administration of our scheme is not kept up to date with common practice in the private sector, although there may be attempts from time to time to keep up to date the benefit and other arrangements. Could we perhaps ensure that greater priority is given to the organisation and administration of our scheme so that it is brought up to best private sector practice? Perhaps we might even set the standards of organisation and administration that we should like the rest of the country to follow.
  Mr. Newton: I am aware that my hon. Friend has tabled five parliamentary questions on such matters. I have not yet been able to reply to him. I can tell him, however, that I hope shortly to be in a position to do so. My understanding is that the delay to which he referred is, at least in part, due to the special work needed to calculate pensions arising from the result of the 1992 election. I shall provide him with full answers as soon as possible. I also observe—I hope not rashly—that I would find it hard to see a parallel between the late Robert Maxwell, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Mr. Tony Lewis, our accountant.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for the warmth and kindliness of what he said about the work of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The House will expect me, as chairman of the trustees, to give their views on both sets of regulations. First of all, however, I want to respond to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the possibility of some redrafting or, in his word, "refinements". I see no difficulty in what he proposes; nor, I am sure, will any of my fellow trustees, two of whom are with us in this debate.
  In my intervention in the pay debate yesterday, I drew attention on behalf of the trustees to the erosion of pension benefits payable to Members and, more particularly, to their dependants, when there is a freeze on parliamentary pay. I recalled then that the untimely death of our much respected former colleague, Judith Chaplin, set the problems of dependants in very sharp relief. That sad event underlined the fact that, if a Member dies during a pay freeze, the effects on the incomes of his or her dependants can be lifelong, since pensions and other benefits are based

  547
  on the parliamentary salary in the deceased Member's last year of service and take no account of any subsequent increase in salary to compensate for the freeze.
  As the Leader of the House indicated in his speech on parliamentary pay on 25 November 1992, the problems that arise from death in service during a period of pay restraint can be met, to an extent, by introducing an additional voluntary contributions scheme. This is why, since that debate, the managing trustees, in conjunction with the Leader of the House, who has been unfailingly helpful, the secretariat of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and the Treasury, have been working on the details of regulations to facilitate the setting up by the trustees of such a scheme. The regulations now before the House are the result of our labours.
  The regulations will empower the trustees to appoint a provider or providers for a wide-ranging additional voluntary contribution scheme. Although the final details have yet to be confirmed, it is expected that Members will be able to purchase additional death benefit equal to twice the Member's salary, thus doubling the current benefit, and additional widow's and widower's pensions to take their overall benefit to two thirds of the Member's pension, which is the Inland Revenue maximum. There will also be a money purchase scheme in which Members may, within overall Inland Revenue limits on pension contributions and total benefits, purchase additional pension for themselves.
  The managing trustees are content with the provisions of the scheme which the regulations offer. It will enable Members to provide extra benefits for their widows and widowers in keeping with the efforts made by the trustees over many years to provide more assistance to dependants. We were successful in obtaining an increase in widows' and widowers' pensions from one half to five eighths of the Member's pension, and will go on seeking new ways of helping them in the future.
  I turn now to the consolidating regulations. These regulations amalgamate all the governing legislation of the pension fund into one document and are mainly designed to reflect the scheme as it now exists. The regulations also take account of overriding social security legislation, as the Leader of the House made clear, and of recommendations in the last report of the Senior Salaries Review Body—formerly the Top Salaries Review Body—which still await implementation. The alterations to the fund were commented on briefly in my recent briefing note to all hon. Members, which I hope will have been of help in explaining the practical effect of all that is now proposed.
  In today's debate, I want to elaborate on the changes recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. One of its most welcome recommendations, which is now to be implemented, was the introduction of a five-year guarantee for widows' and widowers' pensions. This will mean that, if an ex-Member dies within five years of the commencement of his or her pension, the widow or widower will be guaranteed a pension equal to that payable to the Member until the end of the five-year period. That will be of considerable assistance to widows and widowers as they adjust to their altered financial situation at what can be a most stressful time.
  The SSRB also recommended that Prime Ministers and Speakers should be allowed to retain membership of the parliamentary contributory pension fund after assuming those offices. That will be on the basis, as we have heard from the Leader of the House, of the relationship between the reduced Member's salary and the full Member's salary
  548
  and, on current rates, means that they will accrue around three quarters of a year's pensionable service for every full year of actual service. I can report that the trustees agree that membership of the PCPF should now be available to Prime Ministers and Speakers.
  The trustees of the pension fund have had considerable success in improving the scheme. As well as the increases in widows' and widowers' pensions, there have in recent years been improvements to the death-in-service lump sum benefit, in the provisions for ill-health retirement and in reducing the Member's contribution from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. We will, of course, keep abreast of current developments in pension provision and will not hesitate to press for further changes to the scheme that can be of benefit to Members.
  I listened to what the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said about his parliamentary questions. There are very particular problems in a scheme like ours. As the Leader of the House said, the timing of the general election in April 1992 was a complicating factor. I do not want to anticipate the answers to the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary questions, but I am absolutely certain that he will be well satisfied with those answers when they are given.
  The trustees support and endorse both these sets of regulations, which they believe will give Members wider choice in their pension provisions and, most importantly, enable them to provide additional benefits for their widows or widowers and other dependants. I commend the regulations to the House. As before, the trustees wish to place on record the invaluable help that they and those they seek to assist have received from Tony Lewis, the Accountant of the House of Commons, and among others Alan Marskell, Michael Fletcher and Neil Crawley of the Fees Office. I am sure that their work, to which the Leader of the House referred so warmly, is deeply appreciated by the House as a whole.
  5.25 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: I add my thanks to those of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to our Accountant and his assistants in the Fees Office for looking after our pension fund and—this may not be so generally known in this place—the beneficiaries of the Members fund.
  When the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and I first came to the House, there were no pensions for those who had just retired. The Members fund was instituted to help those who had no means from the House to provide for a pension. That fund still exists. The right hon. Gentleman and I know from our respective knowledge on both sides of the House of the considerable assistance that the Members fund has offered to those ex-Members of the House for whom there was formally no provision.
  I want to follow the comments of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, not so much with regard to the provisions of the additional voluntary contributions, which are welcome on both sides of the House, as in reflecting the background to the provisions and what I hope might be in store for us later.
  The House recognises that we should not award extra benefits to ourselves unless they have been earned through our own parliamentary fund and have been recommended as extra benefits by the Top Salaries Review Body, which I believe has now changed its name to the Senior Salaries

  549
  Review Body. The problem is that Government Departments are always changing the names and it is sometimes difficult to keep up. I think that the SSRB will seek evidence in the coming year from hon. Members about what might be done in respect of our salaries and our pensions and other benefits. We must all welcome that.
  I believe that the SSRB's recommendations will be based on the valuation of our scheme as at 1 April this year, in respect of which the Government Actuary will, for the first time, pronounce on the level of contribution from Members and from the Government. Formerly, the Actuary had the power only to make recommendations about the Government contribution. Members were stuck with their own contribution, which, so far as I am aware, was the highest contribition of any pension fund in the country. Although that contribution has been reduced substantially from 9 to 6 per cent., it is still very much on the high side.
  Generally speaking, in company pension funds the provision is normally two thirds by the employer and one third by the employee. When the Government Actuary examines our fund again and sees the scale of the surplus that I anticipate will be available, I hope that he will recommend a higher contribution by the Treasury—I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have some difficulty in negotiating that—and a reduced contribution by Members. Six per cent. is still very high.
  Not all hon. Members may be aware of the fact that, when the TSRB last made recommendations, it included a provision for those Members who had made capital payments towards buying extra years. As it happened, the provisions of our pension fund were improved so that it was no longer necessary to have purchased those years. Quite rightly, the TSRB recommended that those who had made those extra contributions should get their money back. The House will not be surprised to learn that that was regarded as disgraceful retrospective legislation, and we were not allowed to have back the £3 million of what I regard as our money.
  I stress that this is not the Government's pension fund; it is ours. We have every right; as long as the Senior Salaries Review Body recommends that we should have an extra benefit, that is how it should be. If, on the ground of retrospection, the Government believe that that would not be suitable because it would create all sorts of precedents in other fields, which I also quite understand, that £3 million should be available to us, or our wives and widows, in some other manner. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to bear that in mind, because it is certain that we shall come back to the SSRB with just such a recommendation in due course.
  That is not the only recommendation that we shall make. We should have had, by right, a provision for widows of two thirds rather than five eighths. The House will note that we are only now able to have two thirds by means of additonal voluntary contribution. The more normal provision in the private sector is for a widow's pension of two thirds, and that is what we should have, if the fund can stand it and if the SSRB so recommends.
  It is important to make the point that our scheme is rather peculiar, in that it is a late entry scheme. That has disadvantages for Members, because they must make their contributions in a greater way than they would if
  550
  contributions extended over a longer period. It is important to recognise that Members need to make provision for their old age and for their widows in a comparatively short period. The SSRB should take further account of that. Many hon. Members may be able to think of other recommendations that the body should consider, and I hope that they will. When the SSRB comes to taking written or oral evidence, I hope that it will think seriously about how Members who retire, and their dependants, can best be provided for, perhaps by looking carefully at the provisions in other schemes in the private sector.
  I very much hope that, when the Government Actuary considers our scale of contributions, he will come to the conclusion that the Government should be paying more and that Members should be paying less. That is what the right of the matter is. I will give evidence to the SSRB to that effect, and I hope that other hon. Members will, too.
  It is a shame that there are a number of hon. Members who do not appreciate that ours is a funded scheme, not a pay-as-you-go scheme, and we have had material benefits from having such a scheme. Although they must be recommended by the review body, the surpluses that arise should go to Members and their dependants. There is scope for more generous treatment for those who have already retired from the House, and for their dependants. They should not be as dependent on the Members fund as they are at the moment.
  The Members fund, quite properly, is dependent on careful means testing before any benefit can be paid. If possible, I should like to see provision incorporated in the next SSRB for extra benefits to be paid to Members who have retired, and to their dependants, as a right. That matter has not been covered before. I mention it in the context of a fund which, in my opinion, has been well managed and should show a substantial surplus from 1 April this year when the Actuary comes to consider it next year, and when the SSRB considers the Actuary's report on what provisions are necessary.
  I hope that, when the time comes, all hon. Members will make their views known to the SSRB, not just for our sakes but for those who have already served as Members of the House, and for their dependants, too.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). In the few moments that he spoke, he touched on matters about which all hon. Members feel strongly, irrespective of which side of the Chamber we sit.
  Some of my comments will centre on the point that the right hon. Gentleman rightly made about ex-Members and their families. In addition, I congratulate the Leader of the House on his clear outline of the proposals. That is of great benefit to us. I welcome the debate. All of us know that hon. Members on both sides of the House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is one, but there are many others—have had years of service in the House and have always been in the forefront of looking after the interests of their colleagues. On issues such as this, we are colleagues. This is not a party political issue on which we attack each other; it is a matter of crucial importance to all.
  Like other hon. Members, I pay warm tribute to Mr. Lewis and his staff. I have often been to see him to talk about an issue, to which I shall come in a few moments. I

  551
  do not think that any Officer of the House is more understanding or more willing to meet us and explain issues that, at times, can be complex. I thank him and his colleagues most sincerely, as I am sure does every hon. Member when, as they often do, they come into contact with him.
  Every hon. Member, irrespective of what his job may be, looks to the day when he will receive his pension, and we are obviously concerned about what that pension will be. For a long period, in the House and doubtless elsewhere, when salaries were low, the fact that one day people would receive a pension was crucial to them and their families.
  I take part in the debate not only because, as a Member, I am interested in the kind of pension that one day I hope to receive, but because I am an officer of the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund. The issues that we are discussing are of particular interest to me as an officer of that fund.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, the Leader of the House, I and perhaps others have been Members of the House for a long time. All of us know of colleagues who loyally served the House as Members for many years. They were superb parliamentarians and great friends of ours, regardless of party. Sadly, they had a pretty rough deal when they ceased to be Members and, in many cases, they have passed on. The widows and families of those ex-Members still have a rough time.
  I know ex-Members who were not here for long. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe touched on that point. They were not here for long, but they left young families; that is why I very much welcome the inclusion of the five-year proposal, which will give widows and widowers a guaranteed amount of money for which they qualify.
  Former colleagues who, sad to say, were not here a long time—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe mentioned one of them—would have served for many years had they wished to. The lack of provision for those people presented, and in some cases still presents, hardship to their wives and families. Therefore, I welcome the change.
  The debate provides an opportunity to remember ex-colleagues and their families. I know six former Members who were not here long and do not have family dependants, who have found it virtually impossible to find employment, basically because of their age. That happens in many walks of life. In his superb speech, the right hon. Member for Horsham said that we need to consider that problem.
  Through the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund, we pay a small grant twice a year, the main beneficiaries of which are the widows of former Members. Some of those ladies are now 80 or 90 years old. Their husbands were Members for many years at a time when salaries were deplorably low and, as other hon. Members have said, there were no pensions.
  As I have said in many debates, I have the greatest respect for the Leader of the House, because he is one of the few Ministers who listens to what is said in the House and takes note of it. I mean that sincerely, and he knows it. I realise that it will not be easy, but I beg him to give attention to our ex-colleagues who are still alive and feel that they have had a rough deal—some of them are angry about that. The right hon. Member for Horsham gave an
  552
  idea of how the matter might be considered. I also ask the Leader of the House to consider, in particular, the widows of former Members, who are now elderly ladies.
  I pay tribute again to the support that I often received from Mr. Lewis when I went to see him about the pitiful cases of wives of former Members whom we knew. We may have met those wives in the House—we all bring our wives here from time to time. We now hear and see the pathetic financial state in which those ladies find themselves, and I believe that we have to consider their situation.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to draw our attention to the compelling claims of the widows of former Members who live in circumstances of hardship. I am grateful to him for having drawn my attention to a number of cases with which he has been dealing as an officer of the benevolent fund of the parliamentary Labour party.
  There are two points to make. First, an enormous amount of help has been given via the House of Commons Members' fund to people living in circumstances of hardship. Secondly, we want to do very much more, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir. P. Hordern) said. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has made an extremely powerful contribution to the work of the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund and the House of Commons Members fund. I can assure him that we would like, in contact with him, to do even more for former Members and their dependants, who at present, without many people knowing about it, live in hardship.
  Mr. Cox: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment. The widows of former Members are on very low incomes, but they have pride. They do not want to let people know about their sad circumstances. I am sure that we all understand that. We may tell them it is silly and that they should not feel that way, but they do. We have a duty to respect their attitude. We must consider the issue afresh. We are not talking about vast sums of money. The outgoings of an elderly person are less than those of young people with young children.
  I paid tribute to the Leader of the House, and I beg him to look again at the sad and, in some respects, pathetic cases. We know the people involved and want to help them. Will the Leader of the House look seriously at the comments made, not only by me, but by the right hon. Member for Horsham, who made a superb speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Whythenshawe.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Newton: I need respond to the debate only briefly as I sense that the speeches of both my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) were primarily designed to mark the cards of various people—myself, the Treasury and the Senior Salaries Review Body—rather than elicit an immediate response. I hope that I was right to read their remarks in that way.
  I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting for his kind words about me. I shall try to continue to earn his commendations, as receiving such marks is a relatively rare experience for someone who has been on the Front Bench for as long as I have. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said about the widows of ex-Members.

  553
  I was mildly puzzled by the reference of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham to spouses' pensions, as the proposal to increase the proportion from five eighths was specifically rejected by the Top Salaries Review Body in June 1991. It said that our provisions compared favourably with occupational pension schemes generally, 80 per cent. of which continued to provide a spouse's pension of only half the Member's pension. No doubt the SSRB, the successor body to the TSRB, will consider the suggestions of my right hon. Friend and others when it considers the subject following the Government Actuary's valuation of the scheme.
  I have had brought to my attention a quotation of which I was previously unaware. Whatever criticisms may be made of, or further improvements sought in, our scheme, as a result of improvements over the years, the scheme is now quite good, and much better than it was. I was mildly amused to read a piece that was thrust into my hand during the debate from an unknown quarter—in fact, a known quarter, but one to which I am not allowed to refer. The piece appeared in "Pensions Today" in July 1991 under the heading "New ideas from Meacher"—it takes us back a little.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Good news.
  Mr. Newton: The Opposition Front-Bench team do not want to comment on new ideas from Meacher, which is perhaps understandable.
  The extract contained a footnote which stated:
  "Messrs Meacher and Newton"—
  it takes me back a bit—
  "—and all MPs for that matter—will see their 9 per cent. Parliamentary Pension Scheme contribution tumble to 6 per cent. next April. High accrual rates to reflect what can be foreshortened pensionable careers, plus public sector indexing, make this a splendid bargain."
  At least we have some things going for us, even if the House would like to see more being done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House endorses the proposals to give the trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund power to provide a scheme by which Members may enhance their pensions by making additional voluntary contributions, and to appoint a provider for the scheme.

  MEMBERS' PENSIONS (CONSOLIDATION)
  Ordered,
  That this House endorses the proposal to consolidate the regulations governing the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in one set of regulations, and to incorporate amendments to the Scheme implementing past Top Salaries Review Body recommendations and certain provisions of certain Social Security and Finance Acts.—[Mr. Newton.]

Sports Grounds
5.50 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to move,
That the Football Spectators Act 1989 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1690), dated 8th July 1993, be revoked.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the Football Spectators (Designation of Football Matches in England and Wales) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1691), dated 8th July 1993, be revoked.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2090), dated 18th August 1993, a copy of whch was laid before this House on 24th August, be annulled.
Mr. Pendry: I notice that we have a new Minister for Sport today in the form of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). It is not surprising—particularly to my hon. Friends—that we have a new Minister, as there have been so many during the past few years.
In view of my desire during the past few years to hurry the Government into bringing into force various sections of the Football Spectators Act 1989, it might be thought by hon. Members that I should be the last person to be moving motions today. However, life is seldom that simple and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled the motions to have an opportunity to debate the effectiveness of the Act in the light of recent developments.
I vividly recall saying when the Taylor report was debated in the House on 30 January 1990:
"The report should be seen primarily as a catalyst for debate, not a tablet of stone."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 237.]
I am only too happy to find that I have been proved right by the passing of time.
Since the recommendations of the Taylor report were accepted, there have been numerous advances that deserve our careful consideration. Many, though not all, supporters have reacted adversely to the proposed changes in the way they watch and enjoy their team perform. They raise many points through their respective organisations, notably the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Supporters Clubs, which we should take care to address on this occasion.
Encouragingly for the organisations, there have been scientific developments in the area of crowd safety since the awful tragedy at Hillsborough.
It is good to see that the Minister has now arrived. I am sure that he will be made aware of the gems which I have made known to the House during his brief absence. I realise that we all have difficulties with transport, and I am sure that the Minister has a good excuse.
It is encouraging for those supporters who have not been happy with all-seated stadiums to see that there have been scientific developments in crowd safety since the Hillsborough tragedy. The innovations were not available to Lord Justice Taylor for his consideration, so they have not been incorporated into his findings.
Opposition Members recognise that the Bradford, Heysel and Hillsborough tragedies demonstrated a problem in need of immediate attention. A sense of urgency prevailed as Lord Justice Taylor took a sensible look at the difficulties of ensuring crowd safety at football

555
matches, much as Lord Justice Popplewell had done before him. The tragedies at Bradford and Hillsborough and also at the grounds of Bolton and Glasgow Rangers some time before almost certainly stemmed from the 19th-century structure of football in this country and the grounds that were built then have remained with us. Hardly any of our grounds had been improved in any significant way since the last century.
It may interest the House—especially my hon. Friends —to know that the problem of safety at football grounds was first recognised and addressed by the Labour Government of 1924, who realised that significant changes needed to be made to safeguard supporters. It was clear to the Government at that time that the existing terraces needed substantial modification in terms of segregation crush barriers and the like. They went so far as to suggest that grounds should need a licence before clubs were allowed to admit spectators.
It is a great shame that 50 years, and two major accidents at Burnden park and Ibrox park, were allowed to pass before the findings of the 1924 report were fully implemented, alongside other recommendations, in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975—again, I must say, under a Labour Government. Even had those tragedies not occurred, it would be right and proper for clubs to start looking at the safety problems of their antiquated terraces and to work on bringing them into the 20th and 21st centuries.
I know that the all-party football committee of which I was the Chairman took a responsible approach to the challenges of ensuring safety at football grounds. Both Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Taylor addressed the issues, and we gave evidence to both. Our submissions were largely accepted in their reports.
The Home Affairs Select Committee submitted its report on football hooliganism in February 1991, and the Committee also did sterling work by contributing positively to the debate. Hon. Members who served on the Committee deserve due recognition for their recommendations.
However, even at that time we were concerned that all-seater stadiums might not be the single and complete answer to the problems of safety, hooliganism or even comfort. As early as 1984, a study carried out by the sociology department of Leicester university revealed serious deficiencies in the theory of all-seated stadiums. The clubs themselves have experienced many practical difficulties when trying to change to all-seater stadiums. The House may remember that Coventry City was one of the first clubs to convert to all-seated as early as 1981, but quickly reconverted when fans started to stand on the seats and even tear them up.
Last season, Manchester City built a new all-seater stand at the ground's Platt lane end. The club then found that pitch invasions were being lead by fans from the new stand on the day of its opening.
I know that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) had been here—I know that he had to go to his constituency—he would have intervened at this point to make a point about rugby. My hon. Friend acquired a copy of a disorder report following the Great Britain v. New Zealand rugby league match on 16 October. I believe that the Minister was there. The attendance was 36,131. There were no arrests inside the ground, and no ejections from the ground. There were 70 police on duty, and the report states that outside the ground one person was
556
arrested and was cautioned. The police inspector in charge at the ground commented that the fans had been absolutely marvellous, and he wished that all fans could be like that. He added that he could see the day when it would not be necessary to police rugby league events inside the ground.
Some soccer fans could learn from the behaviour of their counterparts who go to rugby matches. I am sure that my hon. Friend would have wanted to make that point. I may not have made it as eloquently as he would have, but I am pleased to put the point on record.
For an explanation of the changes to all-seater stadiums have failed to eradicate the unruly elements within a football crowd, we need look no further than the words of Sir Bert Millichip, the chairman of the Football Association who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee:
"experience has taught us that a person can be just as big a hooligan when he is sitting down as when he is standing up."
Many clubs have found that their plans to convert to all-seated stadiums have not found favour with many of their fans. I want to illustrate the supporters' view and to do so I would like to quote from a letter by David Woolf, a Liverpool supporter. His was only one of the many letters which I have received on the subject. He said:
"The Government has accepted the fact that standing can be safe, but why for only lower league clubs and not the higher?"
That is a point of view which I do not necessarily share.
It is to the eternal credit of the right hon. Member for Putney that, when he was Secretary of State for National Heritage, accepted and acted upon submissions that were given to him verbally and in written form on 11 May 1992 by the all-party football committee delegation. We were able to convince him of the wisdom of exempting third and fourth division clubs from the all-seater requirements of Lord Justice Taylor's report. I hope that the Minister has brought an open mind to the debate and is prepared to consider sensible suggestions on their own merit in the light of changing circumstances.
Finally in this context, I should like to recall a remark made by Lord Justice Taylor:
"There is no panacea which will achieve total safety and cure all the problems of behaviour and crowd control."
No one could disagree with that. I believe that the football culture of standing should not be dismissed outright. On the other hand, more and more soccer fans are getting used to sitting and would not want to revert to watching games from standing areas. We would therefore expect a small proportion only of any ground to comprise standing areas.
Recent developments in crowd safety technology, however, mean that we should reconsider our earlier decision to encourage leading clubs to change over entirely to all-seater stadiums. I firmly believe that, in the light of new developments, supporters should be given the opportunity to stand in new, safer areas. They could be given the choice between standing and sitting without detriment to their safety.
Those of us who understand football acknowledge that UEFA and FIFA currently oppose standing areas for much the same reasons as those expressed in the Taylor report; and that that might mean closing certain parts of grounds that are involved in a few international matches, until those bodies are convinced of the safety of standing areas.
The UEFA and FIFA rulings, like the Taylor report, were a direct result of the events of the 1980s. After the crowd tragedy at Hillsborough, scientists at the National Nuclear Corporation Ltd. research establishment at Risley set about creating a system for monitoring crowd pressure.

557
The system that they developed comprises a network of pressure monitors strategically placed in tunnels, barriers and fences. The sensors are linked to a central bank of monitor screens, and changing colours on the screens will warn the attendants, police and stewards of any change in crowd pressures. They will then be able to take the necessary action.
I have been to see the system and I was impressed with it. The effective use of such a system, combined with intelligent design and rigorous stewarding, should enable clubs to ensure the safety of supporters in a terraced stand. These developments aroused
"a great deal of interest from the delegates at the international conference on engineering for crowd safety",
according to Professor Smith, head of Sheffield university's engineering department. Paul Wertheimer of a company called Crowd Management Strategies in the United States, recognised as one of the world's experts in crowd safety matters, has also approved the system, and he has said:
"The British are world leaders in the field of crowd safety."
The Metropolitan police used the system at last year's new year's eve festivities, when it helped to save a number of people from serious crush-related injuries. The police were able to detect a build-up of pressure against certain crash barriers and took immediate action, possibly averting the tragic loss of life that has happened before. I hope that the system will begin to prove its worth, as the Metropolitan police will be using it again this year to protect revellers from the danger of injury.
Perhaps more importantly still, the Football Licensing Authority has also visited the NNC and agrees that the system would almost certainly have prevented the Hillsborough disaster. My own club, Derby County, and Blackpool football club have expressed an interest in the system, and executives from the two clubs are due to attend a demonstration of the system soon.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am interested in the line that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing. What would such a system cost? Would it cost so much that the clubs could not generate the money themselves? Or would they perhaps have to look to outside agencies for assistance?
Mr. Pendry: I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is less costly to include the system in a new stand than to convert a stand that already has seated accommodation. I hope that funds will be available to help clubs that have already put in seats and which would naturally be upset if they had to change again. Perhaps such funds could come from the Football Trust or the national lottery when it comes on stream—but I will send the details to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
When he was Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) accepted an invitation to attend a demonstration at the NNC, as did the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Unfortunately, neither of them managed to attend the demonstration, largely owing to the brevity of their stays at the Department. Now that the Under-Secretary of State has his feet firmly under the table —I am sure that he hopes to keep them there for some time —I trust that he will pick up where his predecessors left off
558
and accept an invitation to visit the NNC facilities at Risley. On behalf of those at Risley, I gladly extend to him an invitation to do that.
Out of the Hillsborough disaster there has emerged a new industry building good modern stadiums that are designed for comfort and safety, with refreshment areas, creches and the capacity to hold community activities all year round, not just for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon. I have spoken to a number of such firms, including Superstadia Ltd., a stadium designer and builder. It assured me that it was capable of incorporating systems like the one developed by the NNC in such a way as to create a new generation of safe standing areas.
We are all nevertheless aware that good stadium design alone is not enough to ensure the safety of crowds at large sporting events. Both the Taylor and the Popplewell reports highlighted the fact that effective stewarding and policing play a vital part in safety procedures at matches. The Taylor report states that a chain of command must be clearly defined for each ground. At the "Safety In Numbers" conference in August 1992, the chain of command was still not made clear; safety officers were assured that they would be in charge on match day, and police commanders received the same sort of assurances.
The Under-Secretary will be aware that I was engaged in correspondence with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney on this subject and that I sought clarification on it several times. In my letter to him of 16 September 1992 I pointed out the importance of intelligent action by the Government, to allow clubs to use stewards and police in the most effective way to ensure the safety and well-being of supporters.
Following my letter, the assistant chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. Malcolm George, undertook an examination of the respective roles of stewards and the police. I hope that the Minister is in a position to tell us the outcome of that review and what guidance the Government have given to all involved in the chain of command.
Time spent debating sporting matters in this place is a valuable commodity. Following yesterday's events in Turkey, it would be easy to be sidetracked by them, to the detriment of other issues to do with our great national game. It must always be remembered that the majority of football supporters in this country are law-abiding citizens whose only wish is to follow their club or national team. They dissociate themselves from the mindless idiots who do so much damage to our reputation abroad.
I should like the genuine fan to be recognised as capable of responsibility, yet he seems to be given no place in real decision making. In the Committee that scrutinised what became the Football Spectators Act 1989, the then Under-Secretary with responsibility for sport made it clear, on 11 July, that he felt that supporters should be involved in the decision-making process—following pressure from Committee members. But little has been done since those fine words were uttered. I have consistently campaigned for supporters to be represented when changes that affect them are made. Norman Jacobs, chairman of the Footall Licensing Authority, has told me of the authority's willingness to give supporters a seat on it.
There is a problem, however, in that supporters have two official voices: the Football Supporters Association and the National Federation of Supporters Clubs. I urge those two groups to speak with one voice so that it might be heard more clearly at the highest level.

559
Should the statutory instrument be passed, the timetable for the implementation of the Taylor report will be firmly fixed. However, flexibility is called for with regard to the 1994 and 1997 deadlines for the completion of all-seated stadiums. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to have a thorough review of the new developments on crowd safety with a view to possibly creating safe-standing areas.
To be fair, I agree that a certain element of flexibility has already been established with the Football Licensing Authority's recognition that Birmingham City and Peterborough may have until August 1995 to complete their ground improvements, Bolton Wanderers, Stoke City and West Bromwich Albion may have until August 1996 to comply with the full demands of the safety legislation and the three clubs promoted to the first division at the end of the season may have until August 1997 to upgrade their stadiums. Derby County, Oxford, Portsmouth and Sunderland are committed to relocate their stadiums, and the Football Licensing Authority has said that it is prepared to allow them flexibility.
As a result, next season's first division could feature up to 12 clubs that will not have complied with the August 1994 deadline. The Government should show those clubs understanding on the imposition of deadlines. After all, the FLA should have come into being on 1 June 1990, but in reality was able to begin inspecting grounds only at the beginning of the 1991–92 season, after appointing safety officers in the spring of 1991.
Many of the difficulties that clubs are experiencing relate to problems with financing, as the Under-Secretary of State knows, with planning departments and even with the Department of the Environment, to say nothing of the Home Office. It is only right that clubs are afforded a degree of flexibility commensurate with planning and financial problems and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
The clubs' commitment to improving their stadiums is on-going, but there is a financial limit to what some clubs can achieve. First division clubs do not generally have the same level of income as those in the FA premier league. The valuable contributions that are made by the Football Trust, helped by the Government's decision to extend the reduction in pool betting duty, are greatly appreciated by the clubs, but each club still has to find a substantial amount of money to finance its ground improvements programme. The same flexibility should also be extended to address the problems of clubs wishing to develop safe-standing areas, once it is established that is precisely what they will be.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that in bringing the motions before the House my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have done a service to football. As long as the Minister is equally constructive in his reply, I shall not proceed to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
6.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Ian Sproat): May I begin by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for being two minutes late for the debate. At least two hon. Members present—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—will welcome my reason. I was downstairs in the small
560
ministerial conference room with a group of students who had come to speak about keeping Wednesday afternoons free for sport.
I saw the name of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde appear on the monitor—I had not been expecting the debate to begin until considerably later—and I ran out of that room telling the students that I was 100 per cent. behind their determination to keep Wednesday afternoons free for sport and to ensure that any change in examination times as a result of semesterisation, or whatever the word may be—that Wednesday afternoon problem writ large —does not detract from the essential nature of having a regular, known, fixed, free time for playing competitive games at universities and to retain the tradition of free Wednesday afternoons.
I have had one helpful meeting on that subject with the Minister at the Department of Education and as the Minister for Sport I am determined to do everything to ensure that Wednesday afternoons remain free.
I hope that with those few words of apology hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that those two minutes were not wholly wasted. I thank the Opposition for tabling the prayer. Perhaps it is slightly unusual gratitude as it is contrary to the Government's statutory instrument, but the purpose of the prayer, as I take it, is to give us a chance to discuss the extremely important subject of safety at football grounds.
I also thank the usual channels, so well represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) in allowing the debate today as I was disappointed that the turmoil yesterday prevented the debate occurring.
I am sure that the House will agree that our discussions today are timely, given the proximity of the August 1994 deadline for all seating at football grounds in the Premier League and first division, and the strenuous efforts that have been made to improve safety over the past two or three years by clubs, local authorities, the police and the Football Licensing Authority since the Taylor report.
I begin by emphasising that the primary objective underlying all the Government's policies has been to ensure that we never again see the appalling scenes witnessed at Ibrox in 1971, where 66 people tragically died; at Bradford in 1985, where 56 people tragically died; and at Hillsborough in 1989, where 96 people tragically died. The Government and those who run football have a moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure that such disasters are never repeated. I am grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to that task.
This important subject has a complex history, so it may be useful if I remind the House of the framework for sports ground safety policy, which provides a balanced and appropriate response to the problems associated with ensuring reasonable safety of the public at sports events.
After the Ibrox disaster of 1971 and the subsequent inquiry by Lord Wheatley, the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 was passed that introduced safety certification by local authorities for grounds with accommodation for 10,000 or more spectators at which football, rugby or cricket is played. The specific technical requirements relating to safety standards at sports grounds were first published in 1972, in the Government's guide to safety at sports grounds.
That "green guide", as it is known, was and still is the chief source of information available for use by local authorities in drawing up the conditions of safety

561
certificates. It plays a central role in ensuring sports ground safety. Revised editions of the guide were published following the Bradford and Hillsborough disasters, in consultation with local authorities associations and others.
Some have suggested that the advice contained in the guide should be mandatory. We considered that argument carefully, but on balance disagreed. The guide should provide guidance and should act as an aid to rather than substitute for professional judgment and commonsense. There must be discretion to allow for the variations that exist across the 90 or so Football League grounds, not to mention in other leagues and in Scotland.
Of course, the green guide applies not only to football grounds but to all sports grounds, regardless of their size and the sport played. I shall come to the important point that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made about Wakefield Rugby League.
The task of the certifying authority, acting on the advice of the police, fire and ambulance services and other relevant bodies gathered together in a safety advisory group, is to determine how many spectators may safely be admitted to a ground, taking into account not merely its physical structure, but the club's systems and procedures. Its mechanism for doing that is the safety certificate.
The emphasis is very much on the safety advisory group working as a team to determine what constitutes reasonable safety. However, the ultimate responsibility for safety rests not with the local authority or the police but with the club itself. Later, I shall deal with some of the issues that have been raised in the debate.
Following the fire at Bradford in 1985 and the subsequent inquiry by Lord Justice Popplewell, the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 modified the 1975 Act and established a parallel system of safety certification for any stand at any sports ground with accommodation for 500 or more spectators.
The Football Spectators Act 1989, which followed the Heysel tragedy, created the Football Licensing Authority. The authority is charged with operating a licensing scheme for grounds at which designated matches are played, and also with keeping under review the discharge by local authorities of their functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 that I have already mentioned.
After the publication of Lord Justice Taylor's report into the Hillsborough disaster, the Football Licensing Authority was also charged with advising the Government on the introduction of all-seater accommodation at Football League grounds and the national stadiums. Following the Government's review last year of the all-seater policy, the authority was also charged with ensuring that any terracing retained by second and third division clubs of the Football League meets the necessary safety standards.
Together, these measures are intended to ensure that spectators at sports events, and in particular those attending football matches, receive the highest standards of safety to which they are surely entitled. They ensure that the needs of safety and security do not get out of balance, as they did at Hillsborough, and that there is no confusion about who is responsible for safety. They also ensure that football clubs themselves accept their responsibility for safety within their grounds and develop a safety culture that permeates their entire thinking right up to boardroom level.
562
The three statutory instruments form an integral part of this comprehensive legislative programme. Therefore, I shall make clear the purpose of the three orders that have been brought into force. As the House is aware, one was brought into force under the Safety of Sports Ground Act 1975, and the other two under the Football Spectators Act 1989. All three are essentially tidying-up measures.
Under section 1(1) of the Safety of Sports Grounds 1975 Act, the Secretary of State may designate as requiring a safety certificate issued by the local authority any sports ground with accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators at which football, rugby or cricket is played. Statutory instrument No. 2090 simply designates for that purpose the grounds of three Football League clubs—Millwall, Walsall and Wickham—which have recently relocated. It also removes from the list of designated grounds their former venues, which have been demolished.
Statutory instrument No. 1690 brought into force on 1 August this year section 9 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. This makes it an offence to admit spectators to watch a football match designated under the Act unless the premises where the match is played are licensed by the Football Licensing Authority. The aim of the licensing system is to ensure that clubs meet the Government's August 1994 deadline for all-seater accommodation at Premier League and first division football grounds.
Although the all-seater deadline is August 1994, the Government and the licensing authority shared the view that the introduction of licensing without conditions in 1993 would allow any problems with the process to be ironed out prior to the deadline, and would provide a signal of the Government's resolve on this issue.
Statutory instrument No. 1691 is also made under the 1989 Act with the purpose of amending the definition of a designated football match. Under section 10 of the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football Licensing Authority is charged with issuing licences to admit spectators to any premises for the purpose of watching any designated football match that is played there. The authority is also charged under section 13 of the 1989 Act with keeping under review the discharge by local authorities of their safety certification functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in relation to a sports ground at which designated football matches are played.
The order revokes the original definition of a designated football match contained in statutory instrument No. 731, 1990, and substitutes a simpler one. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) knows, the new definition excludes, for example, the more than 30 non-league grounds which, although designated as grounds requiring safety certificates under the 1975 Act, do not require the involvement of the Football Licensing Authority.
Therefore, the new definition is to be drawn tighter to catch only those football matches played at Premier League and Football League grounds. Consequently, the Football Licensing Authority is able to concentrate on those grounds to which the Government's post-Taylor safety policies apply.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde opened the debate rightly and understandably focused on the Government's requirement that football clubs in the Premier League and the first division should have all-seater stadiums by August 1994, or by three years after they are promoted to the first division, whichever is later.

563
As the House knows, the all-seater policy underwent comprehensive review in 1992. Interested organisations, including the football authorities, the police and supporters' groups, were consulted on a number of issues, one of which was the possibility of applying the all-seater policy according to average attendances or ground capacities. As the House will recall, following the review, the Government decided that, to focus resources more effectively on the area of greatest need, clubs in what are now the second and third divisions would be permitted to retain some terracing, provided it was safe.
Throughout Europe and much of the world, the benefits of all-seater stadiums are widely accepted. European football's ruling body, UEFA, has recently decided that grounds staging matches in the European championships and the three European club competitions must be all-seater by 1998. Already, all high-risk matches in continental Europe can be played only in front of all-seater crowds. Italy already has an all-seater legacy from the 1990 World cup, France is working towards UEFA's deadline as host for the 1998 World cup, and in Holland, premier division grounds must be all-seater by 1997.
The world football body, FIFA, banned terracing for the World cup finals in 1980 and for all qualifying rounds from 1992. Outside soccer, the Rugby Union grounds at Twickenham and Murray field will shortly be all-seater too.
I shall now deal with the issue of enforcing through the FLA all-seater stadiums. The mechanism for achieving that will be the licence granted by the Football Licensing Authority. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde properly spoke about clubs that may seek an extension to the deadline. The majority of clubs required to meet the deadline have either done so already or will do so very soon. However, I recognise that a minority of clubs face problems in meeting the deadline. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is dutifully in his place. No doubt he will wish to speak about these matters.
I assure the House that, in the course of the present season, the FLA will consult those clubs and their local authorities. On the basis of those consultations, it will recommend to the Government on a case-by-case basis whether an extension should be granted. It is possible that some strong arguments for extra time could be put by one or two clubs that are engaged in relocating to new sites, but the FLA has made it clear that it cannot consider requests for relaxation of the all-seater requirement unless it has clear evidence that the exemption will be for a strictly limited period, and that the club can realistically complete its relocation within a reasonable and definite time scale.
I recognise that some clubs may have encountered difficulties in obtaining planning permission, either for relocation or for the redevelopment of their existing grounds. In anticipation of that, the Department: of the Environment issued advice to local planning authorities in the form of planning policy guidance note No. 17 in 1991. However, the onus must be on the clubs themselves to develop realistic proposals in consultation with their local authorities. When the club and the local authority are in harness, the results can be spectacular. For example, the new stadium at Millwall went from concept to reality in less than two years.
I know that many hon. Members are concerned about the cost, to which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred, of implementing the all-seater policy. I remind the House of the considerable assistance provided
564
by the Government through the Football Trust and arising from the Chancellor's decision in 1990 to reduce the pools betting duty from 42.5 to 40 per cent. for a period of five years.
Around £20 million each year has been provided for soccer as a result of that concession. In March 1992, the Government announced that they would consider favourably the case for extending the concession for a further five years, provided that the football authorities and the clubs demonstrated that they would find a substantial share of the full costs. As hon. Members will recall, following a careful assessment of progress made to date and the nature of the work still required to be completed, the Government announced on 4 August this year that the concessions will be extended for a further five years—that is, until the year 2000.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised extremely important detailed points about Risley and the report from the Association of Chief Police Officers. If it is for the convenience of the House, I will answer those points when other hon. Members have had a chance to speak, and then I can draw all the matters of detail together. I hope that, in my opening remarks, I have made clear the complexity of the history of this important subject, the purpose of the statutory instruments and the seriousness with which the Government take the matter.
6.30 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister said, he missed the kick-off, but only by a moment or two and he has a perfectly sound excuse for doing so. He told the House that he had been engaged in discussion as to how the traditional Wednesday afternoons in universities and institutions of higher learning can be preserved for sporting purposes. With the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), I visited the Minister earlier this year and took part in an extremely constructive discussion. He encouraged me and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde by the positive response that he gave then and has done so again by his positive response this afternoon.
It is a long way from the days of the Football Spectators Bill. If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you had the honour and privilege of chairing the Committee that considered that Bill. I well remember the intemperate language in which some of the exchanges in that Committee were couched. I see that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is also a survivor of that Committee, is here. It is a measure of how far we have come since then that we can exchange observations on those matters in such a sober and civilised way. There was something of a frantic atmosphere at that stage, some of it engendered by anxiety over Hillsborough.
I also recall that Lord Justice Taylor's report arrived as a breath of sound common sense. Some hon. Members may remember that it was his response to the idea of identity cards for football supporters that was probably the most persuasive factor in convincing the Government that they should abandon that proposal. That showed a measure of sound common sense, to which I hope that they will continue to adhere.
In the matter of all-seater stadiums, I support the view expressed by the Minister rather than that expressed by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. However, if, as he

565
tells us, the technology has advanced, it would be only right and proper to consider the extent to which that has occurred. My only difficulty is that, as the Minister said, many clubs have already gone down that road and there might be problems if that process were put into reverse. Therefore, I suspect that, even if the technology is available in the terms being discussed, it might be something of an obstruction if we were to give too much credence to it. I have an open mind on the matter—I would not want the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde to think that my mind was closed. However, I am a supporter of all-seater stadiums.
The Government were right, and sensible, to take the view that they did on what used to be called the third and fourth divisions of the football league. The Minister spoke of clubs in the Premiership and first division which may not yet have achieved the necessary standards. I hope that he will encourage the Football Licensing Authority to be realistic in its approach. It would be easy for it to be unnecessarily rigid and draconian. Such an approach is bound to appeal to the mind of a licensing authority because the purpose of all this is to provide for safety. We should never forget that the safety of spectators is fundamental. If achieving safety means changing the culture of the game slightly, that is a price that I would be willing to pay.
Lord Justice Taylor's report provided a substantial blueprint for the way in which the game might develop. In particular, it is a pity that his trenchant observations about the attitude of the football authorities towards the fans have not been taken up rather more forcefully. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde pointed out, there are two national bodies and it might be for the benefit of football supporters and spectators if they came together and created one national federation, speaking with one voice.
The role of the spectator and the supporter is not yet one to which the football authorities give sufficient regard. If one is anxious to change the culture so that, for example, reports such as that about the rugby league match—to which reference has been made—could be made about football, that would best be done through the football supporters association. It is a matter of culture. Rugby league remains a sport firmly rooted in the culture of those who support it and are interested in it, in just the way that football is. The fans still sing "Abide with me" at rugby league finals, but one would not dare to sing it at the football cup final when, 40 or 50 years ago, it was as much a part of the proceedings as anything else.
Mr. John Fraser: It still is.
Mr. Campbell: I am delighted to hear that. I had understood that it had to be dropped because, on occasion, the nature of the participation in it was not particularly religious. If I am wrong, I am delighted to hear that.
Mr. Pendry: Do they not sing it in Scotland?
Mr. Campbell: No. They have not started to sing it at the Scottish cup final and it may be some time before they begin to do so. They are more interested in singing "Flower of Scotland".
Sir Peter Emery: It might be better if they did.
Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman is making a comment about Scottish fans, he should realise that it has become a matter of pride among Scottish fans going abroad that they behave themselves. Andy Roxburgh, the recently retired manager of the Scottish team, had a lot to do with that. He created a relationship between the team and the supporters who went abroad. The supporters were proud of going abroad and anxious to show that they could behave themselves when they did.
There has been a substantial improvement in football. It has become more of a family activity, more women go to matches and family enclosures have become part and parcel of the facilities at many grounds. In that sense, there has been a substantial improvement in the past five or 10 years, but there is more to be done. In a week when people have been arrested when allegedly supporting Manchester United abroad, we must realise that more needs to be done about that problem. I doubt whether it makes much difference to the reputation of the United Kingdom abroad, but such activity upsets the attitude of the ordinary law-abiding supporter who is unhappy about being described as a hooligan and being tarred with the same brush.
The honest, law-abiding supporter is therefore as much the victim of the activity of a few hooligans as is the game. We should do everything in our power to ensure that those whose interest is not in the game but in the amount of trouble and mayhem that they can create off the back of the game are dissuaded from supporting it.
This is a substantial issue of culture. I was thinking, as the debate unfolded, that there was terracing at Murrayfield for a long time and it was somewhere that one could go quite reasonably and in a relaxed fashion. However, a stage arose at which, as a result of the amount of drink that was being consumed outside and brought into the stadium, it became extremely uncomfortable to stand on the terracing at Murrayfield. The legislation that had the effect of banning the taking of alcohol into the ground had a remarkable impact upon behaviour. The difference was extraordinary.
Murrayfield has moved on to be an all-seater stadium. It has not been completed in time for the visit of the All Blacks in a fortnight or so, but in due course it will be an all-seater stadium. That seems to be an ideal towards which we should persuade football clubs to aim. Therefore, although I understand that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is anxious to allow for the possibility of standing, using new technology, I feel that the game will best be secured, and especially will more easily become a focus for families, if we continue to move as firmly as we have in the past to all-seater stadiums.
More has to be done in the interests of the ordinary football supporter. The Government can encourage that, but only the football authorities and the clubs can bring it about. If we give that encouragement here in the House by our support for measures which have the effect of giving a better deal to the supporter, I suspect that we shall do as much for the game as any piece of legislation can.
6.41 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I must first apologise to the House for having missed the kick-off of the debate. It has been rather difficult in the past 24 hours to form a judgment as to precisely when this match would take place. While the attendance is rather thin, and perhaps more in

567
keeping with what we might regard as a reserve fixture, the quality of what I have heard—and I hope the quality of the rest of the debate—will make up for the thin attendance.
I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss these matters, albeit in trying to negative what the Government have decided. Nevertheless, we do not get the chance to discuss football in the House as often as perhaps we should.
I must remind the House of my interest as the president of York City football club. Had the debate been timed four or five weeks ago, I might have been tempted to suggest that York City would be one of those clubs that might be facing the difficulty of moving from the second division to the first division at the end of the season because at that time we were about fourth equal in the second division, since when we have lost about four times on the trot and I do not think that we even scored a goal. Who knows; we might still be faced with the embarrassment of needing to consider how we should move to an all-seater stadium.
It would be difficult for us to achieve that, and it would be extremely expensive. None the less I think that, on balance, after the two or three years that we have spent arguing and discussing the issue, we have probably got it about right in saying that the Premier League and the first division clubs should have all-seater grounds, but that, in the second and third divisions, it makes sense to have standing available, certainly for the foreseeable future of the next five to 10 years. A great deal of money is needed to improve grounds throughout the country in all four divisions.
The one thing that appeals to me about all-seater grounds, especially for the bigger clubs where vie have bigger crowds, is the resulting improvement in crowd control. When the Home Affairs Select Committee considered the policing of football hooliganism, it came across strongly that troublemakers, standing in mass terracing, can easily move around and incite others to commit offences and cause trouble. It is much more difficult to achieve that if everyone has to sit down.
If any of us took the trouble to sit in the police control room at some of our big grounds we would notice the difference now. I think especially of Arsenal. I remember taking my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) to Arsenal when there were a lot of fans standing on the terraces behind the goals at both ends of the pitch. I think that it was a game against Sunderland. There was not a huge number of arrests; there was not a lot of trouble, but the pre-emptive policing enabled the police to stop the trouble.
The fact that these lads were able to move around was the real difficulty. Now that they have to pay £12 to £15 for a seat, they sit down and behave themselves. Although it is regrettable that some youngsters find it difficult to afford to get to matches quite as often—we are certainly noticing that in the gates at soccer grounds—we have successfully policed some of the trouble out by price and by making the fans feel much more part of the club, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said.
I make one other point regarding Arsenal football club. The difficulty with all-seater stadiums is how we segregate crowds when on match days people turn up at a big ground without a ticket and buy one off a tout. We have to tackle that problem. At Arsenal, because they could see that difficulty, they devised a scheme with the police at Highbury so that the tickets said that they may not be
568
resold without the express permission of Arsenal football club and that the football club had the right to refuse admission or to eject someone from the ground if the condition was breached.
On the first day, the police observed what was going on, they stopped some touts and told them that they believed that in selling the tickets without the permission of Arsenal football club the touts were committing the offence of deception under the Theft Act 1968. They have subsequently, on successive Saturdays, made arrests and that matter now rests with the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman may know that ticket touting is a subject about which I have been concerned for some time. Does he recall that the Taylor report expressly recommended that a criminal offence of ticket touting, I think within the environs of a ground within 12 hours before the kick-off, should be made a specific criminal offence?
Mr. Greenway: That is exactly right. I was coming to that in a second. I just want to finish off the point about Arsenal. I do not believe that it is for the House and for hon. Members, with the benefit of the privilege that we have on the Floor of the House, to put unnecessary pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is sitting on the Front Bench, which is extremely convenient. Were the arrangement that Arsenal and the police in north London have devised found to be satisfactory, it might avoid the need to have the type of ticket tout legislation which I know some hon. Members on both sides of the House think would create more difficulties than it would solve. I encourage the Minister to take an interest in the point and to see whether we cannot ensure that there is a prosecution.
It must be in the public interest to find out whether what Arsenal devised would actually work. It is extremely straightforward. If someone buys a ticket which states that it cannot be sold to anyone else without the express permission of the football club, and if the ticket is then sold on, it is quite clear that whoever buys it is not guaranteed entry to the ground. It is a deception and that principle should be tried and heard in a court of law.
Mr. Pendry: I have been following the hon. Gentleman. It was not just Lord Justice Taylor, but the Home Affairs Select Committee of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, made four recommendations in relation to legislation, three of which were accepted by the Government—racist or obscene shouting, throwing missiles and invasion of pitch.
The one recommendation that the Government have not enacted applies to ticket touting. I have asked the Prime Minister on a number of occasions when he planned to do something about it and he said that he would when parliamentary time allowed.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Whether it takes the form of the Arsenal scheme or some other, the Government should address such an important problem.
Mr. Greenway: Both Opposition Members have made the point that there have been numerous recommendations that ticket touting should be abolished. I would simply say to my hon. Friend that a reasonable quid pro quo for the Premier League and first division clubs taking the initiative

569
and grasping the nettle and making the grounds all-seater, should be the recognition that this creates a problem with segregation.
The ticket touts are an absolute menace. They are telling people outside Finsbury Park tube station, "This game is sold out and you cannot get a ticket," yet there will be 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 tickets on sale at the football ground on the day of the match. It has to be stopped. It certainly will not help to ensure the safety, comfort and peaceable enjoyment of a football match by other spectators if, because of the lack of segregation caused by this problem, we see violence erupting in our stands. That is not what we want.
Sir Peter Emery: Given the agreement across the Floor of the House, even if the Government take no action, we are coming up to the stage when new private Member's legislation will be introduced, and such a measure would fit very well into a private Member's Bill.
Mr. Greenway: Perhaps one or two of us who have an interest in these matters might be fortunate enough to come high enough in the private Members' ballot.
If the arrangement which Arsenal has made with the police were properly tested in a court of law and found to be satisfactory, we might find a way of dealing with touts without having to create more public order offences, as a complete ban on ticket touts might envisage.
I shall not take up too much time, but it is important that we keep faith with clubs which have taken the initiative on the all-seater issue and responded to the Government's decision.
I have been to two or three all-seater grounds this season. They are absolutely marvellous and the fans appreciate that they can enjoy the game in much greater comfort than in the past. In time, supporters will get used to the fact that they have to sit down and not stand up.
Finally, let me move on to the second and third division clubs. There is a danger that, in concentrating on making the Premier League and first division club grounds all-seater in such a relatively short time, we could be lulled into thinking that the need for significant resources to improve soccer grounds is at an end. That is not the case. My regular Saturday afternoon with York City involves going to the poorer places. We need to spend many hundreds of millions of pounds improving those grounds. The clubs already find it extremely difficult to make ends meet even without incurring capital expenditure on building new stands.
I shall make two final points. My hon. Friend may not like this, but we have to be aware of the potential effects of the lottery on pools income. Without the Football Trust, we could not have paid for all the improvements to the smaller grounds.
Let me talk for a moment about York City. One of our players, David Longhurst, died on the pitch. We launched an appeal for a new stand in his name. Basically, it is a roof over the popular end of the ground, which has made a huge difference to supporters. We could not have done that without a significant contribution from the Football Trust. We have just built a new family stand in front of half the main stand and we would like to build in front of the other half. York City football club cannot do it without the help
570
of the trust. There are many more clubs in a similar position, so I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that resources will continue to be available to make improvements.
As I go round the country watching football, I detect a new spirit within the game. It is sad that our national English side has not performed as well as we would have liked and, barring a miracle, is unlikely to play in the World cup. That is one headline which makes the future of football look less certain. Let me assure my hon. Friend that there is a good spirit throughout the game and improvements are being made. We need to continue to be flexible and ensure that the Football Licensing Authority responds to the individual needs of clubs.
I am quite convinced that with the good will and the continuing support of the Government and both sides of the House we shall see our national game move into a bright future through the rest of this century and into the next one.
6.56 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: Before we go ahead with the orders and consider all the bright plans for new subsidies—like the ones to the farmers—for the clubs, registers of ticket touts and identity cards for everyone, we should ensure that the regulations take account of the real problems of real clubs.
At a rather bleak time for English football, I want to mention Southend United football club. It is a rather remarkable club. When I became the Member of Parliament for Southend some 13 years ago, the club was at the bottom of the fourth division. Now it is near the top of the first division and likely to be in the Premier League next year. It is a remarkable success story. I am not claiming personal credit for it in any way, although I attend games regularly.
It is run not by a crowd of rascals, but by super people. Vic Jobson, the chairman, not only runs a good football club in a businesslike way; he also ensures that the club pays huge attention to its social obligations. A social club for young people in Southend has been established off Eastern avenue to give them the advantage of playing football and other sports.
Only last week, we heard of the club's plan to take over the Kursaal in Southend, which used to be a great social centre. They are going to make it a drug-free area. It is a good club run by exciting people. It has had fantastic success.
However, Southend United football club has had plans for many years to build a super new stadium instead of the present Roots Hall stadium in the centre of the town. The club has been desperately anxious to do it, but has not been able to go ahead.
First, it sought permission for a new ground at Southend airport where there is plenty of land, but, as the Minister is well aware, since, like me, he has moved to the south of England, unfortunately everybody objects to everything. If there is the possibility of a car or anything that might take an extra pound off the value of a house or the slightest possibility of any inconvenience, people want to oppose it.
There was massive opposition to the airport development, so Southend United suggested Eastern avenue, a nice open place not far from my own home. It would be an ideal place for a new stadium and linked sports facilities for the whole community. That attracted objections from some people.

571
Southend borough council had an exciting new plan from developers to build a supermarket. We have many other supermarkets in Southend, but the council offered a planning gain of some exciting facilities nearby. Unfortunately, that did not happen. In desperation, the club then asked the local community, the Football League and everybody else, including the Minister, "We want to build a new stadium, but is there anywhere in the world that we can build it?"
Happily, after a great deal of discussion it was put to the club that there was a lovely site in Sutton road, next to the cemetery and an industrial site. Rather reluctantly, the club agreed to spend a great deal of money building what it wanted to be an exciting new ground. Unfortunately, as the Minister is well aware, the site is also next to a place called Rochford—another delightful residential area near Southend. Yet again, everyone objected for all sorts of reasons—including a local farmer who thought that there might be a possibility of making more money from having a new road constructed through the area. One of the most interesting aspects of life in Southend is how the farmers —a group whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) represents so enthusiastically—appear to be so interested in new road developments.
That plan for the club went down the chute and, again in desperation—and despite its deep commitment to Southend and its huge support there—the club thought about going to a place called Basildon, which is not far from Southend. As we know, Basildon is a rather unusual place in many respects—but a rather lovely place, too. It is represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament. The club entered into long discussions, but, sad to say, it appeared that Basildon did not want it.
Southend's present ground is rather unusual—it is built on an old rubbish dump, which makes matters rather difficult. The stand in which I sit tends to sink about 3 in every year. While we are waiting to proceed with a new ground, bright ideas keep coming from the Minister, who says that the club has to do lots of things. We already have the stand where I tend to sit and also a new stand—built at huge expense—for families so that wives and children can happily attend matches. There are also a large number of new facilities. Each new entrance that has to be built because of the Taylor report causes great anxiety. There is also a small area where people can stand.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, in introducing all the bright new regulations saying that clubs have to do such and such by a certain time, he should remember that some clubs that are successful, vigorous, enthusiastic and have the support of the local community find doing those things impossible. What do they do if they cannot do those things? What do we do with a club that says, "We have tried everything. We are even prepared to go to Basildon, which is quite something, but we cannot get permission to go. What are we meant to do?" The Government are telling it to spend more and more money on its present site, which is on top of a rubbish dump. That is very sad.
My second point, which is very important, is to question why my hon. Friend the Minister says that we cannot provide a space for people to stand. I do not understand it. We hear about alleged safety considerations, but. having studied reports of the great disasters, I very much doubt whether standing facilities would create a special problem.
572
The facility could be provided within the safety considerations. Safety men are posted at almost every part of the ground.
Because of the Taylor report, there is also a huge police force at the ground. They are delightful people, but we can scarcely move for policemen and horses. It really does not promote law and order when policemen are standing all around the ground looking into the crowd and policemen and horses are outside the ground where people park their cars. Sometimes, that is not conducive to creating what might be called the "appropriate situation". Of course, the club also has its own security staff.
Why on earth do the Government want to do away with standing room? Southend has a small area put aside for that. My boys like to go there because there is a different atmosphere and it is cheaper. Are we to make football matches a middle-class pastime for those who can afford to pay £12 or £15 a ticket? A large number of people cannot afford that much these days, so they will not go to matches.
Finally, I want to talk about the possibility of further legislation and appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister not to introduce any. We do not need new laws and new restrictions. Almost everywhere I look, new quangos, new boards, new councils and new commissions are being established. It must stop. It is the sort of action that we used to expect Labour Governments to take.
If there is to be a register of ticket touts, no doubt that will require a huge office. Officials will want to hold consultations, to fly to Europe, to employ consultants and to have photopasses for everyone. What is the point of establishing a register to stop ticket touts operating outside a football ground when they will simply go down the road and operate in the pub? New legislation would be mad.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to introduce any new laws or to set up any new committees. I want him to think about the effect on some clubs that are success stories. Southend is having to spend a fortune on an old ground because it cannot move to the exciting new ground that it wants.
I know the new Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat)—because he comes from Scotland. He is a vigorous, enthusiastic and committed politician. He likes to get things done and he has a superb reputation for integrity, vision and all the other attributes that make a good Minister. I make one minor plea to him—will he come to Southend, visit Roots Hall and meet Vic Jobson and the board? He could then also meet the wonderful players, who are some of the nicest people in the world.
There is a danger—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must be aware of it, because you have to listen to so many debates—that everything now involves new rules, new regulations, new boards, new commissions and people running here and there. I ask my hon. Friend to remember that football is a spectator game, which the players enjoy playing. Introducing so many new rules and regulations creates the danger that something very important could be destroyed.
I hope that my hon. Friend can give me one simple assurance. I appreciate that he has a busy timetable with a great many important meetings to attend and consultants to see. No doubt a great many civil servants want to put new ideas to him. I ask him to come to Roots Hall. I promise him that he will see a great game. He will also see some of the very serious problems that decent, respectable, successful clubs are having to face because of the crazy

573
insistence on rushing everything through by a certain date. There can be special problems. With such an excellent Minister, I hope that the Government will concentrate on having rather less regulation, fewer committees, fewer controls and more common sense.
7.6 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in one proposition, but disagree with him in another. On the question of ticket touting, there would be little disagreement throughout the country that it is infuriating when people who do not have tickets for a match are exploited by touts and often sent to the wrong part of the ground. We should not have to rely on a private Member's Bill to deal with the problem. There will be a criminal justice Bill in the next Session and it would be relatively easy to include a couple of clauses to outlaw ticket touting, in line with the recommendations that have been made.
We need to speak up for those who believe that standing at football matches is enjoyable. It is probably a losing battle, but if we can preserve a degree of standing I should welcome that, for two reasons. First, we are losing the choral capacity of the crowd. When we attend a performance of the Messiah, people do not sit down to sing the big choruses; they stand up. Without standing room at football matches, we will lose the choral capacity—the group wit—that is one of the redeeming and enjoyable parts of attending a football match.
Secondly, there is a family issue. We cannot any longer, at short notice—as I have done at Crystal Palace—get together one's sons, daughters, boyfriends and so on to attend a match when there is no standing room. With seats, one would be in one part, one in another and the two with season tickets would be together. The family atmosphere —the bringing together of people in response to a run of popularity or a highlight match—is no longer possible. I might be in the minority, but, subject to safety standards, it is my view that many people believe that standing at matches can be enjoyable, safe, worth while and family based.
7.8 pm
Mr. Sproat: A number of extremely important points have been raised in the debate, and I will do my best to cover as many as I can in the short time remaining.
First—very appropriately with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is the question of rugby league, which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) mentioned on behalf of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I know that the hon. Member for Wakefield wished to speak yesterday, but I understand that he is in his constituency today. Rugby league could not have a more persistent or persuasive champion than the hon. Member for Wakefield.
I am acutely conscious of the problem of rugby league grounds. Simply stated, all problems of crowd control arose from soccer. Soccer is getting a great deal of financial help to pay for its crowd control problems, but there are no problems of crowd control in rugby league, and rugby league is getting very little financial assistance to help make its stadiums comply with the standards of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.
574
I am aware of the problem and I will do everything that I can to help. I have agreed to meet the chairman of the Rugby League, Mr. Walker, and the chief executive, Mr. Maurice Lindsay, to see whether more money can be made available. Wakefield rugby club received £100,000 from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, but that club alone needs something like half a million pounds to meet safety standards. It is a very serious financial problem, but I will do everything I can to help. I ask the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, to pass on my comments to the hon. Member for Wakefield.
I attended the first international between Great Britain and the Kiwis. It was a terrific occasion, attended by 36,000 people, and there was no sign of trouble anywhere. If we can raise the behaviour of association football supporters to half that level, we will have done a good job. I pay great tribute to the way in which rugby league supporters follow their marvellous sport.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde asked whether I would consider any new suggestions with an open mind. I certainly will. The particular suggestion that he was considering was the NNC system of crush barriers. I should be interested to see how the Risley system works. Perhaps he could arrange for me to see it, and accompany me on my visit. The Risley system, or any system like it, has potential applications outside football and maybe for football as well, so I shall certainly want to look at it.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised the subject of communications between stewards and the police, and referred to Mr. Malcolm George and the 1992 report of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The report gives good, detailed guidance and goes into detail about such matters as who should tell a referee to stop a match in cases of riot. It is an excellent report and it may assist the House if I arrange for a copy of it to be laid in the Library, where anyone who is interested in this subject can read it.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised san extremely important point about increasing the involvement of supporters in soccer clubs. That has many ramifications. It is difficult when there are two groups representing supporters—I think that the House is agreed on that—and I should welcome new ideas about how we can involve supporters more.
There is a lot of feeling in the country at large that supporters of soccer clubs often find themselves treated not too well, and big money counts for more than they do. I am thinking, for example, of clubs changing kits every season and supporters having to buy new kits which cost as much as £50. Supporters ought to be consulted more and if any hon. Member has any ideas as to how that can be done, I should be interested to hear them.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) was concerned about Wednesday afternoons at universities, and I am 100 per cent. behind what he proposes. I am determined to see that university sport does not die out because it is played at different times at different universities and no proper fixture list can be drawn up. I also agree with his remarks about how the law-abiding soccer supporter is tarnished, most unfairly, with the reputation that the hooligans have given to the game.
I do not have a great deal of time left; if I had, I would agree with other hon. Members about the pleasures of standing. I also stood at Murrayfield, and have stood at various football grounds around the country. I agree with

575
the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about the pleasures of standing, but, unfortunately, safety has to come first—hence the emphasis that we have put on the provision of all-seater stadiums in the premier league and the first division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave an interesting example of how Arsenal is dealing with ticket touts. I agree that the Government should look at that idea carefully and I undertake to do so. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to have some further discussions with me to make sure that I have not missed some of the important details of this interesting scheme.
As for legislation, that is a matter for the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will not like this part of my remarks, but I understand that the Home Office is keen to bring in a law as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
The other important point of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was about the effect on the pools industry of the national lottery. The pools industry finances the Football Trust, which enables so many grounds to make the improvements necessary for all-seaterisation, if I can use a ghastly word. The judgment of the House is that the pools will not be badly affected. We should not guess at that, but monitor the situation carefully, see what happens and, if necessary, return to the subject. That is the straightforward way to deal with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is extremely knowledgeable about these matters, and I have discussed with him many of the problems facing Southend United recently, particularly the problem with the planning authorities. My hon. Friend invited me to take account of the real problems of real clubs. He made an important point which went to the heart of the matter. The real problem for successive Governments arose from tragedies such as
576
Ibrox, Bradford and Hillsborough. It was Lord Justice Taylor's conclusion that all-seater stadiums were the best single way of dealing with hooliganism, although not a panacea. I should be very interested to visit Southend and to see its splendid pier and splendid football club, but I can discuss that with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber.
I have dealt with the point about touts that was raised by the hon. Member for Norwood. On his point about standing, I share his nostalgic but practical view about families, but the Government's policy is as stated and, as he said, standing is a romantic notion which we may have to turn our backs on.
I invite the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde to say a few closing words.
7.17 pm
Mr. Pendry: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly.
This has been all too short a debate, as sports debates usually are, but it has been constructive. I thank the Minister for dealing positively with some of the points that have been put to him.
I should like to go to Risley with the Minister. The supporters association will hear what he has said; that is good news, and many of us can add to that particular input into the Minister's thinking. I am pleased that Malcolm George's report will be in the Library for all to see.
The world has moved on since the Taylor report. British technology is recognised as the best in the world for crowd safety. Lord Justice Taylor said in his report that complacency is the enemy of safety, and that must be remembered. I hope that the Minister will have an open mind about many of these issues.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Parliamentary Questions
7.18 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure on Parliamentary Questions (House of Commons Paper No. 687).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the permission of the House, that motion will be taken with the next on the Order Paper:
That Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) be amended—
in line 11, by leaving out "written or priority" and inserting "or";
in line 12, at the end, by inserting "and a Member may indicate a date for answer of a question for written answer in accordance with paragraph (4) of this order"; and
in line 14, by leaving out "priority written answer" and inserting "written answer on a named day".
Mr. Newton: The bonhomie that seems to pervade the Chamber this evening is in marked contrast to the situation 24 hours ago, when I announced that we were to debate the messages from another place on the Railways Bill. I prefer tonight's atmosphere, and I hope that I carry the House with me in that. Apart from that event, the past couple of days have had something of an incestuous air, as we come to discuss yet another aspect of our own affairs.
I will refer also to the second motion in my name on the Order Paper, which gives effect to various technical amendments to Standing Order No. 18 that are consequential on the House's approval of the Committee's report.
This is the first occasion on which the House has had an opportunity to debate a report from the Procedure Committee, which was re-established in December 1992. As in previous Parliaments, the Committee sits under the distinguished chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), to whom I pay tribute for the immense interest and diligence with which he and his colleagues have over a long period pursued matters relating to the procedures of the House.
The topic that we are debating this evening originates in a report from the Committee towards the end of the last Parliament, which contained 24 recommendations covering aspects of the arrangements for questions and the rules of order governing them.
The Government's response said that we had a number of reservations about some of the recommendations—in particular, the proposal to reduce the maximum period of notice for oral questions from 10 to five sitting days. The Committee re-examined those points again and has presented in its new report a statesmanlike compromise —as I would expect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton—on most of the points of disagreement that the Government, who in this context mean me, in my equally statesmanlike manner, are prepared to accept. On that basis, the Government ask the House to approve the new report as a whole.
If my right hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may want to say something about the details of the Committee's report. I will say a few words about the practical effect of the motion. Most of the Committee's
578
recommendations can be implemented administratively under Madam Speaker's authority, but a number need the approval of the House.
The first of those is the ration for oral questions. Under the rules adopted in 1972, each right hon. or hon. Member is allowed up to eight oral questions on the Order Paper. Under the new system of printing many fewer oral questions, that limit has become redundant, and should now be dropped.
The rules also provide that not more than two oral questions per Member may appear on the Order Paper for answer on any one day. That limit only has any practical application on Mondays, when a number of different Ministers—I will not call them minor Departments, since mine is one of them—answer questions after 10 minutes past 3 o'clock. The Committee recommended that that limit should be retained and that in future, no more than two oral questions per Member per day should be tabled.
The second matter is priority written questions. The Committee expressed concern—which the Government fully share, and which I personally have felt for some time —about the possible misuse of priority written questions. The Committee reminded the House that
"the priority marking should be used sparingly and selectively"
and that
"the earliest permitted date should be reserved for those questions to which an urgent answer is genuinely required".
The change in the symbol for a priority written question from W to P had some effect on reducing the number of questions that are tabled for priority answer through inadvertence, but the Committee feels that further measures ought to be adopted. It proposes that questions marked P should be treated as priority written questions only if they carry a specific valid date for answer, as opposed to some vague wording such as "earliest date" or "as soon as possible".
The Government accept that recommendation and have accordingly brought forward a Standing Order amendment —the next motion on the Order Paper—to change the name of priority written questions to
"questions for written answer on a named day".
The third point requiring the endorsement of the House is the Committee's recommendation relating to campaigns. There have been occasions when individuals or organisations outside the House have sought to secure the tabling of large numbers of disorderly or badly drafted questions, many of which repeat attempts previously disallowed. The Committee's report describes one such episode in a particularly effective paragraph.
In 1971, Mr. Speaker Lloyd dealt with that problem by authorising the Table Office to refuse to accept any further questions that were recognisable as emanating from a particular individual. The Committee believes that, where the facts of the case justify it, the Speaker should be able to take similar action in the future. By approving the motion, the House will be offering Madam Speaker its support in taking any such steps if she thinks it appropriate to do so. In my judgment, to curb abuse in that way is to uphold the rights of right hon. and hon. Members rather than to diminish them.
I will refer briefly to three other matters. A number of the Committee's recommendations, such as those relating to blocks, are designed to allow questions to be tabled that at present must be refused by the Table Office. I must make it clear to the House that accepting that recommendation does not mean that Ministers will feel obliged to answer

579
them. The Government have, for example, no intention of relaxing the rules relating to the confidentiality of collective decision-making.
Mr. David Winnick: As to the blocking system, does the Leader of the House agree that it is for Ministers to decide whether or not to answer particular questions? We should attempt to lessen the policing role performed by the Table Office. It exists to help right hon. and hon. Members and does so, but it should avoid being seen—albeit wrongly—as the custodian or guardian of Ministers. If a Minister does not want to answer a question repeatedly asked by a right hon. or hon. Member, that should be left entirely up to the Minister concerned.
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge that, at the end of i.he day, it must be for individual Ministers to decide the answers they give, and whether they give a substantive answer at all. The Government's position on the report and the remarks that have just made are much in line with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's point.
The quaintly termed "Mayor of Sligo" rule has until now prevented one hon. Member from tabling questions about a Minister's communications with another hon. Member. Following the Committee's recommendations, the Government agree that, when a Minister answers a question to the effect that he or she will write to the hon. Member concerned, the reply will also state that a copy of the reply will be placed in the Library and so made available to other Members of Parliament, unless overriding reasons of confidentiality—such as might arise in a personal social security case—make that action inappropriate.
The Committee concluded with observations about answers "pursuant" to previous answers—which, BS I well know, have occasionally caused some disturbance in the House and to the Chair. The Government welcome the Committee's recognition that there can be a place for "pursuant" answers where that is the best way to give information to the House quickly, and we accept the Committee's view that a pursuant answer that does not relate to the original answer must be out of order.
The Committee has brought forward a useful and practical series of recommendations. I thank again my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton arid his Committee—a number of whose members are present in the Chamber--for their work. I am sorry that it has taken a fair time to get around to presenting this motion, but I hope that its arrival gives satisfaction to my right hon. Friend, and that the House will be content to approve this and the ensuing motion.
7.28 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I join the Leader of the House in thanking the Committee for its work and its report, and the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for his chairmanship and for publishing the Committee's thorough and detailed review in the form of the document before the House.
The Leader of the House is exhibiting uncharacteristic signs of self-pity today. Yesterday's events must have had a deeper and more scarring effect on him than I tthought possible in someone whom I had always deemed robust.
Mr. Newton rose—
Mr. Brown: I was just about to say something nice about the right hon. Gentleman, but I willingly give way to him.
Mr. Newton: The last thing I want to do is stop the hon. Gentleman saying something nice about me. I cavil slightly at his use of the word "self-pity". I merely thought that the House did not do itself much good last night.
Mr. Brown: The Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."[It is a little early in my speech to apologise. All I have done so far is thank the Committee for its work, make special mention of its Chairman and try to say something nice about the Leader of the House. Despite that, I hear cries of "apologise" from the Government Benches. I know that the Conservative party is going through difficult times at the moment, but apologies would be excessive.
I thank the Leader of the House for finding time for a debate on an important report and on the Government's response to it. As its members will know, the Procedure Committee published further reports—on the unified Budget, on private Members' Bills and on the timing of Divisions. The House will want to debate those reports in due course.
I make a plea to the Leader of the House for an opportunity to debate the reports and the Government's response to them. It would be helpful if we had an opportunity to debate in particular the second report on the unified Budget at an early stage after the Queen's Speech —and before 30 November.
The Procedure Committee's second report covered two key matters. The Opposition believe that the Government behaved irresponsibly by including legislation on those matters in the Finance (No. 2) Act 1993 before the report had been published, much less considered by the House. If the reports are to have any value, they should form the basis of an informed debate and then of decision-making. The House should not be presented with decision-making first and an examination of the matter afterwards.
Happily, the Procedure Committee's first report is not blighted in such a way. The Committee was right to re-examine matters which may not have seemed controversial—indeed, to which it decided to recommend no change—as well as one or two more contentious issues. Parliamentary questions are an important part of our system of parliamentary democracy. The continued effective functioning of those matters requires periodic review and constant vigilance.
Without re-examining every issue considered by the Committee, I should like to raise a number of issues that arise from its work and from the motions.
First, I hope that the timing of the shuffle for oral questions will be kept under review, and that the argument for deferment, until at least 6 pm, will remain under consideration as an alternative. It is far harder for hon. Members whose constituencies lie outside the home counties to deal with local pressures on their time and remain in the House on Fridays and Mondays.
Although the Committee has not recommended any change, I gleaned from its report that it understands the issue and that it is willing to keep it under review. It referred to the difficulty experienced by Welsh Members, with Welsh questions being tabled on Mondays.
On open questions to Departments, the report's suggestion that the request for the date of a Minister's next

581
meeting with a person or organisation should be accompanied by an indication of the potential subject of discussion seems fair. That recommendation strikes an appropriate balance and, to a great extent, deals with the argument for reducing the maximum number of tabling days for oral questions from 10 to five sitting days.
The best way to proceed would be to give that suggestion a chance to work. I support the Committee's recommendation. It has got the balance right in a well-considered way. I share the Government's reservations about immediately taking the more radical step of reducing the number of tabling days from 10 to five, because of the attendant difficulties with that proposal.
The Committee rightly rejects the introduction of rationing or quotas for written questions, and it sensibly points out that the indiscriminate use of priority written questions often leads to many holding replies.
The House should ensure that adequate copies of a booklet setting out the "dos" and "don'ts" of hon. Members' responsibilities for research assistants are available, giving formal guidelines rather than only a general call for good conduct. I took particular note of the Government's endorsement of the Committee's comments on research assistants, especially in the context of campaigning, although I notice that the Government made no mention of civil servants in the same context.
We must be careful about this matter. I understand and fully share the Committee's desire to prevent abuses, but such matters should be judged against objective criteria. In any event, if the Government answered parliamentary questions fully, frankly and truthfully in the first place, aggrieved Members would not feel the same need to campaign.
The section of the report on the questioning of ministerial statements made outside Parliament is clearly right. I strongly support the Committee's findings, because hon. Members should object to significant ministerial statements, especially those giving new information, being made outside the House. If Ministers have something new to say, this is the place to say it. As they do not always do that, it is right that we should be able to question them.
The Committee singled out chief executives of the next steps agencies for special mention. I strongly support its recommendation that Members of Parliament be given the benefit of the doubt, no matter how small it may be, when tabling questions to Ministers about the work of the agencies.
Substantial structural changes have been made in the last decade as a result of Government policy. Parliament should still be able to explore the functioning of those agencies, for which, perhaps, it has indirect responsibility. In addition, the Table Office should give Members the benefit of the doubt in such matters, and the Procedure Committee should stand up for the rights of Members.
My final point is on the use of written statements pursuant to earlier answers—a ministerial scam for making announcements as discreetly as it is possible to do in Parliament. Madam Speaker haso rightly deprecated this practice. I deprecate the practice, as does the Committee.
Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend recall that Madam Speaker made her remarks because of the way in which the Secretary of State for Health announced a prescription increase in response to a question that had nothing
582
whatever to do with prescription charges? Was not that an unfortunate, and some would say disgraceful, abuse that should not happen again?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has picked the worst and most slippery example, but similar examples have emanated from the Ministry of Defence. Procurement announcements inconvenient to the Ministry—I can certainly think of one that was close to my heart—slip out in such a way. It is not right that they should do so. If Ministers have anything to say, no matter how difficult it is, they should say it to the House and not try to evade questioning by other Members of Parliament.
The report is a thorough study of the issues. It is welcome, and in welcoming it I do not lose sight of the fact that the Leader of the House has allowed us to debate it. He has clearly taken note of the Committee's deliberations, to which the Government have responded fairly. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the Committee's next two reports, especially the more controversial one on the unified Budget process.
7.38 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for the kind things that they said about me, although any thanks should be directed to the whole Committee which did most of the work and did it extremely well. I am most grateful to all the members of the Committee for their attendance to discuss what were not always scintillating, newsworthy or publicity-gathering issues. However, all members did their work thoroughly and I wish to ensure that they are also thanked.
After such a nice start to the debate, it may seem slightly unfair to be rather scathing about the Government. My right hon. Friend referred to the Government's reply to our report. Cmnd. 687 appeared in June this year, but the reply refers to Cmnd. 178 which dates back not to June this year, last year or even the year before, but to May 1991. Perhaps I might echo the advice given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and suggest that we debate the reports rather more quickly than has been the case.
The 1991 report was the first wide-ranging investigation of rules governing parliamentary questions since 1972. It was clearly right, after 20 years, to deal with the issue. It would be fair to say that the Committee considered not only the mechanics of parliamentary questions but the rules restricting what can be asked.
The recommendations are not revolutionary, but they are designed to make the machinery work slightly more smoothly, to modernise some of the rules and make them more beneficial to Members in pursuing their own work. They remove a number of minor irritants and make a worthwhile contribution to the continuation of the effective scrutiny of Government policy and actions, a role which I hope the Procedure Committee will always play, although it is not always popular with Governments.
Sir Michael Marshall: I rise with diffidence as I am a new member of the Procedure Committee. However, I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the House that I find the report wholly worthy of support even though I was not one of its authors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report also encourages one to consider further matters that,

583
inevitably, it cannot fully cover itself? I refer especially to questions on statements. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that some hon. Members are worried about the lack of documentation available when questions are asked on oral statements. That is but one example of what the Committee should investigate in the future—I put in my bid.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend. I agree entirely and welcome him to the Committee. He has considerable experience of the House and, as the president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, he has seen the workings of many other Parliaments. He is therefore an excellent addition to the Committee. The Procedure Committee is turning its attention to the distribution of documents. The issue is not covered directly in the report, but I do not think that I shall be out of order if I say that it is something to which we shall be putting our minds in the immediate future.
The report deals with the machinery of parliamentary questions and the timing of the shuffle—we shall certainly bear in mind the suggestion about Mondays. It also covers the period of notice for oral questions. I am sorry that the Government could not go along with our suggestion immediately. I believe that it is the civil servants rather than Ministers who are the greatest objectors to moving in that direction. We were trying to make parliamentary questions more topical. If they were tabled only one week in advance rather than two, they would have greater topicality. The Leader of the House has dealt with the rationing of oral questions and the matter of open questions, but there is one matter that has not been mentioned.
The report refers in passing to bogus points of order. I hope that the House welcomes the strength with which Madam Speaker has dealt with them recently. Hon. Members who pursue bogus points of order take up the time and take away the rights of those hon. Members who wish to proceed with proper business.
We recommended that it should be permitted for discussions between Departments to be commented on, but it was not our intention to do away with absolute confidentiality. No Government—not even a Liberal Government—would want to discard Cabinet and ministerial confidentiality; it would be impossible to do so.
The report also tried to cover statements made outside Parliament, the internal affairs of other countries, suggested amendments to Bills, campaigns, Government achievements, the nationalised industries and executive agencies. Where necessary, we tried to bring the rules covering such issues up to date.
I am glad that the Government have seen fit to accept our second report. In my cynicism, I must point out that the Committee produced it within eight weeks of receiving the Government's comments, which had taken 25 months. We hope that we can offer the same service to the Government in the future.
Implementation of one of the Committee's recommendations would require certain changes to Standing Order No. 18. The Government were not only willing to accept that, but, in the hope that the House would approve it, they have specifically recommended those changes.
Finally, it was interesting to me and, I think, to the Committee that, when we invited hon. Members to submit evidence to us, there was a very poor response. Clearly, there was no widespread dissatisfaction in the House.
584
Our recommendations should not lead to an increase in the volume of parliamentary questions. The House gets through very many questions—I do not query whether they are justified—and we should not want to increase that number. We stress that answers must remain entirely the responsibility of Ministers.
May I detain the House one moment more and respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East? The Government have now received our report on the unified Budget. We make some simple but positive recommendations. We recommend that the motion dealing with finances and borrowing should be clearly understood. That is essential in a modern Parliament. Our aim was to improve some of the rather archaic procedures involved in Budget resolutions, which I do not believe that one in 10 hon. Members or one in 1,000 people outside the House understand. The motion should be understood not only in the House but outside.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to deal with this issue before the Budget. I do not want us to drift into a discussion of the unified Budget in the same way as we dealt with the old Budget in April. If that is the case, we are likely to be back under the old structure without any new or modern thinking.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing the Chairman of the Procedure Committee to be so out of order by referring to a subject which is not part of this debate. I have made my point. I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for this debate and for his co-operation with the Committee when we deal with matters in general.
7.49 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) because that enables me, first, to pay my tribute to the way in which he leads our Committee and, secondly, to add to what he has just said.
It is rather extraordinary that the Select Committee on Procedure, which has a special role in reporting back to the whole House and a special responsibility to look after the interests of Back Benchers and minority parties, has no say in the priority given to the consideration of its reports. Therefore, I wholly endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Honiton about the urgent need for the whole House to consider our report on the unified Budget.
There are only eight sitting days left before the Budget is presented to us. It would surely be absurd if we were not to take advantage of the careful advice of the Select Committee on Procedure on the unified Budget.
Although I realise that I must not stray too far, with regard to the priority attached to the report that we are debating tonight, I endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Honiton about the Government's long digestive process before allowing us the opportunity to debate Committee recommendations in the House.
Although the matter does not lie entirely in the hands of the Leader of the House, I hope that his digestion is working rather more speedily with regard to the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House chaired by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). That report is also extremely important.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that he is well out of order. He should return to the motion before the

585
House. I have been tolerant because my voice is not as good as it was yesterday. It would be helpful to the Chair if the hon. Gentleman would return to the motion before us.
Mr. Tyler: I am trying to relate the priority that we attach to this report to previous reports.
Although I cannot speak for all members of the Procedure Committee, I think that it would be fair to say that we all recognise that we will return to the matter of parliamentary questions time and again. As the right hon. Member for Honiton said, questions have been discussed in the Procedure Committee and in the House on previous occasions. There must be constant vigilance and the situation is evolutionary. Within the time frame of the discussion of this report, there have been changes.
As an example of a topical point, I asked the Leader of the House a question about parliamentary questions:
"who is responsible for deciding the maximum permissible cost of answering a written parliamentary question; if that cost is different for different Departments; and how often that amount is reviewed."
Very courteously, as always, the Leader of the House replied:
"If an answer to any written question is likely to cost more than £450—the current cost threshold, calculated by the Treasury—the answering Minister will decide whether to refuse to answer on the ground of disproportionate cost, or whether to answer it whole or in part regardless of cost. This threshold, which applies to all Departments, is reviewed annually."—[Official Report, 25 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 425.]
Although the Procedure Committee's report does not refer to that specific issue, it is an example of the kind of subject that we must return to regularly in this House. It is curious that the Government are judge, jury and plaintiff when deciding how to apply those criteria. We do not know how they are applied, although the Leader of the House was kind enough to give me some idea in his reply. Perhaps the House should have a say in that and it may be a subject to which the Procedure Committee will have to return.
The purpose of questions can be very wide. They may genuinely seek information, just as an answer might involve carefully avoiding the provision of information. As we are all aware from the bear pit section of the daily order of business, questions can involve sparring and striking sparks. However, questions are clearly an important function in the relationship between the Back Bencher and the Executive.
Therefore, the right hon. Member for Honiton rightly emphasised the importance that we attach to continually monitoring what is happening to questions, be they oral or written, to ensure that they at least try to serve that function, however much some parties, individuals or parts of this House may try to hijack that process.
The report makes some modest tidying-up improvements. However, one or two changes are significant in that they try to prevent the Government from sliding out from providing full information to hon. Members. In its own small way, the Mayor of Sligo rule is important. In the past, that was used as a way of not providing full information to hon. Members. In responding to that point, the Leader of the House has done us all a service. The response to replies pursuant to previous answers is also a step forward.
However, I share the disappointment of the right hon. Member for Honiton about notice. I believe that the House operates at its best when it is topical and relevant. The Select Committee considered that point very closely and,
586
in his evidence to us, the Leader of the House indicated that answers are very often available within the period in question. He did not want to be tied to a specific time as he felt that that would be too constraining on Ministers. We have all suffered from holding answers at some time. I should be prepared to accept more tentative, holding answers if we could have more topical replies to more topical questions.
To return to my first point, the Procedure Committee has a special relationship with the House. It seeks to serve the whole House and particularly Back Benchers. In future, I hope that the priority given to the consideration of our reports will be related more to the urgency that we on the Back Benches attach to a subject and not to the slow digestive process of the Treasury Bench.
7.56 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I apologise to the House for not being present for the speeches by the two Front-Bench spokesmen. I had intended to be present, because I have examined this report and the 1991 report carefully. To make amends for my sins of omission and for my absence, I will be very brief.
My first point relates to open questions to the Prime Minister. Two letters were submitted to the Procedure Committee and are contained in the 1991 report. The first was from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He suggested that the Prime Minister should face closed questions and not open questions. He thought that open questions allowed the Prime Minister off the hook as they did not concentrate on a particular item. I concede that there may be a problem of relevance, particularly with questions being set two weeks in advance of Question Time.
The second letter was from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). He suggested that the procedures with open questions to the Prime Minister should be dispensed with. Instead of asking about the Prime Minister's activities on a specific day and being provided with the details, questions should be such that they should be responded to immediately. As soon as an hon. Member's question was called, he should ask his question and he would not have to jump up and down twice as is usually the case.
Perhaps an experiment could be undertaken to combine those two notions. There are Prime Minister's questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On one of those occasions, Question Time could be given over specifically to closed questions. We could then discover whether the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow were relevant.
Constituents have asked me why, when the Prime Minister is answering questions, another topic is suddenly raised. It seems that the Opposition have the Prime Minister cornered on an item and then the next Opposition Member raises a question an entirely different topic. People want to know why we do not pursue a particular issue.
Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is one of the most active people in the House at Question Time and on other occasions. Does he recognise that those of us who remember the closed question now accept without reservation that the open question is a wonderful opportunity, not only for the Opposition, but Government

587
supporters as well, whereas, because of the changing political scene, a closed question might have little relevance in 10 or even five days' time?
The open question provides Back Benchers in particular with the opportunity to ask questions about a situation that may have arisen on the day itself. To take away what we have gained would be a grave disservice to Back Benchers, but of some use to the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that. Although that suggestion was made with the best of motives, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the result would be against the inl:erests of all hon. Members.
Mr. BarnesI take my hon. Friend's point, which is why I was suggesting an experiment. Some of us who are more recent Members might then be able to observe the difference between an open question session and a closed question session. However, the suggestion that we should dispense with some of the ritual could be readily pursued.
My second point relates to hon. Members being unable to table written questions unless the House is in session. It would not be a great problem if we had a sensible parliamentary year with the weeks spread out carefully, but we have a considerable summer recess. Given that Parliament will be prorogued tomorrow, over a 17-week period we shall have been absent for 14 weeks. During those 14 weeks, there is no chance to table written questions and get answers. The alternative is to write letters to the Departments, but that process is not open to public scrutiny and is not likely to be pursued as rigorously by the Departments as questions would be.
Ideally, I would like to change the parliamentary year to overcome the problem, but if the problem is to remain, thought needs to be given at some stage to whether it is possible to put down early-day motions, written questions and various other matters of a written nature in front of the House to get appropriate answers and have them published in Hansard.
Thirdly, one of the best question times that takes place in the House—it is the most rigorous and fruitful—does not happen in the great glare of publicity, but in Standing Committees A and B, which deal with European legislation. It is possible to have an hour of questions to the Minister on a limited item that is in front of the Committee and later to have up to an hour and a half of debate in connection with it. We need to take on board the lessons that come out of those Committees' activities. I realise that there is a distinction. The question session is similar to a statement being introduced on the Floor of the House, which we can all question; but we cannot follow on from a statement, and a statement is likely to cover a much wider area than the matters that are involved in Standing Committees A and B. There is a difficulty with having something as narrow as that in the House.
I am impressed by question time in Committee, but it means that the Minister has to be well briefed and know carefully the item with which he is dealing. I have always found those question sessions educational and useful during subsequent debates. I might sometimes turn up having not fully digested all the relevant papers that are put in front of us and discover during question time that there are useful ideas that can be picked up from those papers, dealt with or pursued.
588
That seems to be parliamentary procedure at its most useful, although it is not the most significant issue with which the House deals, because problems such as scrutiny should be pursued.
8.4 pm
Mr. Newton: Rather than detain the House, I need say only three things briefly. First, several of the points made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) are further bright ideas for my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) to consider in his Committee. I would not wish that to be taken as an endorsement of them, but nor would it be right for me to seek to inhibit the Committee in considering them.
Secondly, I thought that the interesting exchange between the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about open and closed questions answered what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) was saying about the timing rules for the tabling of oral questions. I did not understand his reference to being happy to have a holding answer, because that does not arise with oral questions —certainly not oral questions that are reached. The real point is that the topical questions in which people are interested do not relate to something that happened five days ago as opposed to 10 days ago, which was the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North was making. They relate to what was on the "Today" programme that morning or in that morning's newspapers or on the lunchtime news.
As I well know from my occasional duties in deputising for the Prime Minister on Tuesdays and Thursdays, it is essential to keep up with news that comes in throughout the day and not news that was established five or 10 days ago. I will not go further into that except to say that the argument about whether it is five days or 10 does not meet the point about topicality. I do not think that it would make much difference one way or the other.
You may not understand my next comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were not in the Chair at the time—at least not when the hon. Member for Cornwall, North was pulled up for being out of order. It is clear from the way in which they have strayed into discussing a report that is not on the Table that some members of the Procedure Committee feel some degree of exemption from the rules of order. I admire their skill, but do not think that it would be right for the Leader of the House to follow their example.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure on Parliamentary Questions (House of Commons Paper No. 687).

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) be amended—
in line 11, by leaving out "written or priority" and inserting "or";
in line 12, at the end, by inserting "and a Member may indicate a date for answer of a question for written answer in accordance with paragraph (4) of this order"; and
in line 14, by leaving out "priority written answer" and inserting "written answer on a named day".—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill imediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

SCOTTISH LAND COURT BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONERS BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

PROBATION SERVICE BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

PENSION SCHEMES BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

PENSION SCHEMES (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

PENSION SCHEMES (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[The Attorney-General.]
8.17 pm
Mr. John Fraser: Unlike the previous Bills, the one before us is not a consolidation measure, but a recommendation from the Law Commission which I welcome. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the draftsmen and the Law Commission on the extent to which all the Bills, including the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, simplify the law, and make it more accessible and easier to understand for non-lawyers as well as lawyers.
I do not wish to go into the detail of the Bill—I think that part X of the first schedule deals with the re-edification of cities in the reign of Henry VIII, so no doubt there were inner-city problems even then. I congratulate the Government on bringing the measures from the Law Commission to the House rapidly—always with the Opposition's co-operation. However, I regret that other Law Commission recommendations involving law reform —which is not consolidation or statute law repeal—are not so readily introduced. Those measures would often command the support of almost every part of the House, yet necessary measures of law reform are often neglected. I only wish that the Attorney-General and the Government showed as much enthusiasm for the other Law Commission reports as they do for the measure before us, which I welcome.
8.18 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall not detain the House long, but I believe that the legislation should not pass without comment. The last time that I prepared myself to speak on a report and legislation proposed by the Law Commission was immediately prior to a debate in the House on the secretarial office allowance about a year and a half ago. As a new Member, I hesitated to delay the business of the House as the Benches were packed and hon. Members were anxious to begin that debate.
I hesitate to rise now, bearing in mind that the next business relates to something which preoccupies many of my hon. Friends. Nevertheless, while congratulating the Law Commission on its work and on the entertaining and well-documented report which accompanies the Bill, the House is failing in its duty to scrutinise a detailed piece of legislation if the Bill is allowed through on the nod. That is not proper law-making.
I will demonstrate by pointing out that clause 2 of the Bill remedies an error which the Law Commission admits to in a previous repealing Bill. That demonstrates that the work of the Law Commission is not an exact science, and that the House is not doing its job properly in terms of scrutinising such legislation. It would be much better if such repeal legislation came in salami slices, rather than in one heavy document which we are expected to approve on the nod.
Clause 2 recognises that, in an earlier Bill, an Act of the time of King George III was repealed. The Law Commission subsequently admits that it discovered that the Act should not have been repealed at all and, at a stroke, they now wish to reinstate it in the statute book. That does not seem to be appropriate use of the Law Commission's power. This part of the measure is not one of repeal but rather one of reinstatement. If the job of the
592
Law Commission is the removal of clutter and the need to modernise the statute book, how can it be right to restore to the statute book an Act of Parliament passed at the time of George III?
I commend hon. Members who wish to pursue the matter further to the document prepared by the Law Commission on this issue. The report states:
"In 1978, when the repeal of the Enfield Chase Act was recommended, the trustees were not consulted because the Law Commission was not aware of their existence or of their reliance on section 60 of the Act. Consequently the difficult issues that are involved were not canvassed then. For this reason we are recommending, at the request of the trustees, that the position that obtained before the 1978 repeal should be restored by deeming the Enfield Chase Act not to have been repealed."
That is the restitution of the George III Act. I think that that demonstrates that the job was not done properly by the House in absorbing many repeals in a large Act of Parliament. I hasten to suggest that this time there will be other serious errors because of the sheer volume, and because this Bill is being discussed on the last day of the Session and before another measure that will obviously exercise a number of hon. Members because of its importance to Opposition parties and to the democratic system. I hope that the Law Commission bears that in mind.
I am concerned that a substantial section of the Bill relates to repealing Acts of Parliament which appear to relate exclusively to areas that are now in the Republic of Ireland. The measures are detailed in group 2, part XVI of the Bill and include such measures as the River Suck Drainage (Provision of Funds) Act and important measures that relate to the Dublin corporation. While I appreciate that the measures are no longer of importance to hon. Members, it is not clear that the Government of the Irish Republic—the Dail Eireann and Senate—has been consulted about the repeal of these measures. I think that they should have been consulted. [Interruption.]
The matter may be of some levity to some hon. Members but it is a matter of consistency. When we repeal measures that relate to other jurisdictions, such as legislation relating to the Isle of Man, it is clearly indicated in the documentation that the Government of the Isle of Man and the Tynwald have been consulted and have given their approval. Is it not consistent therefore if we repeal legislation relating to other jurisdictions that the Parliament and or the Government of those places should first be consulted?
Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Gentleman's point is a serious one, and is not light at all. As there can be no attempted exercise of jurisdiction over Southern Ireland, it does on the face of things sound peculiar to repeal the legislation.
Is it not probably the case that the Law Commission —taking a narrow and utilitarian view—is simply reducing the number of volumes to be printed when current statutes are printed? In other words, is it not purely an exercise in pruning?
Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point, and I am disappointed that such a distinguished lawyer does not know the exact title of the country to which he referred. It is no longer Southern Ireland, and has not been since at least 1948. It is in fact the Republic of Ireland.
I am not arguing against the fact that statutes should be reduced in terms of convenience and to diminish both costs

593
and waste; it is the principle that the Government of the Irish Republic should have been consulted if these measures still form part of its statutes. It is inappropriate that these measures should be repealed in this way without the proper consultation.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He will allow me to observe that only 30 per cent. of the statutes are available in their currently amended form. That is a matter of great concern to hon. Members who are anxious to ensure that statutes are available to the public so that they can be studied in their up-to-date form.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Page 201 of the Law Commission's report lists a number of Acts of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, but does not provide any cross-references with the schedule. We therefore have no way of knowing exactly which of the Republic of Ireland Acts referred to at page 201 of the report relate to the measures that are repealed in the schedule. That is both unfortunate and inappropriate, and I hope that that will be taken into account in any future repeal Bill documentation.
Given that part XVI of the schedule to which I referred earlier appears to relate exclusively to matters affecting the Republic of Ireland, I was surprised to find on the first page of the schedule reference to the repeal of the whole of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act 1866. I should have thought that it, too, would appear in part XVI. The Law Commission report tells us that the Constabulary (Ireland) Act has now been overtaken by Northern Ireland legislation and by the abandonment of the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1922. I understand that, but I seek an assurance that the Constabulary (Ireland) Act 1866 does not form part of the current statute book of the Republic of Ireland and if it does, the Government and Parliament of the Republic of Ireland were consulted about its repeal. We should be mindful of the fact that they inherited our statute book and that such consultation would therefore be appropriate.
I will not detail the House longer, but I give notice that if, in future, there is a stitch-up whereby important Law
594
Commission legislation is placed before the use before other matters that are also of great importance to the House, I shall not feel constrained from moving amendments that seek to delete certain provisions, because it seems to me that the House is failing in its basic and most important law-making function.
8.28 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has reminded us of the debt that we owe to the Law Commission and to the Scottish Law Commission for the work that they have carried out on all the Bills that we have considered this evening, especially this one. The report to which this Bill gives effect recommends the repeal of enactments that have been identified after detailed research and consultation as spent, obsolete, unnecessary or otherwise no longer of practical use.
It puts the work of these bodies in perspective when I tell the House that more than 2,600 such enactments, including 1,414 whole Acts, have been repealed as a result of 13 previous reports, and this Bill will add the repeal of 159 whole Acts and the removal of redundant provisions from 462 others.
I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock was not carping in any sense, and I associate myself too with the thanks expressed by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). If there is an occasional mistake, it serves merely to highlight the diligence with which the commissions have gone through their work. I shall draw to the attention of the commission, which will doubtless read our debates, the point about Irish legislation. The hon. Member for Thurrock can be confident that we are not affecting the affairs of the Republic in any way. Courtesy is courtesy; the hon. Gentleman's points will not go unnoticed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Brown.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)
8.32 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:
1.—(1) Financial assistance to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 1st January 1993 if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or

(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000.

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any period shall be the aggregate of

(a) the first relevant amount for that period multiplied by the number of seats won by its candidates at that Election; and

(b) the second relevant amount for that period multiplied by one-two hundredth of the number of votes cast for its candidates at that Election (rounded down to the nearest whole number).

(3) For the period beginning with 1st January 1993 and ending with 31st March 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be £4,080; and

(b) the second relevant amount shall be £8.16.

(4) For the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be the sum of £3,442.50 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period; and

(b) the second relevant amount shall be the sum of £6.89 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.
(5) For any subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April

(a) the first relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period; and

(b) the second relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.
(6) The appropriate percentage for any period is the percentage by which the retail prices index for the month of March immediately preceding that period has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.
(7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) above to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this paragraph those references in that sub-paragraph shall be construed as references to any substituted index or index figure published by that Office.
(8) In consequence of this paragraph, the Resolution of 21st June 1988 shall not have effect with respect to any time after 31st December 1992.
2.—(1) Without prejudice to the' generality of paragraph 1 above, financial assistance towards travelling and associated expenses necessarily incurred by an opposition party's spokesmen in relation to the party's Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 27th April 1992 if at that time one of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 above is satisfied with respect to the party.
(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred in any period shall be such of the available amount for that period as may be allocated to the party in accordance with any apportionment under sub-paragraph (3) below.
(3) The available amount for any period shall be apportioned between each of the opposition parties in the same proportions as the maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given to each of them under paragraph 1 above for that period or for any period forming part of that period; and any such apportionment shall be made to the nearest pound.
(4) Any reference in this paragraph to the available amount for a period is a reference

(a) in the case of the period beginning with 27th April 1992 and ending with 31st March 1994, to £100,000;

(b) in the case of the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994, to the sum of £100,000 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and

(c) in the case of each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April, to the available amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of paragraphs 1 above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.
3. Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;

(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and

(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election

(a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election and

(b) the period beginning with that date,

shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1(1) and (2), 2(1) to (3) and 3 above as separate periods.
(2) In relation to any such separate period

(a) the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest penny) of the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for the year in question; and

(b) the available amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest pound) of the available amount for the year in question.

(3) In relation to any such separate period ending immediately before the date of the Election, paragraph 3(c) above shall have effect as if the 31st March referred to were a reference to the day immediately before the date of the Election.
(4) In this paragraph "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.
5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: Members' salaries etc. Vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I apologise to the House: it has been a long couple of days. Of course I meant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was beginning to wonder as I listened for a while—before retreating—to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) whether the Labour Whips were as out of control tonight as they were last night. Fortunately, it seems that they are not.
As the House will know, the motion provides for the revision of the amounts of money paid in support of the Opposition parties—which is perhaps ironic, given the circumstances of the past two days. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Thurrock has the grace to smile at that. This money has come to be known as Short money after the Labour Leader of the House who first instituted the payments in 1975.
The purpose of these payments is to assist Opposition parties in carrying out their essential parliamentary duties at Westminster.
At the last review in 1988, the then Lord President, now Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords, carried out a thorough review of the workings of these funds and introduced new arrangements for accountability. My proposals are rather less sweeping. I seek not to review further the scope or purpose of the main Short money, but merely to update the sums paid. I think that the principle of these payments is both accepted and well established.
It has been customary to review Short money in the early part of each Parliament. The current formula was agreed in 1988 and provides that Opposition parties should receive £2,550 a year for each seat gained at a general election, and a further £5.10 for every 200 votes cast for the party. A party is, for this purpose, defined as having at least two Members of Parliament and having received at least 150,000 votes at the general election.
Mr. Simon Burns: I am somewhat confused about the votes criterion. The Liberal Democrat party may have had more than two hon. Members elected, but each of its candidates said something different to each elector in his constituency, so does the party qualify for the money, and if so, how should it be paid, given the disparity among its members?
Mr. Newton: A good question.
The proposals have three elements, which are a good deal simpler in principle than the lengthy motion would imply. They are, first, that the two elements of the formula should be uplifted by 35 per cent. to allow for inflation since the last settlement in 1988. Secondly, from 1994 onwards, Short payments should be inceased every April by reference to the retail prices index. Thirdly—an entirely new element—a fund of £100,000 should be established for Opposition travel in connection with Front-Bench duties, to be distributed on the same basis as Short money and uprated in the same way.
On the main Short money, the Government propose an uplift of 35 per cent. to take account of inflation since the last settlement and to take effect from 1 April 1993. From 1 April 1994, therefore, taking account of the regular review proposals that I have introduced, the formula's two elements will be updated annually by reference to the retail prices index.
This reflects the view that I have held for some years —it was reflected also in my proposition to the House last night on Members' pay—that it is much more sensible to have a regular uprating mechanism for payments of this kind than to leave them for several years and then to have what looks like a large increase but actually is not so large, given what has happened in the intervening period. Whatever views people may have of these payments, I
598
hope that it will be generally agreed that it is sensible to have a regular mechanism to keep them reasonably up to date.
The new element is the establishment of a separate fund of £100,000 for Opposition travel, to be distributed pro rata to Short money among Opposition parties. As with the main Short money, the resulting figures are maximums for expenditure incurred. In the previous Parliament the Rowntree trust, believing—it has proved, rightly—that there was a gap in our provision in this area, undertook an experimental project, not using public money, in which limited grants were made in support of Opposition travel for legitimate parliamentary purposes. Approaches from the trust and discussions with Opposition leaders have convinced the Government that there is a genuine case for provision of this kind, recognising the growing need for more Opposition spokesmen to travel in the United Kingdom and Europe, and the needs of their spokesmen on foreign affairs, defence and overseas development to travel if they are to do the job that our system expects of them—regardless of whether we always like what they say.
The provision for annual uprating of the travel fund will be on the same basis as Short itself—by reference to the RPI in April of each year. Arrangements for claiming and accounting will be in line with those already in place for Short money. The amount available for overseas travel by Select Committees is much larger than this fund, running at about £600,000 a year.
Those are the bare bones of the proposals. I shall not attempt to run through all the details of the motion, except to point to one detail that I know has given rise to some confusion. In paragraph 1(3), the motion refers to a period of 15 months from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1994 and to amounts in the formula that do not correspond to the percentages that I have quoted. The figures £4,030 and £8.16 comprise 12 months at the revised rate for each figure, plus three months at the old rate. The effect is to change the start of the accounting year from 1 January to 1 April and to provide amounts for the resulting 15 month period to correspond with the proposals.
The proposals come well over a year after the start of the Parliament and are the product of extensive discussions through the usual channels. I hope that they will be welcomed by representatives of those channels as giving them properly provided support in our system for the work of Opposition parties. I also hope that the mechanism that I have suggested to the House will mean that we will not need to return to the issue in the near future. I commend the motion to the House.
8.41 pm
Mrs. Margaret BeckettIn March 1974, the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson said:
"No Government have anything to gain, and certainly the country has nothing to gain, from Opposition parties lacking the necessary facilities, financial and otherwise, for doing their job in the House."—[Official Report, 12 March 1974; Vol. 870 c. 72.]
As Prime Minister, he was proposing the funds that we are presently discussing.
The Rowntree Trust had made funds available then for a pilot project to help the Opposition with the costs of carrying out their parliamentary functions—an initiative which led to those whose posts were funded by that means to be known in Labour party circles as chocolate soldiers.

599
The spokesmen for the Opposition at that time, now Lord Prior, in response to the Prime Minister's statement, drew attention to the fact that
"one of the benefits of the change in Government in recent years"—
a benefit that is rather overdue at present—
"is that it has brought to the notice of Governments the very great difficulties from which Oppositions suffer, particularly Shadow Ministers."—[Official Report, 29 July 1974; Vol. 878, c. 33.]
From the onset of the scheme, some hon. Members have legitimately' objected. 'Some clearly confused it with the separate principle of state funding for political parties, as previous debates show. My party and I support such funding for exactly the reasons that led in the first place to Members of Parliament and their staff receiving a salary from the taxpayer. Without such funding, membership of the House would be restricted to those with private wealth or to those who have attracted financial support on a personal basis from others with wealth and power. I repeat, we are not discussing the principle of public funds for political duties—not state aid for political parties as discussed by the Houghton committee and the Society—but support for some of the parliamentary work of the Opposition.
The idea of providing such funding has been repeatedly endorsed by the Top Salaries Review Body in its examination of the financial support provided by Members of Parliament. As long ago as the 1987 Parliament, it expressed the view that it should be "regularly updated" and it pointed out that at that time the support declined in value in relation to individual allowances for all MPs.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that money for Opposition parties was not necessarily such a revolutionary step, bearing in mind that candidates are subsidised for general election campaigning and that many hon. Members who are opposed to state funding of Opposition parties, as they are opposed to state funding generally, do not, I notice, object when they are subsidised as candidates at a general election when they receive facilities for which they would otherwise have to pay? Is not there an apparent element of hypocrisy in standing up and denouncing the subject of this debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that sometimes people fail to see such subjects in the round and where they are being inconsistent in their attitude to one thing rather than another. I take the point of my hon. Friend that one such inconsistency is the way in which all hon. Members benefit from such funding.
The Top Salaries Review Body suggested that there should be regular updating of the support and that it should be carried out on what it calls a realistic assessment of need. By drawing the analogy between the funding received by every Member of Parliament for their office costs and their staff and the way in which the TSRB support for the concept of separate Short money was expressed, it addressed another point that has been made in previous debates.
I refer especially to a notion that has found favour with Government Back Benchers occasionally in the past—that, as the office costs allowance has been increased for all Members, the need for separate funding for the parliamentary work of the Opposition has been eroded or removed. That view is clearly rejected by the TSRB, as it
600
has regularly been rejected when it has assessed the enormous extra work load that is carried by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and their staff.
The board specifically drew attention to the discrepancy between the treatment of Short money and that of funding the parliamentary work of Back Benchers; in doing so, it highlighted an important issue that still has validity, which the settlement, whatever its merits, fails to address. The settlement before the House derives its validity, as the Lord President correctly pointed out, from the fact that it recognises the movement of inflation over the past six years since the 1987 settlement. The settlement also addresses—for which we are grateful to the Lord President —the thorny issue of the future movement of inflation, by linking the settlement to the retail prices index.
As there is so little public knowledge and the correspondence that Front-Bench spokesmen receive from the public makes it plain how little knowledge exists outside this place—and, often, not very much within it —about the background against which the settlement has been awarded, it is right to place one or two facts on the record for the benefit not only of hon. Members but of students of our affairs.
As the Lord President said, the settlement in cash terms increases the figure awarded in 1987 by 35 per cent. Since 1987, the office costs allowance paid to all Members of Parliament has increased in cash terms by 87.5 per cent. Since 1987, the costs of the Prime Minister's office have just about doubled in cash terms. In that figure, the increase for other costs—presumably equipment, travel, employment costs and other overheads—has more than doubled. The increases in salaries was less, at a mere 87 per cent. —closely analogous with the figure for the office costs allowance.
The final and perhaps the most significant myth, which previous debates have shown is also cherished by Government Back Benchers, is that only the Opposition draw taxpayers' money to fund parliamentary advisers and staff and their work. The Government also employ political advisers—a move which I wholeheartedly endorse. It is right that political advice and political work should be carried out by political staff and not by the civil service. The Government say that they are not able to tell us the overall cost of employing some 40 members of staff in those capacities to supplement the work of civil service staff and advisers. However, we know that the bill for their salaries alone has also about doubled since 1987. In 1993, that bill will amount to £1.37 million, slightly more than this settlement provides for the entire costs of the Labour Opposition.
On the basis of the Prime Minister's office, where salaries represent less than a third of overall costs, it would appear that the proper support services provided for the Front Bench of the Conservative party cost the taxpayer between £4 million and £5 million, as opposed to the £1.33 million that the settlement provides for the Labour Front Bench.
Part of the unquantified costs of the Government will be the cost of travel and accommodation properly met for advisers accompanying their Ministers on Government business in the European Community and overseas. In the previous Parliament, as the Lord President identified, funding for one visit a year to the institutions of the Community was provided for the first time to every Back Bencher. The same provision was made available to the Opposition Front Bench, but no further such provision.

601
Also in the previous Parliament, as the right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to acknowledge, the Rowntree Trust offered the Opposition a small travel fund to help defray such extra costs. The trust did so with the explicit recommendation that such a facility should be taken up by the Government as a proper charge on public funds. I pay tribute to the Lord President for his work in persuading his colleagues to accept that notion. The Rowntree Trust said in its letter to him that it was right for such funds to be provided so that Opposition Front Benchers
"were not beholden in any respect because the costs were not borne by vested interests in the form of foreign governments and/or professional lobbyists."
It said that the matter was important, and I share that view.
The settlement enshrined in the order does not offer the Opposition any real opportunity, except in the area of travel costs, to expand and improve services to the official Opposition. We certainly cannot match the improvement in services to the governing party and to Back Benchers that have been supplied since 1987, but the settlement will at least allow us to maintain the service that we currently provide.
That is particularly important because, as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—I still think of him as the hon. Member for Oswestry—a former Leader of the House, identified recently in an article in The Guardian, the role of the Executive has become more and more powerful. All hon. Members are having greater and greater difficulty in getting answers to parliamentary questions. Answers that we used to get from Ministers tend to come from agencies, and Ministers seem increasingly reluctant to answer even those questions that they accept as being valid to them. That places considerable difficulties in the path of all hon. Members, and especially those whose role it is to shadow and scrutinise the movement of Government policy.
I shall give my last couple of examples of what the standstill in our parliamentary funding means. I appreciate that we are at least able to stand still and not to go backwards. For the Leader of the Opposition, when he was shadow Chancellor, we were able to provide from public funds money to employ one adviser to shadow the Treasury and the Chancellor's political and other advisers. For the shadow Foreign Secretary, we were able to provide from public funds money to employ one adviser to shadow the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Secretary's political and other advisers. I could go through the Departments to show that the position is the same for all of them, but I shall not.
For Opposition Front Benchers who match—in my view they over-match—the parliamentary work of Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries in, say, the Department of Health, which alone employs 12 press officers, we are able to provide from public funds, nothing. For Opposition Front Benchers who match the work of Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries in all the other Departments of State, we are able to provide from public funds, nothing.
In all those Departments that my colleagues shadow, thousands of civil servants back up the work of their Ministers every day, and we parliamentarians with our very few staff match them every day. We appreciate the
602
work of the Lord President in presenting this settlement to the House, but I know which party in this place gives value for taxpayers' funds.
8.53 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I appreciate that, on the 239th day of this Session, hon. Members will not wish me to speak for too long. I shall endeavour to puncture in the gentlest way the congratulatory bonhomie between Front Benchers on this subject. We are debating the use of public money, and we are entitled to examine a little more closely how it is used.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was concerned that the official Opposition, and I dare say the Liberal Democrats, were underfunded and were therefore not able to give as good a service as they would like to the constitution. The right hon. Lady did not need the assistance of Short money to prepare her speech. She had only to ask her PPS to go to the Library, or she could have gone herself, to pick up the document that I have here.
Opposition parties and all Back Benchers have the advantage of the Library and House of Commons research facilities. Hon. Members who are sufficiently interested to check tomorrow's Hansard will find that the right hon. Lady quoted almost verbatim great chunks from the House of Commons research document.
Mrs. Beckett: I used two quotes from Hansard which are contained in that document. If the hon. Gentleman has read that document, perhaps he will tell me where it contains the rest of the material that I used about funding that the Conservative party receives from the state. If he can show me that or any of the rest of the material that I used, I shall be grateful to him.
Mr. Garnier: I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady will be very grateful to the Government and to other Conservative Members over the years.
I should like to remind the House of the original purpose of the Short money. As the right hon. Lady has done us the courtesy of quoting from Hansard, as quoted in the Library research document, I need not refer to those passages again, save to say that it was Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, the former leader of the Labour party, who as Prime Minister set out in Hansard of 12 March 1974, vol. 870, column 47, as the right hon. Lady has just done, the purpose of Short money, although it was not called Short money at that time. The right hon. Lady also quoted from speeches by Edward Short, now Lord Glenamara, who also set out the purposes for which Short money was to be used.
There is a need for a properly funded Opposition set-up, and that is not in dispute between any of the parties. It is one thing to be in government, but it is another to make sure that the Government justify themselves, and if the Government are to be tested, the Opposition parties must be ready and armed in intellect, research documents and so on. [Interruption.] I note that Opposition Members are concerned about their ability to oppose the Government.
Although there is no dispute about the need for proper funding for parties, the public at large are entitled to know whether they are getting value for money. Large sums are involved. Reference to this excellent document prepared by the Library shows the amount to which the Opposition are entitled under the new uprating system. It may be of interest to many people outside to know that, in 1992, the

603
Labour party received just under £1 million in Short money. The amount was £946,250. I do not know how many hospitals could have been—
Ms Hilary Armstrong: How much did the Government receive from such money to do the same job that the Opposition did?
Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady is confused, although I am not surprised. The Government do not get Short money.
The 15 months ending March 1994 will bring to the Labour party £1,577,000. For the year of 1994–95, it will get £1,331,000.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that those sums are about what an average American Senator receives for his personal staff? Does he really think that it is wholly unreasonable that the party in opposition—whichever party—should have something a little in excess of that?
Mr. Garnier: I am sorry if I have confused my hon. Friend. What is at issue is not the principle that the Opposition should have some money to do the job required of a loyal Opposition, but whether the public are getting good value for the huge sums of money distributed to them. The sum of £1,577,000 over 15 months is a Pot of money in anyone's book, whether one is an American senator or a British Member of Parliament.
Dr. Liam Fox: I must have misheard my hon. Friend, but I thought from the figures that he gave that the Opposition parties were to get a rise of 50 per cent. over last year, which seems rather generous in view of the other settlements in the public sector. Perhaps he can correct me.
Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend may have misheard me. Let me repeat the figures so that he gets them on board. For the year 1992–93, the Labour party received £946,250 in Short money. Under the new proposals, over the 15 months ending March 1994, the figure will be £1,577,344 and, for 1994–95, it will be £1,331,173.
The Labour party is not alone in receiving Short money. The Liberal Democrats, who I am glad to see will be able to speak with one voice tonight as only one member of that party is here, received in 1992 just under £200,000—£199,420. In the 15-month period ending 1994, they will get £326,384 and then on an annualised basis for 1994–95, they will get £275,536.
I am as delighted as anyone that the Opposition parties should now have access to travel funds. However, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether that will enable the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to charge to the public purse his Cobbett's rural rides, or whether that cost will be borne by him personally or by the funds of the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the one occasion on which I spoke to him? He was seeking a pair so that he could attend a court case in the Caribbean. Does he think that it is appropriate for him to preach about value for money when he is not a full-time Member of Parliament, given that he was pursuing another profession during the debates on the Maastricht Bill?
Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the point that I am trying to make. Value for money is everything. The case that I was hoping to get to, but could not, was not in the Caribbean.
The new proposals under clause 4(b) make it clear that the accounts have to be properly audited by a professional auditor, as has always been the case. That is good, but to what extent must there be detail in the audited reports presented to Parliament and the regulatory parliamentary authorities? Would it be permissible for the Opposition simply to say, "Opposition work" or "Work of the Shadow Cabinet"?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Or "Work in the courts".
Mr. Garnier: Indeed, or in the courts. I believe that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen work in the courts. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is a regular attender at the courts as a barrister when he is not working terribly hard on behalf of the Labour party. Whether the hon. Member who represents the other bit of Brent goes to court, I have no idea, but I will leave him to deal with that himself.
I am concerned that, for example, on page 15 of the House of Commons Library brief, which is available free to all hon. Members without the use of Short money, reference is made to the money provided to the Labour party. The Shadow cabinet received 36.5 per cent. of the Short money going to the Labour party, the parliamentary Labour party staff 33.3 per cent., and the leader 21.2 per cent.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much do you earn in the courts?
Mr. Garnier: I do not know what Mr. Deputy Speaker earned in the courts last year.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye, he may do so. Mr. Garnier.
Mr. Garnier: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am deeply grateful to you.
May I perhaps also, when discussing value for money, ask whether the public realise exactly what the official Opposition do when they seek apparently to oppose Her Majesty's Government. Let us take the example of last night's activities and ask Members of the House whether they appreciate exactly what was going on and whether the public are getting good value for the taxpayers' money. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you will deprecate it as much as I do, that last night, during the course of the various debates—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are principally dealing with a motion about updating of funds. While it is acceptable to make allusions to the scope and purpose, I do not think that we can really go into details of events that are in the past.
Mr. Garnier: I modestly claim to be a student of history and there is much to learn from the past when trying to sort out what is best for the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you or the public are aware that the Short-funded Opposition parties, both Labour and Liberals, blocked the doors to the voting Lobby last night. Is that a new definition of the block vote?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be aware that the Chair is well aware of what happened in all parts of the House, but those matters took place yesterday. We are not here to discuss them this evening.
Mr. Garnier: I am concerned that the public at large are not aware of the sums of money that are devoted to the Opposition parties and the way in which the Opposition abuse the money that they are getting by abusing the procedures of the House. If the public knew exactly what the Labour and Liberal parties did with the money and how they spent their time, they would wish us to take a much closer look at the way in which public moneys are spent on them.
Mr. Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend seemed to be saying a moment ago that the purpose of the Short money was thoughtful research by Opposition parties. Does he agree that not many members of the public would think that the sort of thoughtful research that they might be doing was into how to lock a lavatory from the outside so that the Serjeant at Arms could not get in?
Mr. Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard what the Deputy Speaker said about yesterday's events and I will not be drawn down that passage—if I might so call it—again. I would ask the House to bear in mind before they pass this resolution, with or without a vote, that the public are entitled—
Mrs. Beckett: I was hoping that before the hon. Gentleman left this most interesting discussion, he would deal with another important fact that perhaps he will not find in his free copy of the document from the Library, which is how we get value for money from the costs of the Prime Minister's office, which are now running at £10.7 million a year.
Mr. Garnier: As I recall, the right hon. Lady has had to stand in for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on a number of occasions during Prime Minister's Question Time. She has never used that opportunity to ask that question. I should have thought that that question would have been better asked on such an occasion than of me this evening.
I know that a great many Members of the House wish to speak on this most important matter this evening and I will not detain the House for very much longer. Suffice it to say that the public are entitled to expect the Members of the House to consider rather more carefully the way in which money is provided by the taxpayers for the Opposition parties, and to ensure that the money is properly spent and accounted for in a public fashion. Then, at a general election, if the Opposition are right when they say that they give good value for money as an Opposition, the public will have the opportunity to keep them in opposition so that they continue to give good value for money.
9.8 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I had seen the brief before, but, I had never heard the advocate. The brief might have been worth something, but I do not think that the person to whom it was given would get paid a lot for that performance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not even in the Caribbean."] Not anywhere. I do not know whether the electors of Harborough would think that it was great value for money either.
606
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is not here. He is the relevant usual channel for the Liberal Democrats and the other minority parties. He would be here were it not for the fact that, after the most recent meeting of our parliamentary party, which was extremely abstemious and held in the precincts of this place, he was struck by something like food poisoning and has not been around, apart from voting yesterday. He sends his apologies and I trust that the Leader of the House and the deputy leader of the Labour party will understand.
We are debating these matters now because we did not index-link Short money in 1987. Had we index-linked Short money in the same way as we have now linked other payments concerning Members' pay, we should not have had to return to it today.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who intervened a few minutes ago, clearly was not present for the speech by the Leader of the House. We are discussing the first increase since 1987. It reflects the changes in the size of the Opposition parties. The amount that parties get reflects their size in the House. If the Labour party gets more this time, it is because it has a larger number of Members in the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) seems to have some obsession about Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not opened my mouth in the past five minutes. It was not me.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: It was me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) can put down his hand.
Mr. Hughes: I shall make no comment about what the hon. Gentleman was doing in the past five minutes, but it sounded as though he had said something.
It has also taken a long time for a settlement to be reached. That is regrettable: it has been a long parliamentary Session since last summer and it has taken until now to agree.
All those who understand democracy in Britain agree that there should be funding for the work of Opposition parties in this place. I should stress to the hon. Member for Harborough and his colleagues that the system was introduced by the Labour party when it was in government, and the Conservative party was the first to benefit from it as the then Opposition. It may not be long before Conservative Members are in need of it again, and they will be grateful that we have passed this motion tonight.
It is far better to have this system than what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) rightly called the chocolate soldiers precedent. The Rowntree Trust helped us out, but that is not the proper way to fund a political system.
It is also a completely different issue from either the state funding of parties or of members. It is so that political parties in this place can have some collective specialist ability to do their job. It does not fund more than a single figure number of staff for my party. There are about seven or eight paid staff and some equipment to serve the whole panoply of Departments for those of us who have parliamentary spokesmanship jobs. I shadow seven or eight Ministers in this place. [Laughter.] That is true, as there are about 100 Ministers. Many of us fund research for

607
that from our own office costs allowance, topped up considerably from our salaries, in my case for every year in 10 years.
The right hon. Lady was right to say that the bill which the Government charge the taxpayer both in terms of the conventional running of the Prime Minister's office, the press officers—hundreds of them for all Departments—the civil service and now the political advisers runs into seven-figure sums. The total figure for the largest Opposition party, at something over £1 million, is a relatively modest contribution.
Let me remind the House and anybody who reads this hereafter that we are debating the measure on the basis of the Government getting millions and millions of pounds of public money when at the last election they got 41.9 per cent. of popular support, with the Labour party getting more than one third or 34 per cent. of the vote and getting only the Short money figure that the hon. Lady enumerated. My colleagues and I had 17.8 per cent. of the vote and will receive about £300,000 for the entire year. Five other parties, which have not yet been mentioned, also benefit from the order—the two nationalist and three Irish parties. They receive funding commensurate with their size and with the votes cast.
The last justification is that increasingly we have a more difficult job to do. European and domestic legislation is more technical. I accept that the Library service does an extremely good job, and I am on record as paying tribute to it. However, at short notice it often cannot respond to demands to provide information necessary to a political party.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who has been helpful, courteous and efficient throughout. His has been a difficult job in defending the interests of the House when there has been such pressure on him from both the Treasury and his colleagues. It is a tight public expenditure round and the settlement is fair. We all owe much to the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope Conservative Members realise it —for providing a settlement which, from now on, will look after hon. Members in their official duties within their parties. It will do so in a fair and reasonable way and without the need to return to the House for a further order.
The postscript is that the travel fund is hardly an enormous sum, given the duty on political parties to keep up with the responsibilities of Government and Parliament.
The country expects us to be well informed and to do our job properly. The motion is reasonable and fair. It is also modest. It will ensure that we do our job better and serve the nation better in the days ahead.
9.16 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I shall not detain the House for long, but there are a couple of points that I wish to raise. I do not want to go into the detail of whether any funding should be given to Opposition parties to pursue their duties. I accept that, to some extent, there may be some requirement for that. However, I do not always understand why. One element of the fund is for research and I accept that there may be some need to find out a little about what is going on—but to what extent? What is the research for? I shall return to that matter in a moment.
Another element of funding is for travel. I wonder what the Opposition parties do when they go to other countries. What do they talk about? There used to be a convention that, when overseas, Opposition Members did not talk
608
about how rotten the Government were. That convention has now been broken. Perhaps we should link to any funding a requirement that Opposition Members are a little more delicate in what they say about this great Government of ours. I think that that would be a fair requirement. I do not benefit too much from overseas travel at the moment, probably for reasons to do with the Maastricht debate. I suspect that I will not benefit for some time.
I want to comment on the transparency of the whole matter. I am concerned about what happens to some of the funding for research, which is a fairly loose word. I accept that if the funding is applied directly to research in matters to do with the House, it is reasonable to provide such funding. However, I am concerned that some of the money might find its way outside the House to party organisations.
My borough, Waltham Forest, is Labour-controlled, and I am greatly opposed to its policies. I should not want some of the funding to find its way to that council. At a recent council meeting, there was a clash about the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act—legislation recently passed by the House. In particular, there were statements of objection that turned into a downright refusal to implement legislation that is on the statute book. One councillor said about the requirement to check whether people are in this country illegally:
"I'm not going to grass-up people for being illegal immigrants if they choose to live here."
It is quite clear from the Asylum Bill, which we passed and in which the Opposition were involved, that this is something they dare not do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may be straying from the subject.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was giving the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. He was going to relate this to Opposition research expenditure, but he has not so far managed to do so. I wait with anticipation.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I was going to say that there was a possibility that the outrage in Waltham Forest might have had, at some stage, links with research work carried out here for the Opposition parties to support their ability to say these things. I denounce outright any group that defies the laws on the statute book. I am sure that the Opposition parties will want to do the same.
We should know more about where the money goes. We have a clear insight of things like office costs, but we do not have it here to the same extent; I would like to know more about where the money goes across the board. Transparency is a good thing, and I am keen to see a requirement for a more detailed inventory.
9.21 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition needs lectures from Tory Members of Parliament, about 200 of whom make money moonlighting in the law courts or as directors of as many as five, six or seven companies, and lining their pockets left, right and centre. Some 19 ex-Cabinet Ministers are now directors of 59 different companies. About six of those have moved into private companies, and many of them were Secretaries of State when the relevant legislation went through.
I want to deal with a philosophical argument about the money. It has nothing to do with the way in which the

609
money is spent by my right hon. and hon. Friends; it is about the direction in which it is spent. Some Tory Members of Parliament are trying to suggest that somehow or other we get money in the same way as them. We do not get money from Asil Nadir or Greek fascists—we do not get any of that kind of money. I find it hard to believe that the Tory party is £19 million in debt, although I keep reading about it. I reckon that it has some more money stashed away in Liechtenstein, probably from the same bloke.
When the Short money was introduced in 1978, the Tories were the first recipients. They did not argue the toss about it, but were happy to take the money and run. I know, because I was here; I watched them and listened to them. What worries me is that we have had the money since 1979 and never won an election.
I have always held the view that the money could have been directed in a different way, not that it has been ill spent. That view is contrary to the view of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I said at the time that the money should have gone to the Labour party. I would rather it went to Labour party headquarters to pay for research assistants at national level and the regional Labour party headquarters. In that way, the whole party would benefit.
When the money was introduced, the Liberal party switched funds and switched certain personnel from the Liberal party headquarters down to Parliament in order properly to qualify for the money. I am not saying that the Liberal party was doing anything wrong, but we certainly did not do it. I was a member of the Labour party executive at the time, and my argument has always been that, as the Liberal party had shifted its personnel from its headquarters to work in Parliament, there is a case for the money to be used at that level. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) knows about those discussions and is aware of the arguments that prevailed at that time.
We do not need Government lectures on spending because their own expenditure is enormous. No one can argue that is not the case. Some £10.7 million has been spent on the Prime Minister's office. When sunny Jim Callaghan left, the figure was £1.25 million. I know there has been some inflation, although according to the Tory Government there has been hardly any. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between £1.25 million at the time that Jim Callaghan left No. 10 and the £10 million being spent on the present Prime Minister.
The Government also spend more than £6 million a year on travel all over the world. There are more jaunts today by the Prime Minister and other Ministers—especially if they want to escape answering questions—than at any other time that I can recall. I am not arguing whether such expenditure is right in terms of the money being available —I just wish that money had been spent differently.
I do not imagine that the Short money will win us the next election. I am sure that we will win it anyway. I well understand why the Leader of the House is concerned about the money, because he knows that his party will be the recipient next time. He will probably be able to wear that top hat a lot more when we push through legislation.
I suspect that the special travel allowance is connected with the Common Market. Everyone knows my view that
610
the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. The Government allow Back Benchers to travel to Strasbourg or Brussels once a year, but I will not go there. You will not catch me knocking on Common Market doors. It worries me that there is some connection.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Yes, there is.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should know, because he is always on about proportional representation and the unfairness of the present voting system. Short money is PR in inverse proportion to the number of seats and votes won. There are about 20 Liberal Members of Parliament and every one of them is a parliamentary spokesperson.
Mr. Hughes: All except two.
Mr. Skinner: That means that 18 out of the 20 Liberal Members of Parliament will receive the travel allowance. Of the Labour party's 270 Members of Parliament, only 85 will receive the allowance—provided that it is not confined to members of the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say who will qualify. I have already established that 18 Liberal Members of Parliament out of 20 will get the money.
Mr. Hughes: It is only £15,000 a year.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, but they will share that between them as well. The hon. Gentleman has seven jobs. How much Short money will he get?
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman also examines the car allowance. If the leader of the Liberal party has three free cars, the others should share the rest between them.
9.28 pm
Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the principle was reasonably well established. That is typical of the insidious comfortable consensus that sometimes emerges from members of both Front Benches. This consensus is a particularly unpleasant 1970s consensus, from a dark age when fundamentals were not addressed. The Opposition parties are perfectly consistent and philosophical. They believe that public money can be spent on anything—that it does not belong to the taxpayer and is at the disposal of the state.
Political parties are voluntary organisations. To the Conservative, it is peculiar in principle that voluntary organisations should use the inquisition-type powers of the state to compel payments to them. It is fundamentally startling and wrong in principle.
Let us take the argument one stage further. Even if it is wrong in principle, what the motion proposes is bizarre.
Mr. Winnick: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves what he considers to be matters of principle, will he answer two questions? First, if it is wrong to subsidise, why does he accept a salary? After all, it could be argued that the taxpayer should not subsidise those who freely decide to take a chance on being elected to this place. Secondly, does not his constituency party receive a subsidy at a general election, to which, presumably, the hon. Gentleman does not object? That is taxpayers' money. Why does not he say that he is willing to pay and not the taxpayer?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's arguments are fundamentally bad in principle. We have never objected to

611
the payment of hon. Members. What is wrong is the payment of informal voluntary organisations by the use of bizarre subsidies.
It is a peculiar anomaly that a nationalised industry—the Post Office—allows candidates to have freepost during elections. All candidates take advantage of that service. It is an old anomaly and it cannot be defended.
Paragraph 1(1)(a) refers to at least two hon. Members of the party who were elected after contesting the previous election as candidates of that party. That led to bizarre consequences in 1981, when members of the Labour party defected to the SDP and a specific resolution had to be passed to deal with that contingency. A special resolution had to be passed for Liberal Democrat Members who had not fought the preceding election as members of that party.
The point of constitutional principle is that, traditionaly, the constitution recognsies individual hon. Members, not political parties. The provisions of the motion are direct shackles on the freedom of hon. Members to leave parties and to form new one. That is not constitutionally right.
The second aspect is even more bizarre: paragraph (b) of the resolution. Plaid Cymru, mercifully for it, has enough Members of Parliament to get over the hurdle in paragraph (a). But under paragraph B, the point of principle is even more bizarre. A party with one Member of Parliament must have had the aggregate of at least 150,000 votes cast in favour of all its candidates. Even if we do not take it as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) put it—about parties where all the candidates say different things—there is a problem in Wales; Plaid Cymru attracted abut 156,000 votes. It got over hurdle (a), so this does not arise, but if it had not. three of those candidates were joint Plaid Cymru-Green candidates. We want to know in Wales whether it is one party—Plaid Cymru—or two parties: Plaid Cymru and the Green party. In fact, 170,000 people voted green at the last election, but they did not elect a single Member of Parliament, so this does not arise.
These are arbitrary and indefensible distinction; that arise because a scheme has to be set up to allot public moneys. We all know that, when it comes to allotting public moneys, principle is soon lost and adverse and unsatisfactory compromises result.
The third feature that is so wrong is what the money is spent on. The Library brief, which has been referred to, shows that little information has been published. It gives us some helpful information that apparently was volunteered by the Liberal and Labour parties. Figures for the most recently available year show that 21.2 per cent. of Labour's expenditure from these moneys went on its leader. We do not know whether that was to provide the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) with a golden palanquin and liveried servants to get to his place in the House. The Labour party does not choose to publish details of such expenditure. If public moneys are to be expended, I would argue that there should be proper public accountability.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. gentleman's comments beggar belief. His party publishes nothing about its spending. We know nothing of how the Government are using the money that they receive for the Prime Minister's office or for political advisers to Cabinet members, but that money also comes from the public purse—and in much greater amounts than anything given to the Opposition.
Mr. Evans: They are payments for the Government and they are fundamentally different in character from payments for political parties. It is a completely different issue.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my previous point, that transparency is all and that the Opposition parties should not be scared of it? Transparency would enable us to ascertain whether they were receiving money from socialist councils such as mine in Waltham Forest, which I decry.
Mr. Evans: Transparency and accountability are fundamental in the expenditure of public as opposed to private moneys. The current method is startling.
I have two final objections to the motion. First, this is the wrong time, and we are all familiar with that argument. The second objection is constitutional. It was taken up by the former hon. Member for Tiverton when the issue was first debated. There is no enabling Act of Parliament or proper statute to authorise the payment of moneys under this motion. That has important constitutional consequences.
Resolutions must now, due to the passage of time, be in order, and no one is suggesting otherwise. However, because the payments are made by resolution, they are not justiciable in the courts just as, I imagine, on the same principle, the standard spending assessments and the revenue support grants under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 are not challengeable by way of judicial review. In other words, the House is acting unilaterally and without judicial check in the courts in order to defray public moneys when we do not know in detail what they are being spent on. That is a constitutional abomination, and I shall certainly oppose the motion.
9.37 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: When I came to listen to the debate, I did not expect that I should be speaking in support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and against some of my eccentric colleagues. In my estimation, the entertaining, witty and amusing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) qualifies him for immediate promotion to the Whips Office.
In the late 1970s, we were the first recipients of this largesse, small as it was. We put it to extremely good use: in two years we had returned the Conservative party to power, where it has remained ever since. The fact that the Opposition have perhaps not put it to such good use does not invalidate the concept.
There is a serious issue of which every hon. Member should be aware. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I referred to the money that is available to legislators in the United States and many other countries. We must remember that we are not talking about the funding of political parties. If we were, I would disagree with the right hon. Member for Derby, South because I do not favour public funding of political parties. We seek to increase the level of information and intelligence in the Chamber and to

613
facilitate better debate. One might say that it has not always been terribly productive and that recent occurrences support that notion.
However, I believe that this is an extremely modest provision. It is sensible and fair to give to an Opposition party which has a very real national responsibility a relatively small sum of money to enable it to discharge its responsibility. After all, we are talking about Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. The quality of legislation in this place can be improved only if there is detailed scrutiny by people who know what they are talking about.
In recent years, Parliament has suffered because legislation has not been examined with sufficient scrutiny. There are many reasons for that. The fundamental reason is that in recent years, both Labour and Conservative Governments have broken their election pledges that they would introduce less legislation and not more.
I very much hope that, in two weeks' time, the Queen's Speech will include far less legislation and that we can really get on top of that legislation. No hon. Member, whether he or she be an Opposition Member or a Government Member, can honestly say that he or she honestly understands all the legislation that comes before this place. However, it is of fundamental national importance that the Opposition parties and particularly the official Opposition, should be able to do that.
I am not a critic of the civil service. I believe that this country is exceptionally well served by its civil servants. It is one of the great jewels of our system that we have a civil service that remains with the Government if the governing party changes. Our civil service is of great quality. However, when we consider the resources that the civil service provides for the Government and the meagre, modest resources which the motion provides for the Opposition, we cannot do anything other than support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if we look at the matter fairly and objectively.
I would include just one amendment to the motion. I believe that the money should be a little more widely spread. I should like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be able to go abroad and to visit all the countries of the European Community. [Interruption.] The Opposition Chief Whip may want him to go permanently, but many hon. Members would not really want that to happen. We would love to see the new breadth, enlightenment and vision that would burgeon forth from Bolsover if the hon. Gentleman had a little Short money to take him round the world. I appeal to the Opposition to find some way to send one of the most endearing of all parliamentary characters on his travels.
9.42 pm
Mr. Newton: I have followed the debate with considerable interest. However, it is difficult to find points to which I can add a great deal more than what I said earlier. Without upsetting the Opposition, I must tell my Conservative colleagues that I found entirely understandable their concern expressed in the wake of last night's events. On the other hand, it is right to balance those concerns with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), which were the points on which I tried to focus in my opening remarks.
614
I do not accept all the comparisons made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). However, she knows from our discussions that I thought that she made several legitimate points, as did the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am grateful to learn that they think that this settlement, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said is not overwhelmingly generous let alone profligate in comparison with the sums paid before taking account of inflation in the intervening period, is fair and reasonable and provides a base for a continued acceptance of a settlement along these lines.
I shall say very little more. I should reveal to the House that the only reason why I spoke at all was that there was some anxiety about whether the House was prepared for the next business—a task which I occasionally had to encourage others to do in my days as a Government Whip. But it enables me to put on record one point.
I realised during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) that I inadvertently misled the House in my opening speech by a slip of one word. I said, I think, that
"a party is for this purpose defined as having at least two Members of Parliament and having received at least 150,000 votes at the last general election."
As those who study the motion will see, it should have been "or" rather than "and" in the middle of that sentence.
It has not been absolutely clear in the debate, but it should be placed on record as my last remark in the proceedings, that a proportion of the money goes not only to the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, but to the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionist party, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Social and Democratic Labour party on the same formulation as is applied for the main Opposition party and the Liberal Democrats. That should be clear to everybody, and it interrelates with the point that I am making in correcting the inadvertent slip in my opening speech.
With those remarks, I commend the motion to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes
15.

Division No. 402]

[9.45 pm

AYES

Allen, Graham

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Amess, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Armstrong, Hilary

Harvey, Nick

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Baldry, Tony

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Barnes, Harry

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Llwyd, Elfyn

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Lynne, Ms Liz

Boateng, Paul

Mackinlay, Andrew

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

McLeish, Henry

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

Maclennan, Robert

Burns, Simon

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Malone, Gerald

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Michael, Alun

Chapman, Sydney

Morgan, Rhodri

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Page, Richard

Cormack, Patrick

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Prescott, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Fraser, John

Rendel, David

Fyfe, Maria

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

615

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Wallace, James

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Waller, Gary

Short, Clare

Walley, Joan

Sims, Roger

Welsh, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, Brian

Soames, Nicholas

Winnick, David

Spellar, John

Wood, Timothy

Steen, Anthony

Worthington, Tony

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Michael Brown and

Tyler, Paul

Mr. Derek Conway.

NOES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Spink, Dr Robert

Bates, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Elletson, Harold

Stern, Michael

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Thomason, Roy

Gallie, Phil

Trotter, Neville

Garnier, Edward

Heald, Oliver

Tellers for the Noes:

Kilfedder, Sir James

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith and

Oppenheim, Phillip

Mr. Roger Evans.

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:
1.—(1) Financial assistance to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 1st January 1993 if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or

(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000.

(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred by it in any period shall be the aggregate of

(a) the first relevant amount for that period multiplied by the number of seats, won by its candidates at that Election; and

(b) the second relevant amount for that period multiplied by one-two hundredth of the number of votes cast for its candidates at that Election (rounded down to the nearest whole number).

(3) For the period beginning with 1st January 1993 and ending with 31st March 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be £4,080; and

(b) the second relevant amount shall be £8.16.

(4) For the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994

(a) the first relevant amount shall be the sum of £3,442.50 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period; and

(b) the second relevant amount shall be the sum of £6.89 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.
(5) For any subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April

(a) the first relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period; and

(b) the second relevant amount shall be that amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period;

but if either of the resulting amounts is not a whole number of pounds and pence it shall be rounded to the nearest penny.
(6) The appropriate percentage for any period is the percentage by which the retail prices index for the month of March immediately preceding that period has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.
(7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) above to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this paragraph those references in that sub-paragraph shall be construed as references to any substituted index or index figure published by that Office.
(8) In consequence of this paragraph, the Resolution of 21st June 1988 shall not have effect with respect to any time after 31st December 1992.
2.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 above, financial assistance towards travelling and associated expenses necessarily incurred by an opposition party's spokesmen in relation to the party's Parliamentary business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 27th April 1992 if at that time one of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 above is satisfied with respect to the party.
(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given under this paragraph to any party in respect of the expenses incurred in any period shall be such of the available amount for that period as may be allocated to the party in accordance with any apportionment under sub-paragraph (3) below.
(3) The available amount for any period shall be apportioned between each of the opposition parties in the same proportions as the maximum amount of financial assistance which may be given to each of them under paragraph 1 above for that period or for any period forming part of that period; and any such apportionment shall be made to the nearest pound.
(4) Any reference in this paragraph to the available amount for a period is a reference

(a) in the case of the period beginning with 27th April 1992 and ending with 31st March 1994, to £100,000;

(b) in the case of the period of one year beginning with 1st April 1994, to the sum of £100,000 but increased by the appropriate percentage for that period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and

(c) in the case of each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1st April, to the available amount for the previous period but increased by the appropriate percentage for the subsequent period and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) of paragraphs I above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.
3. Any claims for financial assistance under this Resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and a party claiming such assistance shall

(a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;

(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and

(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

4.—(1) In the case of any year in which there is a General Election

(a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election and

(b) the period beginning with that date,

shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1(1) and (2), 2(1) to (3) and 3 above as separate periods.
(2) In relation to any such separate period

(a) the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest penny) of the first relevant amount and the second relevant amount for the year in question; and

617

(b) the available amount for that period shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest pound) of the available amount for the year in question.

(3) In relation to any such separate period ending immediately before the date of the Election, paragraph 3(c) above shall have effect as if the 31st March referred to were a reference to the day immediately before the date of the Election.
(4) In this paragraph "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.
5. The cost of providing financial assistance shall be borne on the House of Commons: Members' salaries etc. Vote.

Clinical Waste Incineration (Letchworth)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjoum.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
9.57 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an issue of great concern to my constituents in Letchworth. The issue also concerns the residents of Stotfold and Arlesey in Bedfordshire. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) has asked me to say that he supports the concerns which I will outline tonight. My right hon. Friend's constituents attended a recent meeting where between 500 and 600 people objected to a clinical waste incineration plant which is being proposed for Letchworth.
The Hertfordshire county council is presently considering the application for permission to build the clinical waste incinerator in Stotfold road close to a school and a housing estate. I have never known the people of Letchworth to be so united as they are in opposing the proposal.
I have lived in this constituency for many years, and the people of Letchworth are outraged at the idea. Letchworth was the world's first garden city. Conceived by Ebenezer Howard in 1903, it has gone on to become a milestone of town planning, with designated areas for each and every activity—shopping, housing, industrial development and agriculture, all in a leafy garden environment. That vision has now reached its final realisation, and there are 30,000 residents.
Because of this legacy, Letchworth has large areas of green belt comprising more than 50 per cent. of the town—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjornment of the House lapsed, without Question put,
Motion made, and Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Mr. Heald: Because of its legacy, Letchworth is seen by town planners the world over as a paradigm and it has been much imitated. To the people of Letchworth the green belt is a vital protective barrier for its heritage, a fact recognised by this House in the 1962 legislation that set up the Letchworth garden city corporation to be a guardian of Letchworth's heritage. Because of the supervisory role of the Department, I know that the Minister is aware of the work that the corporation has done over the years to protect Letchworth from the wrong sort of development. The corporation adamantly opposes the planning proposal that is before Hertfordshire county council.
Equally, North Hertfordshire district council has a long-standing policy of defending the green belt around Letchworth. It received the initial application; it rejected it, with the support of every civic group in the town.
Two public meetings have been packed to the doors. More than 1,000 people attended, a large petition was presented to the county council, and a petition to the House of Commons will be presented in due course.
I have received numerous letters which I have passed on to the Minister in which local people set out their concerns. By way of expressing their flavour, I would like to read out a letter sent me by two young people from Letchworth:
"Dear Mr. Heald,

619
Darren and I have made up a rap because we want you to know how we feel about the incinerator. We don't want the incinerator anywhere near Letchworth.

This is a rap for Oliver Heald,

They're going to build an incinerator on the field,

On the field there are some trees

Houses and people, all of these

We want to keep our town nice and clean,

So don't bring an incinerator on this green.

You'll poison the trees so don't do it!

If you care about nature, don't build an incinerator."

I have also had letters from local doctors. This one was from one of the largest practices in Letchworth:
"We, the undersigned, being the partners and employees of this group practice, wish to inform you that we are all very strongly opposed to the proposal to build a waste disposal incinerator so close to Letchworth Garden City. We oppose this on environmental, health and historic grounds and we feel that this proposal should be immediately abandoned."
I have had many other letters like it.
Why are the people of Letchworth so opposed to the incinerator? From the school and the housing estate next to the proposed scheme, there is a view across a green valley. That view will be interrupted by a 75 ft chimney and a large laundry building, and it is suggested that steam and other emissions will also cloud the view, thereby destroying part of the green belt barrier around the town.
Secondly, there will be increased traffic and noise. Residents are aware of the experience of Hillingdon, where a similar plant has caused an outcry resulting in a petition to, and a debate in, this House.
Mr. Michael Shersby: In support of my hon. Friend, I have the misfortune to have a hospital incinerator in my constituency, which is operated by Clinical Energy. It is a most unsuitable activity for a residential area, which results in noise, a considerable increase in traffic caused by large lorries delivering clinical waste and my constituents being unable to sit in their gardens to enjoy quiet summer evenings. It also results in emissions that can lead to atmospheric pollution. All those matters should be of concern to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I have made numerous representations to HMIP on behalf of a group of my constituents who call themselves Residents Against Incinerator Nuisance, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows.
My hon. Friend has my strongest possible support in opposing that especial activity. The incineration of clinical waste should he carried out well away from residential areas.
Mr. Heald: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for setting that scene. I do not want my constituents to suffer that sort of nuisance, noise and health worry, and that is why I have brought the matter to the attention of the House.
It is fair to point out that, although the people who set up such clinical waste facilities are often the first to say that they are as safe as can be, they do not live next to such facilities and do not have the misery of being in their garden in summer while steam belches from a nearby chimney. The House should seriously consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that there should be some scheme that keeps such facilities away from residential areas where there are schools and, in this case, also an educational farm.
There is also cause to worry because there is considerable uncertainty about the health implications of such facilities. The Royal Commission on Environmental Waste, under Sir John Houghton, reported in May:
620
"We believe it is right nevertheless to continue to maintain a cautious and questioning attitude towards the possibility of health effects from incineration plants"
If there is that need for a cautious and questioning attitude towards the possible health effects of such incineration plants, they should not be sited in areas near to housing estates or where young children go to school.
The Hillingdon plant to which my hon. Friend referred has not met the standards for emissions of dioxin set by the HMIP. That plant has been put forward in the planning application as the direct comparator—the reference site. When the royal commission considered the question, it admitted that it did not have a full understanding of the effects of highly toxic dioxin on humans. It recommended that, as further evidence on the toxicity of dioxin becomes available, its implications should be kept under continuing surveillance by the chief medical officers. In the light of that uncertainty, surely there should be a policy to site incineration plants away from housing areas.
My constituents and I are looking for three responses. We want the county council to reject the planning application. It has said that the green belt is not an overriding issue in the application. To the objectors and me that is an unsustainable argument. The idea of a green belt is to protect the heritage of towns such as Letchworth—a garden city or something special—and also to guard the countryside surrounding it. If the green belt is not an overriding issue in a town such as Letchworth—a town planning model that is copied the world over—how can it ever be an issue that will have overriding importance?
I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who supports the objectors in Stotfold and Arlesey who have recently protested about the scheme, is in his place.
If the county council will not reject the scheme, the Secretary of State should call in the application so that there can be a full public inquiry to examine the issues that I have raised, and national issues. Those are issues such as: should the green belt be allowed to be breached in such circumstances; should incineration plants which deal with chemical waste and which give rise to uncertainties about health implications be built close to houses?
I ask the Minister to comment on the national situation in the context of clinical waste schemes and their future planning. We know that county councils are being encouraged to formulate waste plans, but they seem to be slow in doing it. Councillors seemed keen for Hertfordshire county council to decide that the green belt at Letchworth should not be an overriding consideration. One wonders what the county councillors were thinking at the time. Perhaps they were thinking, "It won't be in my part of Hertfordshire."
The strategic view must be that clinical waste incineration will be carried out away from houses and not in a green belt, and that it will be carried out safely. The Minister should comment on that and on current progress, so that other towns do not suffer the agony that Letchworth and villages close by are going through while waiting for the result of the application.
The people of Letchworth say a resounding no to this application. The people of the neighbouring villages say the same, and so do I. The application will be fought tooth and nail and will be resisted in every possible way. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the county council will take that message on board.
10.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) has raised issues of understandable concern to his constituents over proposals for a clinical waste incinerator at Letchworth, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I am sure that my comments will also interest my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). My right hon. and learned Friend has raised similar concerns on behalf of his constituents. As was evident from the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) these issues extend beyond Hertfordshire.
The proposal for a clinical waste incinerator at Letchworth is the subject of an application for planning permission which is currently before Hertfordshire county council. It has the responsibility for determining applications involving waste disposal matters, rather than district or borough councils which normally have responsibility for deciding all other applications for planning permission.
The application has been made by Blue Circle Waste Management Ltd and it involves the erection of a 12 m high building with a 25 m chimney on land at Letchworth sewage works. I understand that the incinerator is intended to burn medical waste—including low-level radioactive waste, seized materials—such as drugs—and confidential waste, which is authorised through Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
I understand that Hertfordshire Liberal Democrat county council has requested further information from the applicants about the proposed incinerator, and more particularly about the potential environmental impact of this type of development in the location proposed. The applicants are now considering that request. The application is still at a comparatively early stage.
It might be helpful to explain the framework of land use that is provided by the town and country planning system. That aims to secure the most efficient and effective use of land in the public interest, and to ensure that service facilities such as roads, schools and sewers are built where they are needed.
Planning decisions on proposals to build land or to change its use are usually made by the local authorities. We believe that it is appropriate that decisions should normally be taken at the local level. It is therefore important that local authorities fulfil their responsibilities and take decisions on local planning matters, even if these may be difficult.
Such decisions should be rational and consistent. They must also be considered against the policies adopted by the authority after public consultation on its local plan. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 requires decisions to be in accordance with the development plan, unless material consideration indicate otherwise. Therefore, the development plan is, and will increasingly become, an important document.
Development plans set out the local planning authority's policies and the proposals for the development and use of land in its area. There is a cascade of planning policy guidance from national and regional guidance to the county structure plan and ultimately the district-wide local plan. Therefore, the development plan provides a clear
622
guide to prospective applicants for planning permission to the kinds of development that will or will not be permitted during the plan period. Both county structure and district-wide local plans involve the public through consultation at all stages of the plan preparation process.
For most local plans, a public local inquiry is held to consider objections to the local planning authority's published proposals before an independent inspector appointed by, but not accountable to, the Secretary of State. The inspector reports to the local authority, and its published decisions based on this advice are subject to further public consultation. That ensures that the local plan has been prepared with full local participation and helps to give confidence to local people in the consistency of planning decisions.
I was particularly pleased to see that North Hertfordshire district council has recently adopted the latest alteration to its local plan and is already making good progress with a further revision to extend the plan period. In general circumstances, planning decisions are taken against the background of the local plan. However, as I said, decisions on waste disposal are taken strategically by the county council.
Provision for waste disposal facilities also need to be planned at a strategic level. My hon. Friend is right. If decisions are taken at a strategic level, there must be a strategic plan. Such decisions cannot be taken on an ad hoc basis, and that is why it is right for county councils to have a proper strategic waste plan, just as, where they have other responsibilities—for example, for minerals—it must be right that they have a comprehensive plan for those.
I urge every local authority that has responsibility for strategic waste plans to ensure that its plans are up to date. Waste regulation authorities are required, under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 to draw up separate waste disposal plans which consider the need for waste facilities within their areas and the technical aspects of possible methods of treatment and disposal. Planning authorities are required to have regard to the waste disposal plan in drawing up development plans, so that they reflect the need for adequate and appropriate waste facilities. Again, it is important that there is an effective waste disposal plan. Without one to cover the whole county, it is difficult for the district authorities to have their development plans in place.
I appreciate that plans for waste incinerators can lead to concerns among local residents that it is understandable that they should seek assurances about safety and the impact of their neighbourhood. Therefore, I understand why that has prompted my hon. Friend's constituents to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the application for his own determination and hold a public inqury.
It might be helpful if I explain that the Secretary of State usually intervenes in the determination of planning applications very selectively. We continue to be very selective about calling in cases for our decision, and applications will in general be called in only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those that could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality and which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy.
The fact that a planning application is highly controversial locally is not of itself a justification for the Secretary of State to call it in. Parliament has charged local authorities with the responsibility for development control

623
along with many other important administrative decisions. It must be right that, as far as possible, local authorities discharge the responsibility that has been given to them by Parliament.
Local authorities are democratically elected organisations, accountable to their electorate for their decisions. We consider that it would imply unnecessary central control if a large number of decisions on planning applications were taken by the Secretary of State rather than the local authority. The Secretary of State will therefore intervene only where there are compelling reasons to do so.
It may be helpful if I say that, during the past few years, the number of matters that have been called in by the Secretary of State for his own decision has averaged about 100 a year—about two a week. While the Secretary of State may have a role to play where applications are referred to him as a departure from the development plan, he will not intervene on planning applications simply because the local planning authority finds the decision difficult, complex or of local controversy. He will only exercise his reserve powers of intervention sparingly, where there are compelling and wider reasons to do so.
As far as the present application is concerned, I will of course keep in close touch with developments. It is only right that the county council should be given the opportunity to exercise its responsibility as planning authority and to consider all aspects of the scheme before the Secretary of State considers whether he should intervene. If, after considering all the information, the county council is minded to approve the application, it may refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan. In those circumstances, as in all circumstances where cases are referred to us as a departure from the development plan, the Secretary of State will consider very carefully whether it is an application which would be appropriate for him to call in.
There are many reasons why an application might be a departure from the development plan. In this case, there may well be green belt considerations. Alternatively, should the county council refuse to grant permisssion, the applicants would have a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State against the decision.
In those circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the merits of the application or the issues involved, because to do so might prejudice any decision that might be taken by my right hon. Friend—for example, whether to call in the application at some period during the process. If the county council were to refuse it and it came before the Secretary of State on appeal, obviously it is important that his decision should in no way have been prejudiced earlier.
It may be helpful if I say a little about waste management, because, as we learn more about the environment and the balance that needs to be maintained between our activities and the earth's ecosystem, we recognise the need to maintain at the highest level the
624
environmental and health standards to be achieved by our industries. That applies to the waste management industry as much as to any other industry.
Incineration standards are stringent, as are those for landfill. The new system of integrated pollution control introduced under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 covers larger incineration plants of all types. The incineration of specific types of waste, and all incinerators rated at 1 tonne an hour or more are controlled by HMIP. The integrated pollution control system also allows authorisations to be periodically reviewed to ensure that operators are incorporating technical advances in their pollution control system.
In the past, most hospital waste has been dealt with by incinerators located within the hospital grounds. With the closure of many old hospital incinerators, hospitals are having to consider the most appropriate means of disposal for the considerable quantities of clinical waste that are being produced and that is leading to further consideration being given to other methods of treatment, including autoclaving and microwaving, which are capable of rendering safe some types of infectious hospital waste.
For many types of hospital waste, however, incineration will remain the most appropriate disposal method. The high standards required for incinerators generally apply equally to incinerators burning clinical waste. All incinerators will be required to meet the stringent standards currently in force under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which are rigorously enforced by HMIP.
Of course I heard the comments of my hon. Friend for Uxbridge and I will certainly ensure that HMIP investigates the concern he has raised this evening. It is obviously of vital importance that, if there is the statutory framework of the Environmental Protection Act and a regulatory body, HMIP, with responsibility for these matters, there is public confidence that the statutory framework and regulatory authority are delivering that which Parliament has entrusted them to deliver.
I am satisfied that, in addition to the planning process, adequate legislative safeguards are in place to ensure proper implementation and operation of this type of development under the Environmental Protection Act through the authorisation by HMIP.
I make those comments without prejudice to the particular application that is of concern to my hon. Friend. However, I consider it wholly proper that the proposals for a clinical waste incinerator at Letchworth should be fully considered by Hertfordshire county council. Parliament has given the responsibility of determining the application to Hertfordshire county council which must consider the application fully before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides whether he should call in the application.
My hon. Friend can assure his constituents that I will continue to monitor progress on this application very carefully and stand ready to intervene at the appropriate time should the need arise.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy, when considering publicly releasing documents submitted to the Scott inquiry by officials or former Ministers of his Department, on consulting Lord Justice Scott.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is the policy of this Department that all relevant papers from FCO files are submitted to Lord Justice Scott on request from the inquiry. The Department has also volunteered additional relevant papers.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of fighting in and around Sarajevo during the past month; how many breaches of the ceasefire there have been during that period; and if he will list the identities of parties who initiated the breach of ceasefire on each occasion where such information is available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The level of fighting in Sarajevo continues to fluctuate. Both the Bosnian Government forces and the Bosnian Serbs have initiated attacks. There are no precise details on the numbers of ceasefire breaches and which party was responsible for them.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts have been made by the United Nations to maintain or repair the electricity supply installations around Sarajevo during the past fortnight; what was the result; what representations have been made about hindrance to the work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations protection force and the parties to the conflict are in constant touch about repairing utilities in Sarajevo. UNPROFOR engineers work hard to repair and maintain utilities, including electricity, when local conditions permit and the warring parties allow safe access.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment is made on a daily or weekly basis of the level of fighting throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina; which areas are currently under the most intense conflict; which areas have been under the most intense conflict during the past month; which of the ethnic communities are principally involved in military clashes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We receive regular reports of the situation on the ground in Bosnia from a number of sources, including the United Nations, British 302
  UNPROFOR troops and the European Community monitor mission. The conflict remains widespread in many areas in Bosnia. The most intense fighting in recent months has taken place in central Bosnia between Bosnian Government forces and the Bosnian Croats. We also remain particularly concerned about continued fighting between the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Serbs around Sarajevo and the Muslim enclaves in eastern Bosnia.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions are required from(a) the Belgrade Government to ensure removal, or part removal, of United Nations and European Community sanctions and (b) the Croatian Government to avoid the implementation of either United Nations or European Community sanctions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution 820 envisages a review of sanctions after the Bosnian parties have reached a peace settlement and the Bosnian Serbs are judged to be co-operating in good faith with its implementation. EC Foreign Ministers also declared on 5 April that there could be gradual lifting of sanctions if the Bosnian Serbs met these conditions. Croatia remains on notice that it faces the threat of withdrawal of preferential EC trading benefits unless it co-operates with international efforts to resolve the conflicts in Bosnia and Croatia and uses its influence with the Bosnian Croats to ensure that they also co-operate.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans have been made for a new round of peace talks in London concerning the current conflict in the fomer Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the possibility of another international conference in separate meetings with Dr. Boutros Ghali and Mr. Stoltenberg on 25 October. There was agreement that a conference, probably in Geneva, may be useful in guiding the parties towards a settlement once significant further progress has been made, but that it would be premature to hold such a conference now.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the circumstances surrounding the attack on United Nations aid personnel near Novi Travnik on 25 October; what were the circumstances of the attack; and what casualties were sustained.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Three convoys, two carrying United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees aid and one resupplying UNPROFOR, came under fire south of Novi Travnik while negotiating passage through an HVO checkpoint. One Danish UNHCR employee was killed and eight United Nations aid personnel were wounded. The United Nations is investigating the circumstances and its report will be available soon. In the meantime, the UNHCR has suspended convoys in central Bosnia.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions of the situation in the former Yugoslavia he had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations during their recent meeting; and if he will make a statement.
  303
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary- General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Ghali, discussed a wide range of issues covering the peace prospects in Bosnia, plans to hold a further international conference, sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro and the humanitarian situation in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the guidelines issued to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees airlift operations cell Geneva to cover the humanitarian airlift to Sarajevo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The policy guidelines for movement into and out of Sarajevo by air are issued by UNHCR headquarters in Geneva. I have arranged for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the latest guidelines issued by UNHCR on 12 September.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he had with the authorities in Sarajevo before formulating the guidelines issued to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees airlift operations cell Geneva to cover the humanitarian airlift to Sarajevo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The guidelines are formulated by UNHCR (Air Operations Cell) in consultation with UNPROFOR.

  Belgrade (Ambassador)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what date is envisaged for the return of the British ambassador to his post in Belgrade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans at present to reappoint an ambassador to Belgrade.

  Montenegro
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement following his meeting with the Montenegrin Foreign Minister, Mr. Lekic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I separately met the Montenegrin Foreign Minister on 25 October he assured us that his Government were trying to promote internal democracy and support efforts to reach a peaceful settlement of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia. Mr. Lekic also asked for a limited exemption from sanctions to help relieve a shortage of humanitarian supplies in Montenegro for refugees and the needy local population. We made it clear that the sanctions regime had to be rigorously enforced. We would, however, continue to support the delivery of humanitarian aid throughout former Yugoslavia, including Montenegro, whose humanitarian problems we recognised, on the basis of need.

  Armenia
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions he has drawn from his recent visit to the Transcaucasus about the prospect of the economic blockade of Armenia being lifted.
  304
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During my visit to the Transcaucasus I concluded that the humanitarian suffering caused by the conflicts in the region was growing worse. This points to the urgent need to resolve all disputes by negotiation.

  The blockade of Armenia is contributing to the hardship. We want to see it lifted just as we want to see the Armenian blockade of Nakichevan lifted. Both steps are essential if lasting peace is to be secured.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 663, if he will set out the considerations underlying the decision not to publish a list of EC directives that the Government believe should be amended or repealed as a result of the application of subsidiarity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In discussions with the Commission and other member states over recent months about putting the principle of subsidiarity into effect, we have put forward a number of suggestions of directives, in force or proposed, which we believe should be amended, repealed or withdrawn on subsidiarity grounds. We shall continue to develop our ideas. It would be misleading to publish a list which implied that we had reached the limit of suggestions which we have to contribute, nor would this help to achieve our negotiating objectives. Ministers regularly make clear to the House their views on particular directives and proposals.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers, 1993–94.

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  The following meetings are planned:

  5 November: Culture Council

  8 November: Education Council

  8–9 November: Foreign Affairs Council

  11 November: Internal Market Council

  15 November: Budget Council

  16–17 November: Agriculture Council

  18 November: Industry Council

  19 November: Consumer Council 22 November: ECOFIN Council

  22 November: Fisheries Council

  23 November: Social Affairs Council

  29–30 November: Transport Council

  29–30 November: Justice Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  (a) Culture Council—5 November

  European City of Culture

  The economic aspects of culture and its role in creating employment

  Fixed book price and status of the artist: report by presidency on the informal meeting of Ministers

  Centenary of the cinema

  Evaluation of the media programme

  Information from the presidency on the Mons seminar of audio-visual Ministers followed by an exchange of views on the audio-visual sector and the GATT negotiations

  (b) Education Council/Meeting of Education Ministers—8 November

  Student mobility and access to higher education in the Community (9324/93)

  Green Paper on European dimension in education (COM(93)457 Final)

  305
  (c) Foreign Affairs Council—8–9 November

  Follow-up to 29 October European Council

  Access to information

  EP committees of inquiry

  Access negotiations: preparation of ministerial negotiating sessions

  Relations with Turkey: agreement on Community position for association council

  Stability Pact

  Ex-Yugoslavia

  South Africa

  Trade policy questions

  Uruguay round

  Trade policy instruments

  Relations with Switzerland

  Austria: state aid (possible)

  Relation with Russia: revision of negotiating mandate for partnership agreement

  Relation with Bulgaria: conclusion of interim agreement Relations with Morocco: negotiating mandate

  Relations with Israel: negotiating mandate (possible)

  (d) Internal Market Council—11 November

  Operation of the internal market (possible)

  Data protection (possible)

  Equipment for use in explosive atmospheres (possible) Personal protective equipment (possible)

  Motor cycle type approval directives (possible)

  Trans-European networks: declarations of European interest (possible)

  Directive 83/189 on technical standards and regulations (10898/92) (possible)

  Resolution on small and medium-sized enterprises

  European company statute (possible)

  (e) Budget Council—15 November

  1994 draft budget

  (f) Agriculture Council—16–17 November

  Agenda unavailable

  (g) Industry Council—18 November

  Steel Restructuring

  Possible decision on article 95 ECSC steel state aid cases ECSC funding

  Competition policy: annual competition report Commission presentation

  General follow-up to resolutions—aeronautics, automobiles, textiles and IT

  SPRINT—strategic programme for innovation and technology transfer

  (g) Consumer Council—19 November

  Timeshare directive—possible common position

  Distance selling directive—orientation debate

  Commission consumer action plan

  Amendment to directive 79/112/EEC on food labellingTransparency of cross-frontier payments

  Green Paper on access to justice (possible)

  Green Paper on guarantees and after-sales service

  (h) ECOFIN Council—22 November

  Preparation of the Brussels European Council (possible)

  EMU secondary legislation:

  consideration of EP opinions

  establishment of common positions on privileged access and monetary financing

  Commission White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment

  Broad guidelines of economic policy

  Community participation in the European investment fund (4382/93 COM(93)3)

  Relations with central and eastern Europe

  BCCI directive (8365/93 COM(93)363)

  UCITS (4901/93 COM(93)37)

  7th VAT directive (possible)

  (i) Fisheries Council-22 November

  Agenda unavailable

  306
  (j) Labour and Social Affairs Council—23 November

  Agenda unavailable

  (k) Transport Council—29–30 November

  Proposal for a "CARE" road safety data base

  Council conclusions on the Commission's road safety communication

  Transport to and from Greece

  Presentation of proposals on railway licensing and access to the network (possible)

  Relations with Switzerland

  Road haulage external relations mandate (possible)

  Inland waterways "Tour de Role" (possible)

  Presentation of proposal on transport of dangerous goods (possible)

  Air accidents investigation (plus possible follow-up to 27 September "Aviation Crisis" meeting)

  Training for seafarers

  Classification societies

  Relations with west Africa

  (1) Justice Council—29–30 November

  Various immigration/asylum items

  Extraction

  Europol and other TREVI items

  EC accession to ECHR

  The Cultural Affairs Council will meet on 5 November. Discussions will be on the European City of Culture and the economic aspects of culture and its role in creating employment. There will be a report by the Presidency on the informal meeting of Ministers on fixed book price and status of the artist. Ministers will discuss the centenary of the cinema and carry out an evaluation of the media programme. There will be information from the presidency on the Mons seminar of audio-visual Ministers followed by an exchange of views on the audio-visual sector and the GATT negotiations.

  The Education Council will meet on 8 November. There will be discussions and an exchange of views on student mobility and access to higher education in the Community, and on the Green Paper on the European dimension in education.

  There will be a Foreign Affairs Council on 8 and 9 November. The Council will discuss a Commission paper on the development of trade relations in a number of sectors with Switzerland, following its decision not to participate in the European economic area. Subject to the progress of talks with Austria, the Council may be asked to approve Commission proposals for action against state aids granted by Austria to two industrial projects. The FAC will discuss the lifting of some of the remaining sanctions imposed by the EC on South Africa. The Council will also consider the policy to be adopted towards South Africa between now and the establishment of a democratic government there, including a contribution to monitoring of the first full elections there next year. The Council will consider further the proposed pact on stability in Europe, and proposals to amend the current negotiating directives of an EC/Russia partnership and co-operation agreement. The Council will discuss conclusion of the EC/Bulgaria interim agreement. The agreement is intended to give early effect to those provisions of the EC/Bulgaria association agreement—signed 8 March 1993—that fall within the sole competence of the Community.

  The Internal Market Council will meet on 11 November. Discussions will be on TENS and the resolution on small and medium-sized enterprises. Also listed on the agenda for possible discussion is: operation of the internal market; data protection equipment for use in

  307
  explosive atmospheres; personal protective equipment; technical standards and regulations and European company statute.

  The Budget Council will meet on 15 November to consider the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the draft budget of the European Community for 1994.

  The Industry Council will meet on 18 November. The Council will be dominated by a discussion of the Spanish, Italian and German applications for aid for their steel industries under article 95 ECSC. Commissioner van Miert will give his annual report on competition matters.

  At the Consumer Affairs Council of 19 November, the Commission will give a presentation on its consumer action plan. It is possible that a common position on the timeshare directive will be reached at this Council. Issues to be discussed will be duration of cooling-off period, provisions for the protection of prohibition of deposit moneys, and provisions for purchasers to withdraw from timeshare contracts without penalty. Applicable law issues may also be discussed. As for the distance selling directive, it is not clear whether the original Council intention to have an orientation debate on policy issues arising from the latest text of the directive—submitted to Council on 13 October—will be carried over to 19 November. It may settle for a report on progress. The United Kingdom also wishes to discuss proposed ban on prepayment, and provision for cancellation of credit card transactions.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 22 November. It is expected to consider preparation for the Brussels European Council discussion on economic issues; the question of Community participation in the European investment fund; the directive to make changes to existing EC financial services legislation in response to the collapse of Bank of Credit and Commerce International and the Maxwell affair; the amending directive on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS); and possibly Community financial assistance to central and eastern Europe and former Soviet Union. The Council may also consider a report from the Commission on progress with economic convergence and implementation of the single market legislation.

  The Fisheries Council will meet on 22 November. The agenda is not yet available.

  The Social Affairs Council will meet on 23 November. The agenda is not yet available.

  The Transport Council will meet on 19/30 November. Ministers will discuss the proposal for a "CARE" road safety data base and the Council conclusions on the Commission's road safety communication. Transport to and from Greece, relations with Switzerland, training for seafarers, classification societies and relations with west Africa will be discussed. There will possibly be a presentation of proposals on railway licensing and access to the network, and discussion on road haulage external relations mandate, inland waterways "Tour de Role" and air accidents investigation. There may also be a presentation of the proposal on transport of dangerous goods.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Brodsworth Hall
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the items of value to date that English Heritage has removed from Brodsworth hall, Brodsworth, near Doncaster, south Yorkshire, and placed in secure storage prior to them being replaced after the hall's renovation.

  Mr. Brooke
  Approximately 17,000 objects of historic importance, valued at around £3.5 million, have been inventoried and are in store. Producing a list of this size for publication is impractical in the time available. However, I understand that English Heritage has invited the hon. Member to visit Brodsworth hall, and that it would be happy to extend its invitation to cover the store and the work in progress at both sites.

  Libraries
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many public libraries of(a) more than 8,000 sq m, (b) between 2,000 and 8,000 sq m and (c) less than 2,000 sq m have been built in (i) the last three years, (ii) the last 10 years and (iii) the last 20 years.

  Mr. Sproat
  Information about new library openings is not collected centrally. Statistics collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy go back 20 years and include information on numbers of service points but do not include information on library size. The total number of mobile, central and branch libraries in England, open more than 10 hours a week, in 1991–92—the latest year for which figures are available—1982–83 and 1972–73 was 3,650, 3,598 and 3,486 respectively.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans Her Majesty's Government have to use public libraries to give the public access to(a) Government papers and (b) Government information.

  Mr. Sproat
  The responsibility for providing public library services, and for choosing their stock, rests with local library authorities. Official publications are clearly likely to be an important element of the comprehensive library and information service which library authorities must provide, and most of them stock an extensive range. Public libraries are also frequently used by Departments for disseminating official information.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many public libraries are open for 60 hours or more a week in(a) England and (b) London.

  Mr. Sproat
  The number of service points open for 60 hours or more a week in England and London at 31 March 1992—the latest date for which figures are available—was 14 and three respectively.

  Access is maximised by a pattern of libraries which are open where and when people wish to use them, not simply by aggregate hours.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in what ways the views and experiences of(a) library users and (b) librarians are being (i) represented and (ii) canvassed in his review of libraries.

  Mr. Sproat
  The terms of reference of the public library review were drawn up following wide consultation of
  309
  professional librarians. Further extensive consultation during the course of the review will include the views of librarians and of users and non-users of the library service. In undertaking the review, the Department will be advised by an expert group of librarian members of my statutory advisory council—the Library and Information Services Council (England).

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the level of the television licence fees.

  Mr. Brooke
  Following a recommendation of the Peacock committee in 1986, the television licence fee was increased annually in line with retail prices index for the three years, April 1988 to April 1990. In 1990, independent consultants, Price Waterhouse, identified potential savings of £203 million which they believed could be achieved by the BBC over the five-year period, 1991 to 1996, without any reduction in service.

  In the light of the consultants' report, the Government adopted a five-year licence fee strategy. This involved an increase of 3 per cent. below RPI in April 1991, followed by annual increases at RPI over the next four years, but with a commitment to reassess the position before the fee increase due in April 1994.

  On 21 June this year, I announced the appointment of independent consultants, Touche Ross, to advise me on the BBC's progress in achieving the efficiency and revenue gains identified by Price Waterhouse in 1990; on the scope for further, additional savings; and, on whether the RPI linkage continued to be appropriate for the next three years.

  Touche Ross reported to me at the end of August, and a management summary of its report is being published today by HMSO. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The full report will not be published because it contains material which is commercially sensitive to the BBC.

  The good news for licence payers is that the consultants concluded that the BBC had done well to manage its financial position during a time of considerable change. The consultants found that the BBC has pursued opportunities to make savings and efficiency improvements in a rigorous and effective manner, and I congratulate the BBC on the progress it has made.

  Touche Ross put forward a range of options for setting the level of the licence fee over the next three years, including setting the fee below RPI in two of the next three years. Its report welcomed the introduction of the "Producer Choice" initiative on 1 April this year, but noted the need for caution in setting the licence fee, because the full impact of the initiative on the BBC's costs was riot yet known.

  The Government have decided, in the light of the report, that for the next three years changes in the licence fee should continue to be set at the level of RPI changes. This will enable the BBC to channel savings into programmes and, over the next three years, allow the BBC steadily to reduce and largely eliminate its annual borrowing.

  The licence payer will benefit directly from the additional and better programmes which this settlement will allow, and the BBC will benefit from being able to plan on a sound base before the expiry of the present. Royal
  310
  charter at the end of 1996. We are considering how the BBC should be financed in the longer term, as part of our review of the corporation's future.

  In recent years, the April licence fee increase has been based on the RPI figures published in the preceding September. This means that the television licence fee will rise by 1.8 per cent. from 1 April 1994. The colour licence will therefore increase from £83 to £84.50, and a black and white licence will now cost £28, a rise of 50p. The necessary regulations giving effect to the increase will be laid before the House in due course.

  Transfrontier Television
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to submit his report to the European Commission on the implementation of articles 4 and 5 of the European directive on transfrontier television; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The report is being submitted today, and I am placing a copy in the House Libraries. It shows that the great majority of television programming seen in the United Kingdom is of European origin. In particular, the terrestrial channels have each broadcast around 70 per cent. European material and have met in full the requirement to broadcast a proportion of programming independently produced within the Community. These channels continue to account for over 90 per cent. of viewing as assessed by television ratings.

  Many of the new satellite channels licensed in the United Kingdom have also reached the targets set in the directive both for European content and for independently produced material. This is very encouraging and vindicates our efforts to encourage diversity and choice in the United Kingdom broadcasting market.

  The report also shows, however, that a number of other broadcasters have yet to meet the targets for European and independently produced material referred to in the directive. While it may not be practicable for all of these broadcasters to meet these levels, I am particularly disappointed by the performance of some broadcasters who have fallen well short. All broadcasters licensed in the United Kingdom are bound by the requirements of the directive. As a first step, we shall be writing to all the relevant broadcasters to ask why they have not met the requirements of the directive, what level of European and independently produced material it would be practicable for them to transmit, and over what period of time they could progressively achieve these levels.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have taken place in Wales since 1988 under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts in respect of vessels that fish for profit.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1988, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's sea fisheries inspectorate has not undertaken any prosecutions in Wales under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts in respect of vessels fishing for profit while unregistered.
  311
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his Department's fishery officers of the inspectorate of fisheries are responsible for enforcement work on licences around the coast of Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's sea fisheries inspectorate currently has five officers based in Wales—two at Milford Haven and three at Caernarvon—whose responsibilities include licensing of the fishing vessels and related enforcement.

  Cattle Diseases
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase there has been in incidents of(a) brucellosis and (b) warble fly infection in cattle since 1 January; to what extent these incidents have been caused by imported cattle; and if she will make a statement on the measures she is taking.

  Mr. Soames
  Brucella abortus has been isolated from cattle on one farm this year and serological evidence of infection found on a further nine farms up to the end of October. This is the first isolation of brucella abortus in Great Britain since 1990 but positive serological reactions, which may have been caused by cross reaction with another organism, were found on 12 farms in 1992. The origin of the last outbreak is still under investigation. Action is being taken to trace any animals which have been in contact with the infected cattle and to prevent the spread of infection.

  Clinical cases of serological evidence of warble fly were recorded on 107 premises in Great Britain in 1993 compared with none in 1992. All the cases recorded in 1993 were directly linked to imported cattle. Seventy-one of the premises have been released from all controls following satisfactory treatment. The remaining 36 premises will be released from controls when compulsory autumn treatment has been completed. We have been in touch with the French authorities and have received assurances from them that they will not certify for export animals showing clinical signs of warble fly infestation. We are also seeking further safeguards from the Community to prevent the importation of cattle in which the infestation is not yet clinically evident and are reassessing the role of compulsory post-import treatment.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what cattle diseases have reappeared in the United Kingdom since 1 January; how this has come about; and what action is being taken to prevent the importation of cattle diseases from other parts of the EC.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 3 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).

  Ewe Annual Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in England are currently eligible for ewe annual premium payments; how many claims for payment have been received; how many have been paid; and when any outstanding claims will be paid.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no figures regarding the number of sheep farmers who are eligible to apply. some 42,700 312
  claims have been received under the 1993 scheme and about 29,600 have been paid the first and second advances and less-favoured area supplement where appropriate. Outstanding eligible claims will be paid as soon as possible.

  Prairie Dogs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are the current regulations on the control of prairie dogs; and what assessment she has made of whether they are adequate to contain their spread;

  (2) what is the estimated United Kingdom population of prairie dogs living in the wild.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry is not aware of any populations of prairie dogs outside captivity within the United Kingdom, other than the small and undetermined numbers reported on the Isle of Wight. Those on the Isle of Wight are reported to be escapees from a wildlife park. It is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, to release or allow prairie dogs into the wild. Prairie dogs which have escaped from zoos or similar establishments are not protected under wildlife legislation and can be controlled by landowners or occupiers using any method not prohibited by the 1981 Act. Shooting or cage trapping and humane dispatch are two methods that could be used.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice she will give Isle of Wight farmers about controlling prairie dogs.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry has received no complaints of prairie dog damage from farmers or landowners on the Isle of Wight. Landowners and occupiers are free to use any legal method of control to deal with prairie dogs on their land. ADAS, the Ministry's wildlife advisers will, on request, give advice on the legal methods available and its services are being made available to the Medina borough council.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated annual cost of the damage caused by prairie dogs.

  Mr. Soames
  No reports of damage have been received by the Ministry and, therefore, no assessment can be made of the estimated annual cost of any such damage.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experience her Ministry has of controlling the spread of prairie dogs in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry has not been involved with the control of the spread of prairie dogs in this country as this is the responsibility of landowners and occupiers. Nevertheless, ADAS, the Ministry's wildlife advisers, has experience in dealing with a variety of animal species where these have posed problems to farmers and others and it will draw on this experience in offering any advice.

  Organophosphorus Dips
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent site has had advice from the Veterinary Products Committee on the continued use of organophosphorus dips.
  313
  Mr. Soames
  The Veterinary Products Committee provides independent scientific advice to the licensing authority—the United Kingdom Agriculture and Health Ministers—on matters concerning the licensing of veterinary medicinal products, including organophosphorus sheep dips. Such advice, however, is not given to individual sites at which veterinary medicines may be used.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she intends to discuss the use of drift nets over 2.5 km long at the Council of European Community Fisheries Ministers on 22 November.

  Mr. Jack
  The agenda for the November Council of Fisheries Ministers has not yet been settled by the Belgian presidency and so at this stage we are not certain if the issue will be discussed. Currently, no proposal for an extension of the derogation has been received.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many breaches of the United Nations ban on drift nets over 2.5 km long there have been in(a) United Kingdom territorial waters and (b) international waters during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  We are not aware of any cases of United Kingdom vessels breaching the drift net rules in any water. We have no information on infringements by vessels from other countries, European or otherwise.

  Waste Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 1 November,Official Report, column 42, what plans she has to publish further details of Her Majesty's Government's position in relation to issues to be considered at the London convention on 8 to 12 November in advance of the convention.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no plans to publish any further details in advance of this meeting.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice the Food Advisory Committee has given on the labelling of foods produced by genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Soames
  The Food Advisory Committee has carefully considered possible criteria for the labelling of foods produced using genetically modified organisms—GM foods—and has consulted widely on the matter. It has also considered the report of the Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use, chaired by the Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne, 'which was published in September. It has now submitted its advice, a copy of which I am putting in the Library of the House.

  The Food Advisory Committee takes the view that it would be unrealistic to label every food whose product has involved genetic modification. It has however accepted that there should be provision for choice in relation to those foods which raise real concerns for a significant proportion of the population. It has therefore proposed that a GM food should be labelled if it:
  314

  (a) contains a copy gene originally derived from a human;

  (b) contains a copy gene originally derived from an animal which is the subject of religious dietary restrictions; or

  (c) is a plant or microbial material and containing a copy gene originally derived from an animal.

  These rules would not apply if the inserted copy gene had been destroyed by processing and was not, therefore, present in the food.

  I am grateful to the committee for its careful and thorough examination of the issues. It is continuing its work, in particular in the form of labelling that might be used. Meanwhile, its advice coincides very closely with that of the Polkinghorne committee and I propose to accept it. The Government will therefore seek provisions on these lines in the proposed novel foods regulation which is currently under discussion in Brussels. Since very few GM foods have yet come on the market and public understanding of the technique is still limited, we shall also seek a provision for a review in a few years' time.

  Cattle and Badgers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she has taken advice on the scientific work under way on cattle tuberculosis and badgers in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Soames
  Yes. We organised a scientific seminar on 3 November when scientists from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Repulic of Ireland were able to present a report on the current state of their work to both the Ministry and the consultative panel on badgers and bovine TB.

  I was present at the meeting and found it extremely useful. I am sure that it will make an invaluable contribution to developing our future approach to this complex area. We will continue to keep a close eye on the results of this highly important work.

  Wheat
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her estimate of the reduction in acreage and wheat tonnage equivalent output of each EC country between the 1991–92 and 1992–93 growing seasons; and what plans she has to prevent further disadvantage to the United Kingdom in both acreage and tonnage terms.

  Mr. Jack
  A table showing the area planted and tonnage produced for wheat (excluding durum wheat) in each member state during the growing seasons 1991–92 and 1992–93, together with the percentage difference is attached. The figures provided are based on the United Kingdom Agricultural Departments' first estimate of the 1993 United Kingdom cereals harvest and the most recent EC Commission forecasts for all other member states.

  I shall continue to seek a fair deal for British cereal producers in the same way that achieved a defeat for the CAP reform proposals which would have resulted in 60 per cent. of our set-aside land being uncompensated compared to 34 per cent. in the rest of the Community. More recently, we negotiated an 18 per cent. non-rotational set-aside requirement for the United Kingdom compared to 20 per cent. in other member states.
  315

  EC wheat area and production—1991–92 and 1992–93 growing seasons

  Country

  Area (1,000 hectare)

  Per cent, change

  Production (1,000 tonnes)

  Percent, change

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Belgium and Luxembourg

  219

  200

  -8·7

  1,442

  1,300

  -9·8

  Denmark

  581

  610

  +5·0

  3,583

  4,392

  +22·6

  Germany

  2,582

  2,390

  -7·4

  14,473

  15,475

  +6·9

  Greece

  332

  307

  -7·5

  940

  900

  -4·3

  Spain

  1,669

  1,469

  -12·0

  3,197

  3,899

  +22·0

  France

  4,698

  4,397

  -6·4

  30,889

  28,909

  -6·4

  Ireland

  93

  70

  -24·7

  650

  500

  -23·1

  Italy

  988

  918

  -7·1

  4,632

  4,117

  -11·1

  Netherlands

  127

  118

  -7·1

  1,020

  920

  -9·8

  Portugal

  301

  265

  -12·0

  381

  495

  +29·9

  United Kingdom

  2,067

  1,762

  -14·8

  14,100

  12,900

  -8·5

  EC

  13,657

  12,506

  -8·5

  75,307

  73,807

  -2·0

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make it his policy in the restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service that it should not result in the use of legally qualified personnel in purely administrative or supervisory functions.

  The Attorney-General
  A primary aim of the Crown Prosecution Service restructuring is to ensure that the skills of its lawyers are concentrated on those tasks that require the attention of legally qualified staff.

  A small number of lawyers may be employed for limited periods in administrative functions where this will contribute to their career development or where their experience as lawyers can make a helpful contribution to the management, administration or recruitment of legally qualified staff.

  Discontinued Court Cases
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General how many criminal cases have been discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service(a) in the magistrates court and (b) in the Crown court, in the last available year.

  The Attorney-General
  During the 12 months ending June 1993, the CPS did not proceed with cases in respect of 191,622 defendants in magistrates courts, and 8,500 defendants in the Crown court.

  These figures comprise all such cases in the 13 CPS areas, but do not include the specialised casework undertaken by the headquarters of the service.

  War Crimes Act 1991
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement when a decision is taken as to the bringing of charges under the War Crimes Act 1991.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The Crown Prosecution Service is presently considering interim reports from the Metropolitan police relating to several individuals and further inquiries are being made. Inquiries are not yet complete and the question of possible prosecution cannot be considered until they are concluded. In accordance with the requirements of the War Crimes Act 1991, my consent would be sought in any case where the Crown Prosecution Service considers that proceedings are appropriate.
  316
  Decisions about prosecution will be communicated to the prospective defendant and other interested parties by the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in the usual manner.

  Offences Against the Person
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many charges under(a) section 18 and (b) section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 were (i) received by the Crown Prosecution Service from police, (ii) discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service and (iii) completed in court for each year since the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service;

  (2) how many offences listed for trial under (a) section 18 and (b) section 20, (c) section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and (d) section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 resulted in a caution in court, in a bind over, or in no evidence being offered by the prosecution for each year since the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service;

  (3) how many cases which were passed by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service had their original police charges down graded to a lesser offence before the court case was completed, for each year since the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service;

  (4) how many charges of (a) occasioning actual bodily harm, (b) common assault under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and (c) assault on a constable under section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964 were (i) received by the Crown Prosecution Service from police, (ii) discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service and (iii) completed in court for each year since the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service;

  (5) how many cases charged with actual bodily harm by the police under section 47 of the Public Order Act 1861 resulted in (i) a charge of assault on a constable in the magistrates court under section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964 and (ii) a charge of common assault and battery in the magistrates court under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for each year since the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  The information sought by the hon. Member is recorded only on the files relating to individual defendants and is not collected or collated centrally. The information requested could therefore be collected only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Class Actions
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals the Lord Chancellor has for the bringing of class actions before the civil courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The regulation of class actions in the courts is an extremely complex subject, not least because of the wide variety of such actions. The Lord Chancellor is currently considering how best to investigate the options in this area.

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what provision is being made for improvements to accommodation and facilities at Crown courts for victims of crime.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In court buildings currently under construction, separate waiting rooms are provided for defence and prosecution witnesses, and there is a witness waiting room with direct acccess into the courtroom, adjacent to the witness box. Since a high proportion of victims of crime are also witnesses, they would receive assistance from the Crown Prosecution Service or from voluntary agencies such as Victim Support in the larger Crown court centres. Some court centres are able to provide special witness waiting rooms equipped with closed circuit television equipment (CCTV) which enable vulnerable witnesses to give evidence remote from the courtroom.

  Existing Crown court centres are subject to building constraints, and it is not always feasible to incorporate desired improvements. However, operational arrangements are made to assist vulnerable witnesses who made themselves known to court staff, and to seat relatives of victims of crime within the courtroom wherever possible.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were dealt with in the Crown court in each year since 1980 and in the last month for which figures are available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the number of committals for trial, committals for sentence and appeals dealt with in the Crown court in each year since 1980 and in the month of September 1993. The latter figures are provisional and liable to revision to take account of any late amendments.

  Cases committed for trial, for sentence and appeals dealt with in the Crown court 1980–1993

  Committals for trial

  Committals for sentence

  Appeals

  1980

  57,271

  14,973

  17,859

  1981

  61,929

  15,223

  17,573

  1982

  66,184

  14,544

  20,775

  1983

  72,567

  11,521

  18,775

  1984

  74,777

  9,141

  20,350

  1985

  82,788

  9,427

  21,059

  1986

  86,426

  7,581

  18,925

  1987

  96,197

  7,867

  17,053

  1988

  104,773

  8,485

  15,849

  1989

  101,232

  8,267

  16,860

  1990

  100,005

  8,656

  17,557

  1991

  101,999

  9,943

  18,433

  318

  Committals for trial

  Committals for sentence

  Appeals

  1992

  100,742

  9,543

  19,765

  September 1993

  6,855

  928

  2,073

  "A New Framework for Local Justice"
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total number of representations received by the Lord Chancellor in regard to the White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice", and how many were from serving magistrates, whether stipendiary or lay.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In addition to 964 responses to the consultation documents issued by his Department, the Lord Chancellor has received in the region of 650 representations on the White Paper, comprising approximately 350 letters from hon. Members and approximately 300 letters from members of the magistrates courts service and other interested bodies, the majority of which were from serving magistrates. He has also received personal representations from 10 magistrates.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will be making representations to the Council for Legal Education's inquiry into vocational training for the bar of England and Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This is an inquiry into allegations of racial discrimination at the Inns of Court School of Law which is run by the Council for Legal Education on behalf of the Bar Council. The administration of the inquiry is a matter for the profession itself, but the Lord Chancellor awaits the results with interest.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if a full cost-benefit analysis has been conducted by the Lord Chancellor into the cuts in eligibility for legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has set out clearly the forecast effects of the eligibility changes introduced in April 1993—in particular, in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee earlier this year. On these assessments, the Lord Chancellor has no doubt that the everall effect of the eligibility measures will be to reduce significantly over the next three years the level of public expenditure that would have occurred in the absence of these measures.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the conclusions of the Lord Chancellor's analysis of the reasons for the rise in demand for legal aid and for the increase in costs per case.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The reasons for the rise in the demand for legal aid and for the increase in costs per case are many and complex. Among the factors which have an impact on legal aid expenditure are the propensity to litigate, police detection rates and cautioning policy, and
  319
  the impact of new legislation, all of which are, by their nature, difficult to quantify. The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently considering how it can improve the methodology it uses in forecasting legal aid expenditure.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the initial findings of the Lord Chancellor's monitoring of the effects of the eligibility cuts in legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The changes were expected to affect mainly the civil legal aid scheme and the advice and assistance scheme. It is still too soon to draw firm conclusions, but the changes appear to be having broadly the effect which was anticipated.

  Recorders
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations the Lord Chancellor has received as to the adequacy of the Budget for(a) recorders and (b) assistant recorders.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Following the reduction in planned sittings by part-time judges because of a decrease in the number of cases received, the Lord Chancellor received two inquiries as to the adequacy of the budget for recorders and assistant recorders.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide estimates for the cost of(a) the trial of the six people charged with the Birmingham pub bombings, (b) their 1976 appeal, (c) their civil action against the west midlands and Lancashire police, (d) their 1987 appeal, (e) their 1991 appeal, (f) their prosecution of the police officers involved in the Birmingham Six case and (g) the 1977 prosecution of 14 prison officers from Winson Green in connection with injuries inflicted on the six defendants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I regret that it has not proved possible to provide an answer before prorogation since the information requested is not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what supplementary credit approvals are being made available for housing purposes to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The following supplementary credit approvals are being made available for housing purposes in 1993–94:Estate action—to improve rundown local authority housing estates—£1852 million.
  Housing partnership fund—to support housing projects which will bring lasting benefit to local communities and industry, particularly in authorities with relatively low access to capital receipts—£30 million.
  320
  Flats over shops—to bring empty or underused accommodation over shops back into residential use—£10 million.
  Green house programme—to promote energy efficiency in local authority housing, by establishing energy efficiency demonstration projects—£5 million.
  Defective ex-new town stock—to assist local authorities which have received defective property from new towns—£0–35 million.
  Admissible basic credit approval supplement—to enable certain authorities to qualify for housing subsidy up to the limit of their basic credit approval—£0.157 million.

  In addition, some £391.813 million of supplementary credit approval resources are being made available to local authorities as credit cover for specified capital grant allocations for private sector renewal.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, column 339, if he will update the table on housing capital spending by region for 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is given in the table. The provisional outturn for local authority housing capital expenditure for 1992–93 is £2.7 billion.

  Local authority housing capital expenditure by region, 1992–93

  £million

  Current prices

  1981 prices1

  North (excluding Cumbria)

  118

  63

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  216

  114

  East Midlands

  180

  96

  Eastem

  228

  121

  Greater London

  492

  261

  South East

  282

  149

  South West

  189

  100

  West Midlands

  310

  164

  North West

  383

  203

  Unallocated

  252

  133

  2,650

  1,404

  1 Current price figures have been converted to 1981 prices by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the gross domestic product market prices deflator.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures for gross public investment in England and Wales in the provision of housing, both new build and renovated, by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations for each year since 1979–80 with the projected investment for both categories up to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices; and if he will publish this information in the form of a table.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: The available information is given in the tables. Expenditure levels in future years are for local authorities to determine in the light of available resources. The forecasts shown in the Housing Corporation's published 1993 approved development programme for 1994–95 and 1995–96, expressed in 1992–93 prices, are £1,729 million and £1,588 million respectively. These figures exclude any private financed investment by housing associations.

  For information about Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Wales.
  321

  Local authority gross housing capital expenditure for new house building and renovation, England, 1979–80 to 1992–93

  £ million

  New house building

  Renovation

  Totals

  Year

  Cash

  1992–93 prices

  Cash

  1992–93 prices

  Cash

  1992–93 prices

  1979–80

  1,065

  2,547

  723

  1,730

  1,788

  4,277

  1980–81

  965

  1,951

  670

  1,354

  1,635

  3,305

  1981–82

  720

  1,327

  620

  1,144

  1,340

  2,470

  1982–83

  685

  1,179

  962

  1,656

  1,647

  2,835

  1983–84

  682

  1,122

  1,148

  1,889

  1,830

  3,010

  1984–85

  730

  1,142

  1,280

  2,004

  2,010

  3,147

  1985–86

  579

  859

  1,315

  1,951

  1,894

  2,812

  1986–87

  458

  658

  1,521

  2,187

  1,979

  2,846

  1987–88

  457

  623

  1,742

  2,375

  2,199

  2,998

  1988–89

  578

  734

  1,904

  2,419

  2,482

  3,154

  1989–90

  705

  841

  2,953

  3,520

  3,658

  4,362

  1990–91

  447

  493

  1,721

  1,900

  2,168

  2,393

  1991–92

  252

  261

  1,448

  1,499

  1,700

  1,760

  1992–931

  116

  116

  1,486

  1,486

  1,602

  1,602

  1 Provisional figures are available only for 1992–93.

  Housing Corporation gross capital expenditure, England 1979–80 to 1992–93

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  1992–93 prices

  1979–80

  400

  957

  1980–81

  508

  1,027

  1981–82

  521

  961

  1982–83

  755

  1,299

  1983–84

  734

  1,207

  1984–85

  697

  1,091.

  1985–86

  711

  1,055

  1986–87

  715

  1,028

  1987–88

  752

  1,025

  1988–89

  791

  1,005

  1989–90

  935

  1,115

  1990–91

  1,063

  1,174

  1991–92

  1,586

  1,642

  1992–931

  2,369

  2,369

  1 Provisional figures are available only for 1992–93.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total gross public spending for each year since 1985–86 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices for the Housing Corporation.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]The main element of the Housing Corporation's expenditure is its approved development programme (ADP) which is funded by grant and loans from the Government, as well as the corporation's receipts. Gross capital expenditure on the ADP in England since 1985–86 has been as follows:

  £ million

  In 1992–93 prices

  1985–86

  711

  1,055

  1986–87

  715

  1,028

  1987–88

  752

  1,025

  1988–89

  791

  1,005

  1989–90

  935

  1,115

  1990–91

  1,063

  1,174

  1991–92

  1,586

  1,642

  1992–93

  2,369

  2,369

  1993–94

  1,842

  1,793

  The forecasts shown in the Housing Corporation's published 1993 approved development programme for
  322
  1994–95 and 1995–96, expressed in 1992–93 prices, are £1,729 million and £1,588 million respectively. In addition, since 1989 some £2 billion of private finance has been levered in to support the Housing Corporation's programme.

  Cancer Clusters
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation his Department had at the conference organised by the European Commission on Cancer Clusters held at the Westlakes research institute in Cumbria in early October.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to the rough sleepers initiative.

  Sir George Young
  The Government have made £86 million available over 1993–94 to 1995–96 to continue the rough sleepers initiative. On 18 January this year my Department issued a discussion paper, "The Rough Sleepers Initiative: The Next Three Years", setting out proposals aimed at ensuring closer targeting of these resources on the initiative's client group. After considering the responses to that paper, I issued a strategy document on 16 June which set out the Government's intentions for the next phase. I have no plans to make further changes to the initiative. Copies of the discussion paper and the strategy document are in the Library.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future of the rough sleepers initiative; how many people are currently accommodated by the scheme; and what will become of them when the scheme ends.

  Sir George Young
  The sum of £96 million has been spent over the past three financial years, 1990–91 to 1992–93, under the Government's rough sleepers initiative (RSI) to provide up to 3,450 places in permanent and temporary accommodation for people who would otherwise have slept rough on the streets of central London. Independent research, funded by my Department,
  323
  found that several thousand people with a history of sleeping rough had been found accommodation through this initiative.

  The Government have made £86 million available from 1993–94 to 1995–96 to continue the RSI. We will continue to concentrate resources on providing at least 1,500 further places in permanent housing. The temporary hostels and leased accommodation will be phased out over the next three years, but 3,300 places in permanent housing association homes provided under the RSI will continue to be available after the initiative ends in March 1996.

  Valuation Appeals
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average time from appeal against the valuation list to settlement by the local valuation tribunal.

  Mr. Baldry
  A meaningful figure cannot yet be given, since few council tax appeals have been dealt with by valuation tribunals. A great many cases are in any event being settled by agreement between the Valuation Office agency and the taxpayer, rather than by a tribunal decision.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what mechanisms there are whereby a successful appellant against the valuation list for council tax can recover appeal costs or the interest on tha prepaid council tax which is subsequently to be returned.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. Tribunal hearings are intended to be as informal as possible, and the costs to appellants should therefore be low. Interest is not payable on any council tax payment refunded as a result of a successful appeal, as the sums involved are likely to be modest.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is given by him to the local valuation tribunal on the time taken to decide appeals.

  Mr. Baldry
  None, since valuation tribunals are statutorily independent judicial bodies and it is for them to conduct their own proceedings as they see fit.

  However, we expect the overwhelming majority of appeals to have been settled by the Valuation Office agency and the valuation tribunals by the end of 1994, and a high proportion well before then.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against the valuation list have been lodged to date; how many have been decided since the local valuation tribunal, commenced receiving appeals relating to the council tax valuation basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  At at 30 September 1993, 658,546 proposals for the alteration of the valuation list in England had been received by the Valuation Office agency, of which 77,825 had been settled by agreement between the agency and the taxpayer. Proposals are not normally transmitted to valuation tribunals as formal appeals until six months after receipt, unless it has become clear in the meantime that the prospects of agreement are remote.

  Community Charges
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation he has received regarding grants payable to local authorities under the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991; what changes he now proposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am currently considering representations from a number of authorities proposing the extension of the community charge grant scheme to include community charges payable for the financial year 1991–92 which are received after 31 March 1994.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department made to the international symposium on nuclear waste management, held at Sellafield in mid-October, in terms of personnel in attendance and papers presented.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am not aware of any such meeting.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on ministerial responsibility for establishing a policy for long term disposal routes for radioactive waste as envisaged in paragraph 6 of the Government memorandum in reply to the seventh report of the Defence Committee of Session 1992–93, on the royal dockyards, and his answer of 1 November,Official Report, column 6.

  Mr. Yeo
  The radioactive wastes to which the question refers are those arising from the decommissioning of nuclear-propelled submarines. As stated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 1 November,Official Report, column 6, these are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Responsibility for civil radioactive waste management policy lies with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales. Issues needing wider collective consideration can be put to the relevant Cabinet Committee.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment what progress he has made in his review of local authorty standard spending assessments and the area cost adjustment mechanism; and whether it will be concluded before the standard spending assessment and revenue support grant figures are announced for 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  The technical work on the review of local authority standard spending assessments (SSAs), including the area cost adjustment, has been cmpleted and discussed with the local authority associations. Proposed SSAs for 1994–95 will be announced later this year at the same time as the provisional revenue support grant settlement.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of accumulated capital receipts by each local authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am arranging for the latest information on the level of local authorities' usable capital receipts at 31 March 1993 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to ensure that adequate consultation is given by managing agents of sheltered accommodation to leaseholders before major repairs to property are undertaken and before the property is transferred from one group of managing agents to another;

  (2) what further plans he has to ensure that managing agents of privately owned sheltered accommodation are accountable to their leaseholders;

  (3) what plans he has to introduce further statutory protection for leaseholders in sheltered accommodation;

  (4) what plans he has to ensure that leaseholders in sheltered accommodation receive full and regular access to audited accounts;

  (5) what plans he has to make the sheltered housing code of the National House Building Council compulsory for all developers; and what plans he has to make it legally enforceable;

  (6) what plans he has to introduce an ombudsman service to offer protection to leaseholders in sheltered accommodation where the managing agents are not a registered housing association;

  (7) how many cases since April 1989 have been brought by leaseholders in sheltered accommodation against their managing agents, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, or under the terms of the lease; and what information he has on the results of such cases.

  Sir George Young
  All leaseholders are protected by the contractual terms of their leases, which define the rights and duties of landlords and tenants and the basis of the service charges. In addition, the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1985 and 1987 give tenants additional statutory rights. They impose duties on landlords to consult before undertaking work above defined thresholds and—in certain circumstances—over the appointment of managing agents, and to provide information about costs and make available supporting accounts and documents.

  The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives leaseholders additional rights. It enables qualifying tenants to jointly purchase the freehold of their flats and also gives tenants the right to a management audit of their landlord by an independent accountant or surveyor.

  It also enables the Secretary of State to approve codes of management practice governing property management. It is for outside bodies to submit any such codes to him for approval. The Association of Retirement Housing Managers yesterday published a draft code. He has no plans to make the sheltered housing code of the NHBC compulsory for all developers.

  The Government have no plans to make further legislative changes to leaseholders rights in relation the management of their homes and is not persuaded of the case for an ombudsman scheme for privately owned sheltered housing nor of the practicality of this approach.

  The Department has no information available to it on the number of cases brought before the courts by leaseholders in sheltered accommodation against their managing agents.

  Local Authority Building Control
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to review the fees to be charged by local authority building control departments to reflect the size, work type and the demography of the local authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will allow local authorities to meet the cost of providing services through building control charges compatible with charges made on the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  It remains the Government policy that the setting of building control fees should be devolved to local authorities when adequate private sector competition is in place. To further this aim, the Department issued a consultation document on 29 October—a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House—which seeks to increase the number of private sector inspectors exercising building control. Meanwhile, in conjunction with representatives of the local authority associations and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the Government are proposing:

  (i) to introduce next year a revision and consolidation of the prescribed fees regulations which will tailor fees more appropriately to the type of building application involved; and

  (ii) to explore the scope for introducing greater flexibility within the prescribed fees scheme.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the market testing of local authority building control fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. We have taken the view for the time being that it is not appropriate to subject regulatory services such as building regulation enforcement to compulsory competitive tendering. However, local authorities may choose to market test this work on a voluntary basis having regard to their obligations under statute.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the performance indicators which are available in the building control sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not publish performance indicators for building control. Under the terms of the Local Government Act 1992 it is the Audit Commission which is charged with the responsibility to decide, in consultation with the Department, on what indicators it may select for publication. Although the commission collects a wide range of information on local services, there are, at present, no plans for including the building control service. However, with the Department's encouragement, the local authority associations have drawn up a levels of service document on a voluntary basis and appropriate publication is currently under consideration.

  Strychnus Potatorum Tree
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned on the use of the strychnus potatorum tree for cleaning up readioactively contaminated land.
  327
  Mr. Yeo
  No such research has been commissioned.

  Housing Ombudsman (Reports)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make report recommendations of the housing ombudsman legally enforceable.

  Sir George Young
  A housing association tenants' ombudsman has recently been appointed and the new service will be fully operational next month. The Housing Corporation will use its statutory powers to issue management guidance to housing associations so that they will be expected to co-operate with the ombudsman and to carry out his recommendations in relation to specific cases. If an association did not co-operate or comply, this would be reported by the ombudsman to the Housing Corporation, which would then be able to use its statutory powers of regulation to address any issues of mismanagement.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the use of EC cohesion funds by member states to clean up bathing beaches to meet standards required under EC directives.

  Mr. Yeo
  The cohesion fund assists the poorest member states to improve their transport and environment infrastructure, including sewerage systems. We contribute only 5 per cent. of the cohesion fund, substantially less than France, Germany or Spain. We benefit from the EC structural funds and expect to receive about £10 billion from 1994–99. Investments in sewerage improvements can be supported by these funds.

  Countryside Survey
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the results of the countryside survey 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  The countryside survey 1990 will be published on 17 November. The countryside survey is one of the most comprehensive surveys of the British countryside that has ever been carried out. It is also the first survey to be based on the integration of information from satellite imagery and traditional field survey methods. The United Kingdom is the first country to undertake a national survey of this kind.

  The primary aims of the survey were to provide information on the stock of land cover, landscape features and habitats in Great Britain in 1990, to identify change in these by reference to earlier data, and to establish a new baseline for the measurement of future change. The main focus was on the rural environment. The survey was undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and the Institute of Freshwater Ecology. The main funding was provided by the Department of the Environment, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Department of Trade and Industry through the British National Space Centre.

  The survey is a testament to the Government's commitment to reporting on the state of the countryside. The survey data will now be available for further research on the causes and consequences of countryside change.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the urban regeneration agency will be established.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gave statutory authority for the establishment of the urban regeneration agency. The agency will be launched on 10th November. Parliamentary approval to the new expenditure will be sought in a winter supplementary estimate for the urban aid and derelict land reclamation, England vote (class VII, vote 3). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £9 million will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Swinden Quarry
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he is making for ministerial decisions relating to Swinden quarry.

  Mr. Gummer
  Swinden quarry is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning. In these circumstances, I will take responsibility for all ministerial decisions.

  Legal Services
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's proposals for a de minimis threshold for compulsory competitive tendering of legal services.

  Mr. Baldry
  Competition provides many benefits to local authorities, including better managed services, higher quality work and significant financial savings. However, the Government recognise that it also brings with it additional administrative requirements which need to be taken into account.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning told the House on 15 June 1993, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), Official Report, column 543, that the Government intended to apply the principle of a de minimis threshold to corporate and construction-related services as part of their decision to implement CCT for these services. He made it clear that, for the white collar services, an authority also needs to retain a satisfactory number of good quality staff to carry out work which is not suitable for compulsory competitive tendering. He indicated that we would discuss with local authority representatives the most appropriate threshold for each of the white collar services.

  Following discussions on the threshold for legal services, the Government have concluded that local authorities should be permitted to carry out up to £300,000 of legal work a year using their own staff without being required to award that work through competition. This is broadly equivalent to the cost of employing six qualified legal staff, and will ensure that all authorities continue to have the legal skills necessary to serve local people effectively.

  Those authorities exempted from CCT will nevertheless be free to tender services voluntarily. Many will, no doubt, take the opportunity to improve services and reduce costs by giving private sector legal services the chance to tender for work.
  329
  The Government intend to consult on the proposed competitive regime for local authority legal services, including details of this proposed de minimis threshold. Consultation will begin in December, and the Government will make final decisions in spring next year.

  Housing, Lancashire
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage the renovation of property in those areas of Lancashire where house prices are so low as to make renovation uneconomic.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 22 October 1993]: It is for local authorities to determine the most satisfactory course of action for dealing with unfit properties. Exchequer subsidy is available to help the costs associated with the option of reduction, clearance and closure.

  Council Housing (Replacement)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total expenditure provided in direct grant from central Government to local authorities for council house replacement since the introduction of the right to buy.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 26 October 1993]: The provision of new social housing is now mainly the responsibility of housing associations, with local authorities increasingly concentrating on the management of their existing stock and on their broad enabling role. Central Government support to local authorities for these activities is provided through credit approvals. The amounts provided since 1981–82 are given in the table below. The figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are not directly comparable with those for earlier years because of the revisions to the capital finance system introduced in April 1990. Local authorities can supplement these resources with spending from usable capital receipts and from revenue.

  Local authority credit approval allocations1

  Numbers

  1981–82

  1,795

  1982–83

  2,192

  1983–84

  2,233

  1984–85

  1,852

  1985–86

  1,605

  1986–87

  1,459

  1987–88

  1,400

  1988–89

  1,331

  1989–90

  1,095

  1990–91

  1,561

  1991–92

  1,705

  1992–93

  1,538

  1993–94

  1,375

  1 Allocations for the years up to and including 1989–90 are final allocations, i.e. the initial allocation plus any increases made in-year. The allocation figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are the credit approval provision figures for those years.

  Rented Public Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of gross domestic product was dedicated to building, public sector houses for rent, annually, for each year since 1979.
  330
  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 26 October 1993]: The provision of new social housing is now mainly the responsibility of housing associations, although the houses they build are not public sector. Local authorities, on the other hand, are increasingly concentrating on the management of their existing stock and on their broad enabling role. To reflect this, gross capital expenditure through the Housing Corporation on new provision for rent rose from £484 million in 1981–82 to £2,231 million in 1992–93.

  Reliable outturn information on housing expenditure by local authorities is available only on a financial year basis. Estimates of gross domestic product in England are not available for financial years. The cash figures are given:

  Expenditure by local authorities and new towns on houses built for rent

  England cash value £ million

  1978–79

  1,674

  1979–80

  1,214

  1980–81

  1,121

  1981–82

  816

  1982–83

  710

  1983–84

  692

  1984–85

  748

  1985–86

  586

  1986–87

  466

  1987–88

  462

  1988–89

  S80

  1989–90

  705

  1990–91

  447

  1991–92

  252

  1992–93

  116

  Packaging
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to place a legal obligation upon companies not to mislead consumers about their environmental performance on packaging.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Most environmental claims are already within the scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. We intend to amend the Act in a number of respects as soon as parliamentary time permits, and have made it clear that environmental claims will be addressed.

  Improvement and Repairs Grants
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979 the number of improvement or repairs grants made, the number of applications unmet, the value of each grant and total spending thereon in cash in contract prices.

  Mr. Gummer
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he makes, and from what source, of the cost of the backlog of repairs and maintenance required to bring(a) private housing and (b) public rented housing to an acceptable standard.

  Mr. Gummer
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Forests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the analysis in, and conclusions of, the latest annual EC-United Nations report on the state of Europe's forests(a) in so far as it relates to United Kingdom forests and (b) in regard to pollution arising from the United Kingdom affecting forests abroad.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Forestry Commission assessed the condition of nearly 9,000 trees of five tree species—oak, beech, Scots pine, Norway spruce and Sitka spruce—in 1992, as a contribution to the 1993 report on forest condition in Europe produced jointly by the Commission of the European Communities and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (EC/UN-ECE).

  In Britain, Scots pine and oak showed a decline in crown density compared with that in the previous year, the crown condition of Norway spruce was little changed, while that of Sitka spruce and beech had improved. In contrast, the EC/UN-ECE report concluded that, in Europe as a whole, all five species showed a decline in crown density.

  The EC/UN-ECE report made no comment on the effect of air pollution from the United Kingdom on forests in Europe. However, there has been a significant reduction in emissions in the United Kingdom since the European Community's large combustion plants directive was implemented and, in comparison with 1980, we are committed to reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide by 60 per cent. over the next 10 years and of oxides of nitrogen by 30 per cent. over the next five years.

WALES

  Ewe Premiums
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers in Wales are currently eligible for ewe annual premium payments; how many claims for payment have been received; how many have been paid; and when those outstanding claims will be paid.

  Mr. Redwood
  We estimate from the pattern of claims usually received that about 17,500 farmers in Wales are eligible for sheep annual premium; 17,445 eligible claims were received in 1993 of which 8,603 have been paid. All outstanding claims will be paid as soon as possible.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the completion of payments for the ewe premium scheme for 1993–94.

  Mr. Redwood
  The combined payment of the first and second instalments are well advanced and should be virtually completed this month. The final payment will be made in the spring of 1994 when the full rate of premium for the year has been calculated.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons were listed in the Welsh Office register for public appointments in each of the last five years; how many in each year were below 40 years of age; and how many in each year were women.
  332
  Mr. Redwood
  The departmental register of candidates for public appointment is a running list to which names are frequently added. Information is not available on a calendar year basis, nor is information on the age of candidates recorded centrally. Currently there are 4,096 names on the register, of which 1,135, 27.7 per cent., are women.

  Morriston Hospital, Swansea
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the membership of the project board established to manage the development of cardiac services at Morriston hospital, Swansea; and when a detailed timetable for the project will be finalised.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The project board comprises three representatives from Morriston hospital, including the unit general manager, and one each from West Glamorgan health authority and my Department. The timetable will be finalised shortly.

  Magor to Castleton Relief Road
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the Magor to Castleton M4 relief road; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Many views have been received about proposals for the M4 Magor to Castleton relief road. An announcement will be made in due course following completion of the detailed consideration of all comments.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each NHS trust in Wales with the date when it first became operational.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The details are as follows:

  Trust

  Operational date 1 April

  1.Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  1992

  2.Glan C1wyd District General Hospital NHS Trust

  1993

  3.Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  1993

  4.Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  1993

  5. Powys Health Care NHS Trust

  1993

  6.Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  1993

  7. Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  1993

  8. Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  1993

  9. Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  1993

  10. Swansea NHS Trust

  1993

  11. Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  1993

  12. Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  1993

  13. Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  1993

  14. South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  1993

  Home Helps
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a standard scale for the means testing of clients by county councils in Wales for home help.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for local authorities. I am, however, considering whether further guidance to local authorities on the principles to be applied in determining discretionary changes for home care services is necessary.

  Schools Technology Initiative
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money his Department has allocated to each secondary school for the schools technology initiative for(a) grant-maintained 11 to 18 schools, (b) grant-maintained 11 to 16 schools, (c) local authority 11 to 18 schools and (d) local authority 11 to 16 schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Strategies have been approved for the following schools in each of the categories as follows:

  (a) Grant-maintained 11–18 schools

  £245,000 to Bishop Vaughan Grant Maintained School

  (b) Grant-maintained 11–16 schools

  None

  (c) LEA-Maintained 11–18 schools

  £1,403,000 for 6 schools as follows;

  (1) £250,000 to Bedwas Comprehensive School

  (2) £210,000 to Morriston Comprehensive School

  (3) £244,000 to Queen Elizabeth Maridunum School

  (4) £237,000 to Ysgol David Hughes

  (5) £223,000 to Cynffig Comprehensive School

  (6) £239,000 to Ysgol Morgan Llwyd

  (d) LEA-Maintained 11–16 schools

  £245,000 to Risca Comprehensive School

  In addition to the above, £212,000 was approved for Denbigh technological and vocational education centre within Clwyd education authority.

  Grant-maintained school strategies are funded by capital grant and LEA maintained schools by local authority capital credit approvals.

  Llandudno General Hospital
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the future of the acute unit of Llandudno general hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Llandudno general hospital is an integral part of the Gwynedd acute health unit which has applied for NHS trust status from April 1994. The application explicitly notes a commitment to maintaining and developing the services provided at Llandudno general hospital. My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decision on the application very shortly.

  Special Education Schools, Powys
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the future of Cyfronydd and Bryn Llywarch special education schools in Powys.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The proposals by Powys county council to close Cyfronydd and to change the character of Brynllywarch school are before my right hon. Friend for determination. A decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Libraries
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public libraries in Wales are open for 60 hours a week or more.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Public Library Statistics for 1991–92, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special advisers are currently employed by his Department; at what cost; what is the duration of their appointment; and what are their qualifications and duties in each case.

  Mr. Redwood
  I appointed Mr. Hywel Williams from 18 October 1993 to advise on a range of subjects for as long as is considered necessary.

  He is the only such adviser employed by the Welsh Office. We do not reveal the salary nor the costs of an individual appointment.

  I issued a press notice on October 21 with information about Mr. Williams and enclose a copy.

  Estuarial Crossings
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which estuarial crossings have received central Government assistance in the form of grant, loan or debt write-off or suspension; and how much assistance has been given, and in what form, in each case.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Dyfed county council received a £4 million interest-free loan from the Government in 1979 to assist with the capital costs of the Cleddau bridge. Some £2¼ million of transport grant has been made available to West Glamorgan county council and Dyfed county council since 1987–88 towards the cost of the Loughor bridge. Prior to this, the scheme was financed largely by the authorities under the then transport supplementary grant block arrangements.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which estuarial crossings are the responsibility of(a) central Government, (b) local authorities and (c) private owners; and which of these are (i) subject to tolls and (ii) not subject to tolls.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Available information is as follows:

  Estuarial crossings

  Responsibility

  Tolled

  Conwy Crossing

  Central Government

  No

  Cleddau Bridge

  Local Authority

  Yes

  Loughor Bridge

  Local Authority

  No

  Penmaenpool Bridge (Dolgellau)

  Local Authority

  Yes

  Porthmadog Cob

  Private Owner

  Yes

  Briwet Bridge (Penrhyndeudraeth)

  Private Owner

  Yes

  Barmouth Bridge (Footbridge)

  Private Owner

  Yes

  Suicide
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many suicides were reported of patients receiving(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient psychiatric care in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the south Glamorgan health authority regarding the Health Advisory Service report on mental health services in South Glamorgan; and what advice he has given on the guidelines for publication of HAS reports.
  335
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Health Advisory Service review was commissioned by South Glamorgan health authority following discussion with the Welsh Office. The final report of the review, conducted jointly with the social services inspectorate (Wales), is currently awaited. The report will be published in the usual way, that is the health authority and county council will have available printed copies supplied by the Health Advisory Service. Copies will also be available from the health advisory service and the social services inspectorate (Wales).

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 640–42, if he will provide similar figures for capital allocations for local authorities in 1993–94 with an explanation of the effect of (a) the transfer-out of further education and (b) the revised presentations of Welsh Office credit approval support for European regional development fund related schemes.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is giving in the following tables. The effect in 1993–94 of the transfer of provision for further education to the Further Education Funding Council was to transfer Government support of £8.9 million from local authorities. In addition to the sums shown and in accordance with the Government's agreement with the European Commission, supplementary credit approvals will be issued to local authorities to cover all expenditure funded by ERDF grants.

  Table 1: Basic Credit Approvals (BCA) issued to counties for 1993–94

  (£ million)1

  BCA

  Clwyd

  10·0

  Dyfed

  10·3

  Gwent

  11·0

  Gwynedd

  6·4

  Mid

  Glamorgan

  14·6

  Powys

  5·3

  South

  Glamorgan

  9·9

  West

  Glamorgan

  9·6

  Total counties

  77·1

  1 Covering education, personal social services, fire, sheltered employment, "other services" and certain elements of transport (principally smaller road schemes and capitalised administration).

  Table 2: New Control Total (NCT) and Assumed Gross Expenditure (AGE) for 1993–94

  (£ million)1

  NCT

  AGE

  Education

  40·1

  48·9

  Personal Social Services

  12·2

  14·5

  Transport

  96·1

  107·0

  Other Local Services

  41·4

  114·4

  Housing

  263·9

  305·5

  Urban Programme2

  29·9

  29·9

  Total

  483·5

  620·1

  1 Excluding Law and Order.

  2 Including Rural Initiative.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of children with special educational needs that have been statemented for every local education authority in Wales for each year since 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of children for whom statements of special educational needs were made for the first time during each calendar year since 1990 are given in the following table:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  318

  251

  251

  Dyfed

  225

  272

  397

  Gwent

  402

  480

  497

  Gwynedd

  130

  205

  178

  Mid Glamorgan

  490

  545

  583

  Powys

  120

  134

  55

  South Glamorgan

  184

  215

  274

  West Glamorgan

  358

  354

  415

  Cattle Identification Documents
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost of administering the cattle identification document scheme in Wales for the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Redwood
  The costs of staffing the permanent posts created to administer the beef special premium scheme will amount to about £353,000 in the 1993–94 financial year. Staff have also been redeployed from other work for varying periods, and some casual staff employed, to help with the one-off tasks of establishing the scheme.

  Teachers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students qualified to be teachers left the University of Wales and the teacher training colleges of Wales at the end of each academic year since 1985; how many were qualified in each of the main subjects; and how many were qualified to teach their subject through the medium of Welsh.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 23 July 1993]: I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people he expects Railtrack to employ; and in what occupations.

  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack will be responsible for railway infrastructure, and for deciding how many employees it will need, and in what capacities, to fulfil that responsibility in the most efficient manner.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures Railtrack will be able to use in order to carry out its role of safety validation for train operators.
  337
  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack's safety validation role will be governed by the Health and Safety Commission's Railways (Safety Case) Regulations published in draft for consultation purposes in July 1993.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the resources in terms of staffing and money he expects Railtrack to need to carry out its role of safety validation for train operators.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for Railtrack. Railtrack will need to demonstrate in its safety case to the satisfaction of the Health and Safety Executive that sufficient staff and resources are available.

  Railways Funding
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been made of the Swedish model of public funding of the railways and of charging costs to operators.

  Mr. Freeman
  I visited Sweden last year and discussed the Swedish Government's policy for funding, restructuring and liberalising access to their national railway system, with Ministers, representatives of the Swedish state railway, and private sector rail operators. We have continued to monitor the development of Swedish railway policy.

  Goods Vehicle Operators Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what checks are carried out by his staff to ensure that negative answers to question 22, relating to criminal convictions, on form GV79 "Application for a Goods Vehicle Operators Licence" are truthful.

  Mr. Key
  Full records of criminal convictions are not available to the licensing authorities or traffic area offices. However, all applications for goods vehicle operator licences are published in advance of the grant of a licence and circulated to the police, who have a statutory right to make a formal objection to a licence being granted. In some cases, checks may also be made of any records held by the Vehicle Inspectorate on the applicant.

  Vehicle Testing Stations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Vehicle Inspectorate has to carry out an inspection of all VI testing stations to determine whether they meet all the relevant safety standards required by similar workplaces in the private sector.

  Mr. Key
  The Vehicle Inspectorate already carries out a comprehensive range of regular inspections of its properties, and associated equipment, with the intention of ensuring compliance with all relevant safety standards. Some inspections are carried out to conform with "best practice" where this exceeds legal requirements.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sick leave days were taken by(a) male and (b) female staff employed in the Vehicle Inspectorate in 1992.

  Mr. Key
  As at June 1992 the Vehicle Inspectorate employed 1,389 male and 607 female staff on a part and full time basis. 10,651 and 8,144 days were lost through 338
  sick absence by male and female staff respectively during the year. The sick absence figures include weekends where they occurred during a period of sickness.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about noise mitigation measures on the proposed channel tunnel rail link in relation to trains travelling(a) at 185 mph and (b) at other speeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The possible noise impact of high speed trains features in a number of representations received on the proposed channel tunnel rail link. Mitigation measures such as screens and banks will be provided so that as far as practically possible the noise design aims set by Union Railways are not exceeded for homes and other sensitive receptors. The noise predictions used in planning mitigation measures take account of the assumed speeds for each part of the route. Any homes not benefiting sufficiently from mitigation measures may qualify for noise insulation.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give his reasons for limiting international stations on the proposed high speed rail link from London to Folkestone to one additional station between King's Cross-St. Pancras and Ashford; and what is his policy on the provision of other stations to serve regional and national purposes.

  Mr. Freeman
  No maximum number of international stations has been set. The limitation is financial viability bearing in mind that public subsidy for international stations is forbidden. The provision of both international and domestic stations is addressed in Union Railways' recent report and the Government are considering this and the bids received from the promoter groups for the potential stations.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the full consultation period on all the Union Railways options was expected to expire; and when the Union Railways report on proposals for a high speed channel tunnel link was submitted to him.

  Mr. Freeman
  Comments from local authorities, action groups and other bodies affected by the route and station options have been sought by 12 November. Comments from the public should be sent by then or very soon afterwards. Union Railways' report was submitted to the Government on 29 October.

  A1-M1 Link Road
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement about the A1-M1 link road.

  Mr. Key
  The public inquiry into this scheme was held in January-February this year.

  A decision on the way forward will be made as soon as practicable after the joint Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment have given full and careful consideration to the inspector's recommendations.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy regarding building roads through sites of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Government have a long-standing policy of keeping roads away from protected areas such as sites of special scientific interest wherever possible. In cases where it is impossible to avoid such sites the greatest care is taken to design the road sensitively and, where practicable, to preserve or recreate habitats, to relocate plant and animal species and to screen the road by the extensive use of planting and landscaping.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps towards the construction of North Greenwich station are included in contract JLE 110.

  Mr. Norris
  JLE contract 110 has not yet been awarded, and final decisions have not yet been taken on what should be included in it.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the private sector contributions to the Jubilee line extension, to be paid over the next 20 years, will be £300 million at current values or uprated to keep up with inflation.

  Mr. Norris
  Olympia and York Canary Wharf Limited has undertaken to pay London Underground Limited £300 million cash over a 24-year period starting one year after the first day of operation of the Jubilee line extension. The funding agreement under which these payments are to be made implements the understanding reached in 1989 between my Department and Olympia and York Canary Wharf Limited.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he plans to fund the construction of North Greenwich station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground Limited is reponsible for the construction of the Jubilee Line Extension funded by grants from Government and private sector contributions, notably the £400 million pledged by Olympia and York Canary Wharf Limited. British Gas has also promised a contribution in connection with the decision to locate a station at North Greenwich.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts for the Jubilee line extension are concerned with the construction of North Greenwich station.

  Mr. Norris
  The civil engineering work on the station will be carried out under contract 110; the electrical and mechanical work will be carried out under various E and M contracts.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are required to be taken to ensure the construction of a Jubilee line station at North Greenwich, above ground and providing a full service to the public from the first day of operation of the Jubilee line extension in terms of(a) negotiations between London Underground
  340
  and third parties, (b) decontamination of contaminated land, (c) clearing of derelict land, (d) construction of new roads and other access routes to the station and (e) any other work or negotiations concerning the proposed site of the station and surrounding area.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground Limited is preparing to let a contract for the construction of the station at North Greenwich. However, if that contract is to make full provision so that the station can open, there must first be a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations between British Gas and London Regional Transport about the financial contribution which BG undertook to make in 1990 when it was agreed to take the line through their property in North Greenwich. The allocation of financial responsibility for specific matters such as land decontamination, derelict land clearance, road access, car parking, and bus facilities is for agreement between BG and LRT.

  Rail Franchising, Isle of Wight
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how safety validation for railways will work on the vertically integrated franchise system planned for the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive will be responsible for examining and validating the safety case of an operator of a vertically integrated franchise on the Isle of Wight.

  Bromford Viaduct
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the holding down bolts of the central crash barrier of the Bromford viaduct of the M6 midland links motorway were last tested; what were the results; and on what date they are due to be tested again.

  Mr. Key
  The last tests on the holding down bolts were some limited pull-out tests in 1985. The results were generally below the level in the current specification but this was not applicable when the barrier was originally erected. The performance to date of the central reservation barriers on Bromford viaduct has been satisfactory.

  We have no proposals for further tests on the holding down bolts, but the barrier, including the holding down arrangements will be replaced as part of two major maintenance contracts. These are presently programmed for 1994–95 and 1995–96 and will involve resurfacing, concrete repairs and other works on the viaduct.

  Estuarial Crossings
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which estuarial crossings have received central Government assistance in the form of grant, loan or debt-write-off or suspension; and how much assistance he has been given, and in what form, in each case.

  Mr. Key
  Central Government grants were given towards the first Mersey crossing which opened in 1934 (£2.5 million) the first Dartford-Thurrock tunnel which opened in 1963 (£2.6 million) and the Tyne tunnel which opened in 1967 (£3 million). Since then central Government finance for estuarial crossings has been in the form of loans. In 1992 the debts outstanding were £359 million on the Humber bridge, £112 million on the Mersey
  341
  tunnels, £13 million on the Tyne tunnels and £4 million on the Severn bridge. The most recent estuarial crossing, at Dartford-Thurrock and Severn, were or are being built with private finance. The Government have accepted that loans to the Humber bridge cannot be serviced and repaid from toll revenue alone and, to date, grants totalling £72 million have been paid.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which estuarial crossings are the responsibility of(a) central Government, (b) local authorities and (c) private owners; and which of these are (i) subject to tolls and (ii) not subject to tolls.

  Mr. Key
  Apart from the bridge carrying the M2 over the Medway and the Avonmouth bridge carrying the M5, both of which are the responsibility of the Department of Transport, tolls are charged at all estuarial crossings in England. Central Government are responsible for the Dartford-Thurrock crossings and the Severn bridge, though operational responsibility rests with private concessionaries. Local authorities are responsible for the Tyne and Mersey tunnels and the Tamar and Humber bridges. No estuarial crossings are privately owned.

  Eastern Relief Road, Lowestoft
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement detailing crossing points for pedestrians over the eastern relief road being built in Lowestoft.

  Mr. Key
  Crossing facilities for the road were discussed locally as the scheme was being developed by Suffolk county council and details of the proposed provision were included in consultation and briefing meetings.

  There will be a signal controlled crossing to the west of the relief road's intersection with London Road North. This will replace the existing crossing on the opposite side of London Road North, across Old Nelson street.

  There will also be uncontrolled crossing points using the splitter islands at the roundabout junction of the relief road with St. Peters street and Jubilee way.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about how pedestrians are to cross the new eastern relief road being built in Lowestoft, from the northern ends of Tennyson road and Arnold street northwards, and return.

  Mr. Key
  The existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at the northern end of Tennyson road is not affected by the new road. Arnold street is truncated at its boundary with the relief road and a footway will be provided on the western side of the relief road. This will join with the uncontrolled crossing point at the splitter islands at the St. Peters street/Jubilee way roundabout, some 50 metres north of Arnold street.

  Bus Fuels
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds he has allocated for trials of clean fuels on local bus services.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today allocated funds totalling £100,000 in 1993–94 to local authorities for four such trials. The projects to be supported are as follows:
  342

  Local authority/bus operator

  Fuel

  £000s

  Number of buses

  Hampshire/Southampton Citybus

  CNG

  42·5

  6

  Avon/Badgerline

  LPG

  16

  2

  Warwickshire/Midland Red South

  LPG

  16

  2

  Berkshire/Reading Buses

  CNG

  25·5

  4

  Notes:

  CNG—compressed natural gas

  LPB—liquefied petroleum gas

  A27, Worthing
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to give a full reply to letters from Worthing borough council of 13 July, 23 September, 1 October, 14 October, 19 October and 22 October on the compulsory purchase orders issued by his Department in connection with the development of the A27 in the Worthing area; why replies have been delayed; on what specific legislation his Department has relied in the procedure it has adopted to deal with mistakes in the compoulsory purchase orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has no record of receiving a letter from Worthing borough council dated 13 July until a copy was enclosed with the Council's letter of 1 October. A reply was sent on 7 October. A reply to the letter of 23 September was sent on 24 September. Replies to the letters of 14, 19 and 22 October were sent on 3 November.

  Where discrepancies in land ownership details in the draft compulsory purchase order have been drawn to the Department's attention, they have followed the procedure laid down in schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to give notice of proposed amendments to those concerned.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 November,Official Report, column 8, if he will list the four bodies from which his Department has received letters on the transport of radioactive materials.

  Mr. Norris
  The four bodies are:

  University of Reading;

  City of Nottingham;

  Tonbridge and Malling borough council;

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Flights to Warsaw
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) why Lot Airlines has been forbidden to land at Heathrow with effect from 1 November;

  (2) what intergovernmental agreements govern flights between London and Warsaw;

  (3) when and in what circumstances agreement was made between Her Majesty's Government and the Polish Government and Lot Airlines on the winter flights schedule; and what is his policy on the number of British Airways flights between London and Warsaw;

  (4) on what occasions over the last 10 years a dispute has occurred between British Airways and the national carriers of other countries about the increase in the number of flights from London to the other country's principal

  343
  airports where (a) Her Majesty's Government have been involved and (b) the sanction of removing the permit for the other national carriers to land at Heathrow has been imposed;

  (5) when and on what basis Ministers were involved in negotiations with their Polish counterparts, and representatives of Lot Airlines, during October;

  (6) what is the policy underlying Her Majesty's Government's support for British Airways to increase the frequency of their winter flights between London and Warsaw; and what impact he expects the increase to have on translantic flights made by United Kingdom and Polish air carriers;

  (7) what representations the Government have received from Lot Airlines or the Polish Government on the number of winter flights to Warsaw by British Airways originating in (a) London and (b) north America, and on the summer schedules.

  Mr. Norris
  As talks are currently taking place to resolve the difficulty over the operation of air services between the United Kingdom and Poland, I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Ragwort
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he takes to prevent the spread of ragwort on land owned by his Department.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: A departmental working group is examining all aspects of grassland management, including the control of injurious weeds such as ragwort. I expect to announce decisions, based on the conclusions of this group, in the new year.

  M62
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of vehicles on the M62 motorway at junction 17 have an origin or destination within the Greater Manchester area.

  Mr. Key
  In 1992 the annual average daily traffic flow on the section of M62 between junctions 15 and 17 was 123,400 vehicles, of which 77 per cent. had either an origin or destination within the Greater Manchester area. This figure includes traffic travelling within the Greater Manchester conurbation, including Bolton, Bury, Stockport, Oldham and Rochdale, and traffic between the Greater Manchester area and the wider road network giving access to areas outside the conurbation.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of vehicles on the M62 motorway at junction 17 are travelling between Merseyside and Yorkshire.

  Mr. Key
  Seven per cent. of vehicles travel between Merseyside and Yorkshire—including Humberside. This is just one of a series of long-distance strategic trips which are made using the M62. Others include trips between Cheshire, south-west, Wales and Shropshire to Yorkshire.

  Air Carriers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criterion is used by his Department to define a United Kingdom air carrier; and if he will make a statement.
  344
  Mr. Norris
  The criteria for the grant of operating licences to air carriers are laid down in EC Council regulation 2407/92 on the licensing of air carriers. The United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority may grant an operating licence only to carriers whose principal place of business and registered office is in the United Kingdom. The regulation further requires that holders of operating licences should at all times be majority owned and effectively controlled by EC member states or their nationals.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  GPA-General Electric (Merger)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the European Commission the transfer of assets from GPA to General Electric of the United States of America for consideration under the merger control regime.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The purchase of certain assets of GPA by General Electric did not fall within EC merger control jurisdiction. Following the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, based on the information available to him, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced that he had decided not to refer this merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 20 October.

  EC Law
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will complete the scrutiny report on the operation of EC law in the United Kingdom; who is engaged in the review; when it will be published; and what action he is proposing to take to eliminate over-zealous interpretation by Whitehall officials of EC directives.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The scrutiny report on the implementation and enforcement of EC law in the United Kingdom, which was undertaken by an inter-departmental team of officials, was published on 20 July of this year. The period for consultation elapsed on 30 September. The Government are preparing an action programme in the light of consultation. We shall be publishing our response by the end of the year. This will include guidance on the negotiation and implementation of EC law in the United Kingdom, aimed at eliminating over-zealous interpretation.

  Deregulation Task Forces
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many task forces into deregulation have now been established; what has been the cost of servicing the task forces; how many reports have been published; and if they will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Eight task forces have been established, supported by a small secretariat of civil servants and secondees from the private sector. It is not possible to calculate the costs of that support in the time available. The task forces have not yet reported.

  Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish his paper on "Working with Business: A Code for Enforcement Agencies"; how many copies will be published; to whom it will be distributed; and what policing arrangements there will be to see that the code for enforcement agencies is enforced.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  "Working with Business: A Code for Enforcement Agencies" was published on 2.0 July; 70,000 copies have been published to date and copies distributed through enforcement agencies, local offices of the Department of Trade and Industry, British chambers of commerce, the Confederation of Business Industry, and the British Retail Consortium. More than 70 enforcement agencies are aiming to publish their own codes of practice by 1 January 1994 stating how they are putting into practice the principles set down in the code. Departmental deregulation Ministers are responsible for ensuring that this is done.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the excess of the bid for objective 2 status based on EC target population; what discussions will take place with the EC to reduce the list to meet the target population specified by the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what criteria is used by the European Commission to reduce the list of proposed objective 2 areas to meet the target population as specified by the Commission;

  (2) what is the total population of the proposed objective 2 areas; and what is the amount by which that total exceeds the target population for objective 2 areas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The procedure is governed by article 9 of Council Regulation 2081/93, which

  (a) sets out various statistical criteria for objective 2 areas;

  (b) requires each member state to "propose" a list of areas;

  (c) requires the Commission to "establish" the list taking into account the national priorities and situations, in close consultation with the Member State concerned, arid after consulting an advisory committee of all member states; and

  (d) stipulates that assistance should be genuinely concentrated on the areas most seriously affected

  The last is known as the "principle of concentration". A recital of the regulation, which is not legally binding, says that objective 2
  "could cover up to 15 per cent. of the Community population".
  The previous regulation contained a similar recital, but the actual coverage was then 16 per cent.

  I understand that the proposals of all member states together amount to 22 per cent. of the Community population. Neither the Council regulation nor the Commission specifies target populations in individual member states.

  I shall shortly be meeting the Commissioner responsible. Our consultation will be governed by article 9 of the Council regulation.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 22 July,346
  Official Report, column 366, with which Governments and on what dates intergovernmental letters on nuclear waste have so far been exchanged.

  Mr. Eggar
  All contracts since 1976 for reprocessing overseas spent fuel in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant have been covered by inter governmental letters on the return of wastes arising. These have been exchanged with the authorities in Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Switzerland, normally before or shortly after the contracts to which they apply were signed.

  British Gas
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those individuals and organisations who have responded to his consultation on the Monopolies and Mergers report on British Gas; if he will summarise those views; and if he will place copies of all the submissions received in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As at 1 November, my Department had received some 91 representations from a variety of companies, organisations, and individuals, covering a wide range of views. As the representations were made in confidence, it is not appropriate to give details, but I expect to be able to indicate the range of views in due course, once they have all been fully assessed and a decision has been taken.

  Regional Aid (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the EC funds committed to regional aid have been allocated to south Yorkshire; how much has already been claimed by local authorities in south Yorkshire; and how much is yet to gain approval for projects in south Yorkshire.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  South Yorkshire has been allocated approximately £180 million from the European regional development fund and the European social fund for the period 1989–93.

  Projects have so far been approved to the value of £150 million, nearly half of which has been for projects undertaken by local authorities.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with(a) Nuclear Electric and (b) British Nuclear Fuels over the transfer of liabilities for nuclear waste and decommissioning costs arising from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet Nuclear Electric and British Nuclear Fuels regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  Crown Post Offices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices there were in(a) Pendle and (b) Lancashire and (c) England for each year since 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of Crown post offices in Pendle, in Lancashire and in the United Kingdom for each year since 1987 were as follows:
  347

  Pendle

  Lancashire

  United Kingdom

  1987–88

  3

  23

  1,499

  1988–89

  3

  23

  1,493

  1989–90

  3

  20

  1,339

  1990–91

  1

  17

  1,167

  1991–92

  1

  16

  1,019

  1992–93

  1

  15

  917

  October 1992

  1

  14

  881

  The numbers of Crown post offices in England in these years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Materials (Exports)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 303, if he will list the intergovernmental nuclear co-operation agreements which facilitate the export of nuclear materials.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom has concluded bilateral intergovernmental nuclear co-operation agreement with Australia, Belgium, Chile, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. These agreements have been laid before the House and published in the treaty series.

  North Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the report made by the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the United Nations general assembly on the attempts by the agency to complete nuclear safeguards arrangements with North Korea, pursuant to obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom commends the IAEA for its efforts to implement safeguards in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). In this connection we fully support the report of the Director General to the United Nations General Assembly and approve the report's emphasis on the need for full nuclear transparency. We urge the DPRK to act on the concerns expressed in the report and comply fully with its IAEA safeguards agreement immediately, and confirm its commitment to the non-proliferation treaty permanently.

  Refuse-to-Energy Plant, Belvedere
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he has received the inspector's report in respect of the public inquiry dealing with the proposed Cory refuse-to-energy plant in Belvedere;

  (2) when he expects to be able to make a statement on the proposed Cory refuse-to-energy plant in Belvedere.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade received the inspector's report yesterday.

  My right hon. Friend will give timely and careful consideration to the report and will announce his decision on the application at the earliest possible opportunity after having considered the report.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the state of the economy in the Northern region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The economy of the Northern Region has undergone a transition over the last decade and now has a broader manufacturing base. This process has been helped substantially by overseas investment worth some £2 billion.

  A regional survey of business confidence compiled and published by the Northern Development Company recorded high levels of business confidence throughout the Northern region during the third quarter of 1993 with levels of investment, turnover and profit all continuing to rise.

  Company Law
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made of the implications of the European Court of Justice decision Penete Corni and others v. Administrazione dello Finanzo Dello Stato and others ref C-71/91 and C-179/81 upon the options for changing the operation and role of Companies house including (a) full privatisation, (b) partial privatisation and (c) contracting out some of the activities of Companies house;

  (2) what consultations he has had about the effect of the ruling by the European Court of Justice in Ponente Corni and Others v Administrazione dello Finanzo Dello Stato and others ref. C-71/91 and C-179/81, on charging a registration fee to companies in excess of the actual cost of procedure; what representations he has had on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am studying the judgment of the European Court of Justice on these cases. I have not received any representations and there has been no consultation with outside bodies.

  Forged Stamps
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what warnings have been issued by the Post Office and the Government about the sale of forged stamps in private retail outlets.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is an operational matter for the Post Office, but I understand that the Post Office issued no warnings because it judged that the attendant publicity would cause unnecessary panic and also prejudice investigations. The investigations have led to the arrest of 24 people in the London area.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the impact on Post Office revenue of recent stamp forgeries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is an operational matter for the Post Office, but I understand that recent sampling of mail at major sorting offices in London indicates that the loss of revenue is unlikely to exceed £1 million, or less than 0.03 per cent. of total annual revenue in 1992–93.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the membership of the national committee co-ordinating the Konver programme, together with the organisation each represents.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I expect to take a decision shortly on which bodies should be invited to nominate a representative to serve on the national Konver programme monitoring committee.

  Office of Telecommunications
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he has to announce to the cash limit and gross running costs limit for the Office of Telecommunications.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 10, Office of Telecommunications, will be increased by £223,000 from £8,233,000 to £8,456,000.

  The gross running costs limit for the Office of Telecommunications will also be increased by £223,000 from £7,861,000 to £8,084,000. The increase will enable the Office of Telecommunications to pay for personnel services provided by DTI in full. There is also a take-up of the end-year flexibility entitlement (£50,000) as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993 at columns 512–517.

  The increase will be offset by additional VAT refunds of £60,000, by a transfer from DTI (class IV, vote 1) a charge to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of 1–19 Victoria street.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry and Property Holdings have concluded an agreement with Legal and General Property for the refurbishment of 1–19 Victoria street for reoccupation by DTI as its headquarters building.

  Work on site will start shortly and will take approximately 27 months.

  When DTI returns to 1–19 Victoria street, it will give up Ashdown house—the building at 123 Victoria street—and other central London buildings, which account for considerably more space than 1–19 Victoria street.

  Warship Yards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the date of future meetings arranged between himself and Commissioner van Miert to discuss intervention funding for warship yards.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: There is no date arranged at the moment; Vice President van Miert is currently in Japan. I shall be speaking to him by telephone on his return and will meet with him thereafter as necessary.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the results of his meeting with 350
  Commissioner Van Miert on intervention funding for warship yards on 25 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: The negotiations which took place on 25 October between my officials and officials in the EC Commission were useful and constructive. I will continue to maintain a close interest in this issue.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the return on capital employed in the Post Office in 1992–93; and what is that projected for 1993–94.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: The financial targets set for Royal Mail and Post Office Counters are to achieve respectively an annual average return on capital employed of 16 per cent. and 9.3 per cent. over the three years 1992–93 to 1994–95. In 1992–93 the actual returns on capital employed achieved by Royal Mail and Post Office Counters were respectively 16.3 per cent. and 9.6 per cent.

  Parcelforce was set the financial target of achieving at least break-even in 1992–93 and 1993–94. In 1992–93, Parcelforce incurred a small loss, giving a negative return on capital employed of –5.7 per cent.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the planned and (b) the outturn expenditure on capital investment in the Post Office in 1992–93; what was the planned capital investment in 1993–94 in last year's autumn statement; what is that currently planned; and if he will express the figures for 1993–94 both in cash and on a common price base with 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: Planned capital expenditure by the Post Office in 1992–93 was £344 million; outturn expenditure was £343 million. The Post Office's capital expenditure limit for 1993–94 set in last year's autumn statement was £321 million and remains at that figure; in 1992–93 prices this equates to £312 million.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the external financing limit targets for the Post Office for 1992–93 and 1993–94 in cash and standard price terms.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: The EFL targets set for the Post Office for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are as follows:

  £ million

  Cash

  1992–93 prices

  1992–93

  1-66

  -66

  1993–94

  -181

  -176

  1 The EFL outturn for 1991–93 was —00A3;80 million

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the direct actual and whole-time equivalent employment in the Post Office and each of its subsidiaries as at 1 April 1992, 1 October 1992, 1 April 1993 and 1 October 1993.
  351
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: The direct actual and whole-time equivalent employment in the Post Office and each of its subsidiaries as at 1 April 1992, 1 October 1992, 1 April 1993 and 1 October 1993 were as follows:

  Post Office

  Post Office Counters Ltd

  SSL Ltd

  Total Post Office group

  Direct Actual

  1 April 1992

  191,800

  16,900

  1,400

  210,100

  1 October 1992

  189,100

  16,800

  1,400

  207,300

  1 April 1993

  184,600

  16,400

  1,400

  202,400

  1 October 1993

  183,900

  15,100

  1,300

  200,300

  Wholetime equivalent

  1 April 1992

  181,700

  15,400

  1,400

  198,500

  1 October 1992

  178,900

  15,100

  1,400

  195,400

  1 April 1993

  174,300

  14,700

  1,400

  190,300

  1 October 1993

  173,100

  13,400

  1,300

  187,800

  Note: The above figures are to the nearest hundred. Direct actual employment represents all full-time staff plus part-time staff counted as 1; whole-time equivalent employment represents all full-time staff plus part-time staff counted as ½.

  Name

  Position

  Date Appointed

  Other Directorships

  Mr. K. F. Whittle CBE

  Chairman

  30 June 19931

  Chairman BEAB

  Mr. J. Pearcy

  Financial

  30 June 19931

  Director BEAB

  Mr. G. D. Clarke

  Managing Director and Secretary

  1 January 1987

  Director, Surrey TEC

  Mr. J. F. Barrett

  Director

  24 November 1992

  Director, Digital Equipment UK

  Mr. R. P. Boardman

  Director

  30 June 19931

  Mr. K. E. Clarke

  Director

  7 August 1992

  Director, BT (CPB) Ltd.

  Mr. D. G. Hyde

  Director

  11 October 1990

  Oftel, (Nominated by Secretary of State)

  Mr. H. Peltor CBE

  Director

  17 January 1991

  Director, BREMA, Director, BEAB

  Mr. N. A. Perrin

  Director

  1 January 1988

  Director, EEA

  Dr. D. A. Leakey

  Director

  1 June 1989

  Dr. A. O'Dochartaigh

  Director

  17 January 1991

  Director of Communication-Bass plc

  1 Date of re-election

  Public Rights
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests of each executive non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: A list of executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) sponsored by my Department is set out in "Public Bodies 1992" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  With one exception, none of the executive NDPBs sponsored by DTI is required by statute to give the public rights to attend all board of committee meetings, inspect the minutes of meetings or inspect a register of members interests. The exception in the National Consumer Council which is required under company law to file details of members' interests.

  The following NDPBs are either required by statute to publish their annual report or lay them before Parliament:

  Advisory Committees on Telecommunications

  Area Transport Users' Consultative Committees

  British Hallmarking Council*

  Central Transport Consultative Committee

  Domestic Coal Consumers' Council

  English Industrial Estates Corporation*

  Gas Consumers' Council

  British Approvals Board for Telecommunications
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the membership of the British Approvals Board for Telecommunications together with their date of appointment, remuneration and other allowances, other public appointments and directorships.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: The British Approvals Board for Telecommunications (BABT) is a private company without share capital, limited by guarantee. As a registered company, it is required to lodge a copy of its audited accounts and directors' details with Companies House. These show that the composition of the board (emoluments during 1992, if any, follow in brackets) is: the chairman (£8,500), the managing director and secretary (£62,304), the finance director (less than £5,000) and eight non-executive directors.

  Their details are given as follows:

  London Regional Passengers' Committee

  National Consumer Council*

  Policyholders' Protection Board*

  Post Office Users' National Council

  Post Office Users' Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority*

  The bodies marked with an asterisk, together with the Hearing Aid Council, are also either required to publish their annual accounts or lay them before Parliament.

  Refrigerant Containers
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association about the terms of the draft Environmental Protection (Non-Refillable Refrigerant Containers) Regulations 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: My Department has received representations from BAMA expressing concern that aerosol sprays for freezing purposes would be banned under the terms of these Regulations. I understand from my colleagues at the Department of the Environment that the regulation was not designed to include aerosols and the definitions have been revised to ensure that the regulation affects only refrigerants in disposable containers which are supplied for servicing refrigeration equipment.

  Royal Mail International
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of Royal Mail International traffic is classified as concessionary printed paper rate—under 100 g; and if he will make a statement concerning its withdrawal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: Concessionary printed paper rate items weighing less than 100 g represent 2.5 per cent. of total Royal Mail International traffic volume. The recent tariff changes for international printed paper traffic were necessary to ensure that the prices properly reflect the costs of providing the service.

  Electrical Installations
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department intends to introduce regulations requiring electrical installations affected by BS7671, IEE wiring regulations, to be installed by registered contractors in a manner similar to that used for gas installations under the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers registered contractor scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Electric wiring is already controlled through the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, as amended in 1990, and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. I am also considering the desirability of incorporating relevant electric wiring work into the Building Regulations, but the Government have no proposals to require all electrical installations to be installed by registered contractors.

  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
  [pursuant to the reply, 1 November 1993, c. 58]: The Department's gross running cost limit as shown in table 2 of the original Estimate booklet (HC 495-IV) was overstated by £566,000 and should have been £327,424,000 as shown on the face of the Estimate for class IV, vote 1 at subheads CI and CZ(6). The increase of £875,000 from £327,424,000 to £328,299,000 sought in the Winter Supplementary remains unchanged.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Integrated Education
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he proposes to offer opportunities for integrated education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government remain committed to maximising the opportunities for parents to opt for integrated schools for their children. Support and advice is available from the NI Council for Integrated Education to any group from the community who wish to establish an integrated school, with the Integrated Education Fund providing assistance with early capital costs. The Department of Education provides 100 per cent. recurrent funding for new schools from day one, and 100 per cent. capital grants as soon as a school's viability is confirmed.354
  These measures have enabled rapid growth in the number of integrated schools: there are now 21 schools with a combined enrolment of some 4,000 pupils.

  Commercial and Industrial Development
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on commercial and industrial development in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  After law and order, strengthening the economy is the second highest priority of the Government in Northern Ireland. Our economic development strategy aims to achieve higher levels of employment opportunities. This depends on Northern Ireland industry becoming internationally competitive and the economic development agencies have been working towards this aim by encouraging inward investment and by helping with activities which will improve business performance.

  The annual report of the Industrial Development Board (IDB), published in September, recorded a year of considerable achievement for the organisation. There were 10 new inward investment projects offering almost 2,000 new jobs—IDB's second most successful year ever. Several of these projects, including Texmaco and Seagate Technology, will not only create employment but also introduce new products and technologies to Northern Ireland. In addition 2,800 new jobs were created during 1992–93 in IDB client companies which received financial assistance towards investment projects in 59 established companies with the aim of improving their international competitiveness.

  The Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU), the small business agency, also had a successful year in 1992–93. During the year there was a net increase in employment of 1,020 in LEDU client companies, a significant reversal of the previous year's results which showed a net decrease in employment of 650. There was also a marked rise in activity levels across the range of LEDU's activities, including 3,716 individuals receiving enterprise training and 1,429 new business start ups.

  During 1992–93 the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) played a significant role in the development of Northern Ireland's research and development capabilities through the provision of a range of financial and other support to industry. Particular emphasis was placed on encouraging collaboration between industry, government and other organisations engaged in research.

  Development in the commercial sector continues to be buoyant and numerous projects have been started or completed in the last year. Major projects completed include developments in Belfast such as a 10-screen multiplex cinema and associated multi-storey car park, and a number of significant office developments including a major development in the Laganside area, which will be a priority area for commercial development over the next 15 years. In Londonderry a £10 million development known as Quayside has recently been completed. Projects currently under way in Belfast include further development of sites within Laganside, together with prestige office developments on other sites. In Londonderry work has started on a £65 million retail and office development to be known as Foyleside.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what way journey times by ambulance between Lame and the new Antrim hospitals have been recorded; and what is the estimated journey time by ambulance for patients between Lame and the Antrim hospital.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Northern health and social services board has carried out "trial runs" using three different methods, to calculate the travel time from Larne to the Antrim hospital site.

  The first method involved an ambulance travelling at high speed on a normal day but without the use of the emergency blue light. The recorded time was 20 minutes. The second method involved travelling by car at normal speed and on a normal day. The time recorded was 25 minutes. The third method involved using a computer model which simulated a journey by ambulance in poor travel conditions. The time calculated was also 25 minutes.

  The board estimates that in a real emergency, even in rush-hour traffic, the journey could be completed by ambulance in approximately 20 minutes. In normal traffic conditions a reduction of three of four minutes in that time would be possible.

  Religious Tolerance
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage religious tolerance in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government are committed to ensuring that there is full equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all sections of the Northern Ireland community and that every opportunity is taken to encourage greater contact between the communities, thereby increasing mutual understanding and acceptance of cultural diversity. Over the past four years the Government have facilitated a wide range of measures to encourage better community relations and has committed more than £23 million towards community relations programmes in Northern Ireland, including over £7 million in this financial year. From September 1993 all pupils of compulsory school age are required to be taught two cross-community themes—education for mutual understanding, and cultural heritage—which are intended to foster greater understanding and improved relationships between people of different cultural traditions.

  Democratic Structures
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to develop further democratic structures in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Government would like to see greater responsibility for the affairs of Northern Ireland exercised by locally elected representatives, under a system attracting wide support across the entire community. I continue to believe that the best hope of achieving this lies in the talks process involving the British and Irish Governments and the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. The Government are actively engaged in discussions aimed at taking this process forward.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the level of knowledge, skill and experience of community psychiatric nurses in promoting and maintaining mental health in the community in deciding whether to include them as eligible as approved applicants for compulsory admission to a psychiatric hospital in the proposed amendments to the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no proposals at present to amend the substance of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and no consideration is currently being given to include community psychiatric nurses as persons who may make application for assessment under the compulsory admission to hospital procedures contained in the order.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 20 October,Official Report, column 235, if he will state the reason for the increase in entertainment costs in his Department from 1991–92 to 1992–93.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The previously published figures on hospitality in 1991–92 related only to the Department of Finance and Personnel. The total amount spent on official hospitality in that year by all the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office was £559,220.

  Out-of-school Child Care
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what department in Northern Ireland is to be responsible for the allocation of the out-of-school grants as agreed by the Department of Employment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the amount of money to be made available to Northern Ireland for child care provision under the out-of-school child care grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not always possible for grants available from GB Departments to be immediately replicated by Northern Ireland Departments. The out-of-school child care grant has not been extended to Northern Ireland. The possibility of introducing a scheme of this kind is currently being examined by an inter-departmental group which will advise Ministers. If it is decided that a scheme is feasible or can be funded, then a decision will be made about assigning departmental responsibility for it.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision is made for grants to those organisations and individuals who organise out-of-school arrangements in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the health and personal social services field, funding of local day care projects is the responsibility of the four area health and social services boards. These projects are aimed at looking after children who might be at risk of being harmed or becoming delinquent. Support
  357
  can be provided on a once only basis towards a project's start-up costs and for equipment, and on a recurring basis towards annual running costs. In addition, the Department of Health and Social Services can support the central administrative expenditure of regional voluntary child care organisations whose work advances the Department's strategic objectives.

  Security Statistics
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the security statistics for 1992 are now available, together with details of persons charged with terrorist-type offences and convictions for scheduled offences for the year.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Security statistics for 1992 are as follows. Statistics for earlier years can be obtained from the Library.

  Statistics on security for the period January to December 1992

  Contents

  Page number

  Table 1:

  a. Shooting incidents

  1

  b. Explosions-estimated weight

  1

  c. Bombs neutralised-estimated weight

  1

  d. Armed robberies

  1

  e. Amount stolen

  1

  f. Malicious fires

  1

  g. Deaths

  1

  h. Injuries

  1

  Table 2:

  a. (i) Dwellings searched by the Army

  2

  a. (ii) Dwellings searched by the RUC

  2

  b. Finds

  2

  c. Persons charged with terrorist-type offences

  2

  Table 3:

  Tables of convictions and sentences for scheduled offences

  3–5

  Table 1: statistics of terrorist activity

  Figures

  a. Shooting incidents1

  439

  b. Explosions

  222

  Estimated weight in kilograms

  7,207

  c.Bombs neutralised

  149

  Estimated weight in kilograms

  4,143

  d. Armed robberies

  642

  e. Amount stolen

  £1,665,863

  f. Malicious fires

  419

  g. Deaths:Civilian

  76

  Table 3

  convictions and sentences for scheduled offences tried on indictment at Belfast Crown Court 1992

  Custodial sentences (January-December 1992)

  Offences

  Persons convicted

  Noncustodial sentence

  Young offenders centre/ training school

  Less than 5 years

  5 year and less than 7 years

  7 years and less than 10 years

  10 years and less than 15 years

  15 years and less than 20 years

  20 years and over

  Detained S.O.S

  Life

  Murder

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Aiding and abetting murder

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Attempted murder

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  3

  0

  0

  Conspiracy to murder

  9

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  3

  0

  0

  Assault1

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  8

  7

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent

  18

  2

  5

  1

  3

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  358

  Figures

  Regular Army

  4

  Royal Irish Regiment

  2

  RUC

  2

  RUC Reserve

  1

  Total

  85

  f. Injuries:

  Civilian

  598

  Regular Army

  302

  Royal Irish Regiment

  18

  RUC

  123

  RUC Reserve

  25

  Total

  1,066

  1 Excludes shots heard

  Table 2: Statistics of security forces activity

  Figures

  a. (i) Dwellings searched by the Army:

  Occupied

  507

  Unoccupied

  129

  Derelict

  115

  TOTAL

  751

  a. (ii) Dwellings searched by the RUC:

  Occupied1

  —

  Unoccupied1

  —

  Derelict1

  —

  TOTAL

  3,415

  b. Finds:

  Weapons

  243

  Ammunition (rounds of)

  29,131

  Explosives (weight in Kgs)

  2,166

  c. Persons charged with terrorist-type offences:

  Murder

  34

  Attempted murder

  63

  Firearms offences

  79

  Explosives offences

  38

  Armed robbery

  32

  Others

  159

  TOTAL

  405

  1 Breakdown into occupied, unoccupied or derelict not provided by the RUC.

  Note: Searches of dwellings frequently involve both the Army and the RUC and are registered in their respective records. The totals should therefore not be aggregated and are shown separately to avoid an element of double counting.
  359

  Custodial sentences (January-December 1992)

  Offences

  Persons convicted

  Noncustodial sentence

  Young offenders centre/ training school

  Less than 5 years

  5 years and less than 7 years

  7 years and less than 10 years

  10 years and less than 15 years

  75 years and less than 20 years

  20 years and over

  Detained S.O.S.

  Life

  Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kidnapping and false imprisonment

  4

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arson

  12

  8

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Petrol bomb offences

  7

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hijacking

  19

  8

  4

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robbery

  120

  34

  21

  33

  16

  8

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Burglary (aggravated)

  10

  4

  2

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blackmail

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Impeding apprehension

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Membership

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possessing items for terrorist purposes

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Causing a bomb hoax

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Withholding information

  4

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Recording information

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of information useful to terrorists

  8

  3

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Making property available

  13

  5

  0

  5

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Withholding information about an arrestable offence

  18

  17

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Carrying firearm with intent

  3

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of firearm and ammunition in suspicious circumstances

  6

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of firearm with intent

  27

  6

  2

  7

  3

  4

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Explosives offences

  24

  2

  2

  0

  4

  5

  8

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Intimidation

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Threats to kill

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Handling1

  4

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Theft1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Breach of suspended sentence

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Making or receiving contributions

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  354

  131

  37

  73

  37

  26

  26

  6

  8

  0

  10

  Notes

  1. Non-scheduled offences (1) are included in table 3 where a defendant and/or co-defendants were charged with scheduled offences, and where the charge was 'reduced' (e.g. from robbery to handling stolen goods), or where a defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

  2. Breach of suspended sentences are included where the orders were made on scheduled offences. They are also included where the breach of conditions for non-scheduled offences are heard along with other scheduled offences.

  3. Where a person has been convicted of more than one offence, only that offence which received the longest sentence is recorded in the statistics.

  Authorised Investigators
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the statutory code of practice in respect of authorised investigators to come into operation.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Yesterday I laid before Parliament the draft code of practice in connection with the exercise by authorised investigators of the powers conferred by schedule 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, as I am required to do by paragraph 7(3) of that schedule. I intend also to make an Order which will bring the code into operation from midnight on 31 December 1993. This short delay is to enable authorised investigators and those who may have to advise persons to be interviewed by them to acquaint themselves with the provisions of the draft code before it comes into operation.

  The draft code provides guidance to authorised investigators on how they should exercise their powers and contains a number of valuable stafeguards for those who may be interviewed by them.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Chamber (Live Feed)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list all those organisations and individuals(a) within and (b) outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster who currently receive the live feed from the Chamber of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Newton
  Within the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings, the following organisations or individuals receive a clean television feed from the Chamber: Madam Speaker; the Speaker's Secretary; the Chairman of Ways and Means; the Prime Minister; the Leader of the Opposition; the Leader of the House; the shadow Leader of the House; the Leader of the Liberal Democrats; the Whips Offices of the Government, the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats; the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting; and the Press Gallery, within which some individual broadcasters have made their own separate arrangements.

  In addition, the Votes and Proceedings Office and the Committee Office at No. 7 Millbank receive a clean sound feed. The Editor and Deputy Editor of the Official Report enjoy a similar facility, as does the Hansard training division at No. 7 Millbank.
  361
  Outside the House, a number of Government Departments have arranged through the Central Office of Information to take a clean television feed. In addition, all the main broadcasters within the United Kingdom—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and BSkyB—are entitled under the terms of the first report of Session 1988–89 of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House to receive the clean feed. The live feed is also retransmitted in the form of the Parliamentary Channel, which is carried by various local cable networks throughout the United Kingdom. Finally, the Press Association has access to a live feed for the production of still photographs, for which purpose it has been licensed by Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd., PARBUL.

  There are a further 25 organisations, mainly in broadcasting or the press, which are already authorised to take a clean sound feed and which on the basis of a policy decision by the Select Committee, are also entitled, without the need to seek separate permission, to take a clean television feed if they wish. I understand that very few of these organisations have in fact exercised their right to receive the television feed, although precise information about their identity is not readily available since, as indicated, they do not need the approval of the Select Committee to do so. The full list of 25 is as follows:

  British Forces Broadcasting Service

  Manx Radio

  South Africa Broadcasting Corporation

  National Public Radio (USA)

  Radio stations affiliated to the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations

  Scandinavian Broadcasting (Danish (DR), Finnish (YLE), Norwegian and Swedish radio and television)

  Voice of America

  Falkland Islands Broadcasting

  Associated Press Ltd.

  IBS News Ltd.

  Radio Television Hong Kong

  Radio Basildon

  London Broadcasting Co. Ltd. (who are authorised to supply the feed to national newspapers)

  Israel Broadcasting Authority

  Norddeutscher Rundfunk Hamburg

  Westdeutscher Rundfunk Köln

  Deutsche Welle, Köln

  Wall Street Journal London Bureau Reuters Ltd.

  Sound Productions (Overseas Promotions) Ltd.

  TV Asahi

  Christian Science Monitor

  Tolerate Europe/Gulf

  Bank of England

  New York Times London Bureau

  The supply of a clean sound feed has also been authorised to BBC Audiocall, TIM Ltd. and IRN for the purpose of providing a premium rate live telephone relay of proceedings.

  Sittings of the House
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he has made in preparing proposals for the House on the hours of sitting arising from the report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.

  Mr. Newton
  I have met the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) since the House reassembled to consider how best we might make further progress in taking forward the proposals from the report.

  EC Visits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members used the new facility in the last financial year to visit Brussels or Strasbourg on parliamentary business.

  Mr. Newton
  During the financial year ended 31 March 1993, a total of 88 Members claimed expenses under the terms of the Resolution of the House of 6 December 1991, in respect of visits to European Community institutions.

  Sixty-one Members claimed for a visit to Brussels, 26 for a visit to Strasbourg and one for a visit to Luxembourg.

  Members' Rooms
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many hon. Members have single rooms(a) in total and (b) by party.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Four hundred and forty-five hon. Members have single rooms as follows: 243 Conservatives, 185 Labour, 10 Liberal Democrats, 2 Scottish National party, 2 Ulster Unionist party, 2 Plaid Cymru, 1 Ulster Popular Unionist party. These figures include office holders' rooms.

  Receptions
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee how many receptions have taken place at the House sponsored by(a) Conservative hon. Members and (b) hon. Members of other parties since 9 April 1992; and for what organisations in each case.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  It is not the practice to disclose details of bookings made by Members.

  Catering Facilities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), of 22 October,Official Report, columns 347–8, if he will seek to arrange for the impending review of private dining facilities to consider a requirement that hon. Members sponsoring functions in the House should confirm to the Director of Catering Services that they have checked the bona fides of any organisation for which they have agreed to sponsor a function.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The impending review of private dining facilities will include consideration of the existing regulations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Gambling
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the revenues raised from, and the total turnover of, gambling and gaming, including pools, gaming machines, bingo, casinos, on-course betting, off-course betting and lotteries in each year since 1989; and what is his Department's analysis of the changes in these statistics.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information relating to the revenue raised from betting and gaming is contained in tables J1-J3 of the annual reports of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, copies of which are in the Library.
  363
  Reliable information on total turnover from the various forms of betting and gaming is not collected centrally.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 640, if he will break down into categories the 51 per cent. of all prisoners in Britain not convicted of violence against the person, robbery or for a sexual offence.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. David Alton, dated November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question pursuant to my Answer of 27 October, asking for a breakdown into categories of the 51 per cent. of all prisoners convicted of non-violent offences i.e. offences other than violence against the person, robbery or sexual offences.
  The information you have requested is given in the attached table.

  Population1 held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales under sentence on 30 June 1993

  Offence Group

  Percentage of the sentenced prison population

  Burglary

  16

  Theft and handling

  10

  Fraud and forgery

  3

  Drugs

  11

  Other offences

  11

  All non-violent offences

  51

  1 Provisional figures. Excludes those committed in default of payment of a fine and those for whom no offence is recorded.

  Overseas Domestic Servants
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures Her Majesty's Government are proposing in order to prevent abuse and exploitation of domestic servants from overseas.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We introduced in May 1991 tighter controls on the arrangements whereby in certain circumstances domestic servants from abroad may accompany their employer to the United Kingdom.

  These arrangements are kept under review but there are no plans at present to introduce further measures.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of British summer time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We expect to bring our consideration of policy on future summer time arrangements to a conclusion soon. We shall take into account the possible outcomes of negotiations on the recent draft 7th EC directive on the start and end dates of summer time, including its proposal that from 1997 all member states should adopt the October end date currently used in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

  Police Cautions
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police cautions were issued each year since 1990 in the Peterlee sub-division.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information collected centrally shows only the police force area in which a caution is given. The table gives cautioning data for the Durham constabulary for 1990 to 1992—which is provisional. 1993 information will not be available until autumn 1994.

  Number of offenders cautioned in Durham police force area by type of offence 1990, 1991 and 19921

  Type of offence

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Indictable

  1,235

  1,152

  1,377

  Summary (excluding motoring)

  766

  704

  688

  Total

  2,001

  1,856

  2,065

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what additional resources will be made available to the police service as a whole, and for each police force area, to implement the draft circular on cautioning;

  (2) how many additional police officers he estimates will be needed to implement the draft circular on cautioning;

  (3) what additional resources will be made available to the Crown Prosecution Service to implement the draft circular on cautioning;

  (4) what will be the cost to the legal aid budget of the draft circular on cautioning;

  (5) what is his estimate of the additional workload for the Crown Prosecution Service of his draft circular on cautioning;

  (6) what is his estimate of the additional workload for the police service as a whole, and for each police force, of his draft circular on cautioning;

  (7) how many extra staff he estimates will be needed by the Crown Prosecution Service to implement the draft circular on cautioning.

  Mr. Maclean
  The resource implications of the new draft guidance are still being examined while consultation is in progress, but since it is not expected to do more than return the number of cautions to the level that was current in 1991, I do not expect significant additional resources to be required.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his estimate of the impact on the average length of time from charge or summons to completion of a case in the youth court of his announcement on cautioning;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of additional prosecutions which will result from his draft guidance on cautioning;

  (3) what is his estimate of the impact on the average length of time from first appearance of a case in a youth court to completion of his announcement on cautioning;

  (4) what is his estimate of the number of additional cases that will be dealt with (a) in the youth court, (b) in magistrates courts and (c) in the Crown court as a result of his draft circular on cautioning.

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for deciding whether or not to caution an offender in any particular case will
  365
  continue to rest with the police who will make their own judgments as to what action it would be appropriate to take in particular circumstances. But we have estimated that the effect of the guidance which has just been issued for consultation might be to increase the number of prosecutions by some 25,000 to 30,000. The vast majority of these cases would be heard in the youth court or magistrates courts; it is too soon to estimate reliably the effect, if any, on court waiting times.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average length of time from offence to the administering of a police caution nationally and in each police force area;

  (2) what is the average cost of a caution.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available.

  Falklands War Crimes
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure has hitherto been incurred in investigating the alleged war crimes by British soldiers in the Falklands; and what estimate he has for the cost of the total investigation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the commissioner that the estimated additional cost of the investigation to date is £98,000 and that future additional costs are estimated at £3,800 per month.

  Vehicle Security
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure the introduction of secure and visible vehicle identification numbers to improve vehicle security.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office and the police have for some years been encouraging motor manufacturers to introduce visible vehicle identification numbers on all new cars.

  This is preferably done by the number being displayed on a permament tamper-proof plate bonded to the nearside windscreen pillar or dashboard of the vehicle, and I am pleased to say that a number of manufacturers are now responding positively to our representations.

  Fines (Defaulters)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners have been imprisoned for defaulting on payment of fines.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. David Alton, dated November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the percentage of prisoners imprisoned for defaulting on a fine in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 August 1993 when fine defaulters accounted for some 1.5 per cent. of the total sentenced prison population.

  Mrs. Joy Gardner
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the INDECS record of Mrs. Joy Gardner.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. It is not our practice to make public immigration records relating to individuals.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide estimates for the annual cost of imprisoning a category A prisoner for each year since 1974.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning the annual cost of holding category A prisoners, since 1974.
  Costs are collected by the type of establishment, rather than the category of prisoner.
  All convicted category A prisoners are held in one of six dispersal prisons. The average annual cost of holding an inmate in a dispersal prison (at 1993–94 prices) is given for the years 1983–84 to 1992–93. Prior to 1983 the dispersal prisons were not costed separately.

  Average annual cost (at 1993–94 prices) of holding a prisoner in a dispersal prison

  Year

  £

  1983–84

  42,010

  1984–85

  40,435

  1985–86

  37,279

  1986–87

  35,885

  1987–88

  40,570

  1988–89

  36,730

  1989–90

  35,294

  1990–91

  36,333

  1991–92

  44,627

  1992–93

  143,599

  1 Provisional.

  Dispersal prisons hold all categories of inmates and we are unable to isolate those costs which relate directly to the category A prisoners.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from the appropriate chief constable to provide estimates for the cost including police wages of(a) the inquiry by Mr. David Owen into the injuries inflicted on the six people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings during the first few days in custody, (b) the inquiry carried out by the City of London police in 1988 into alleged contacts between Dr. Frank Skuse and Mr. George Reade, (c) the first inquiry conducted by the Devon and Cornwall police into the pub bombings convictions and (d) the second inquiry conducted by the Devon and Cornwall police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. These are matters for the chief constable of the West Midlands police.

  Wymott Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations made in the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons on the disturbance at Her Majesty's prison, Wymott.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the plans to implement the recommendations made in the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on the disturbance at Wymott prison. The report makes a total of 47 recommendations. Whilst some of these recommendations are specific to Wymott there are others concerning the management of Category C prisoners and the handling of major incidents. At this stage 42 of the Chief Inspector's recommendations have been accepted or accepted in principle, whilst the remaining five recommendations are currently being evaluated. Several of the accepted recommendations have already been implemented.
  The recommendations still under evaluation are:
  Recommendation 7.03, that the Certified Normal Accommodation for each house at Wymott should be reduced to make them more manageable;
  Recommendation 7.23, 7.24 and 7.25, which concern themselves with general management and tactical management issues for the Category C prisoner population;
  and Recommondation 7.29, which proposes measures to not hold active drug dealers in establishments with cubicular or dormitory accommodation.
  This overall response to the Chief Inspector's Report effectively constitutes a broad programme of action to establish and maintain safety at Wymott. The outcome of the evaluation of the wider recommendations contained in 7.23, 7.24, 7.25 and 7.29 should contribute further to this both at Wymott and in other establishments, whilst the local recommendations for a reduction in house unit Certified Normal Accommodation will be considered in the light of proper experience of the establishment's new vulnerable prisoner population.
  The timetable for implementation of this overall response to the Chief Inspector's Report will vary in accordance with the implications and demands of particular individual recommendations. Several of the local recommendations and those for the handling of major incidents have already been implemented. A decision has now been taken to demolish the two most severely damaged house units at Wymott and to replace this accommodation with new cellular blocks similar to those recently opened at the establishment in your own constituency, HM Prison Risley. This building programme will take somewhere in the region of 2 years to complete. Consideration still needs to be given to some of the broader issues concerning the Category C prisoner population, as the Chief Inspector's recommendations have a number of implications for other principles and regime priorities such as the Prison Service's desire to develop community prisons on the lines proposed in the Woolf report. Detailed work will be required to formulate a proper response which effectively balances these varying demands.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to continue the sex offender treatment programme for prisoners sent to Her Majesty's prison, Wymott;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on individual prisoners' progress through the sex offender treatment programme as a result of their compulsory transfer from Her Majesty's prison, Wymott.

  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.
  368
  Letter from D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the sex offender treatment programme at Wymott.
  No prisoner who has participated in the sex offender treatment programme at Risley prison has been moved to Wymott on a compulsory basis, although four prisoners who had completed the formal treatment have so far chosen to go there on voluntary transfer. Staff from Risley have to date undertaken the necessary post-course assessment of these prisoners. It is intended that any similar further requirements in these cases will at this stage be primarily maintained from Risley.
  At this time and for the immediately forseeable future, Risley is maintaining its existing programme for this form of group work. Wymott intends to start similar initiatives early in the new year. No prisoner who has started this kind of course at Risley, either at the present time or in the future, would be considered for any transfer to Wymott until they had completed their course. Any prisoner selected for future attendance on a course at Risley would only be transferred to Wymott if a suitable course place was available in the latter setting.
  Once this form of groupwork has become fully established at Wymott the two establishments will work together on arrangements for the post-course assessment and support of all prisoners who have completed the formal treatment programme. This will ensure that a consistent level of care and assessment of progress is maintained for all the individual prisoners concerned.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has come to on the conclusion of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons regarding the safety of the accommodation at HMP Wymott; and on what basis the accommodation has been certified for use by prisoners.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the safety of the accommodation at Wymott prison, and on what basis the accommodation has been certified for use by prisoners.
  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons' Report into the Disturbance at HM Prison Wymott on 6 September 1993 makes a total of 47 recommendations. Whilst some of these recommendations are specific to Wymott there are others concerning the management of Category C prisoners and the handling of major incidents. Many of this broader range of recommendations also have implications for safety at Wymott. At this stage 42 of the Chief Inspector's recommendations have been accepted or accepted in principle, whilst the remaining five are currently being evaluated. Several of the accepted recommendations have already been implemented.
  The recommendations still under evaluation are:
  Recommendation 7.03, that the Certified Normal Accommodation for each house at Wymott should be reduced to make them more manageable;
  Recommendation 7.23, 7.24 and 7.25, which concern themselves with general management and tactical management issues for the Category C prisoner population;
  Recommendation 7.29, which proposes measures to not hold active drug dealers in establishments with cubicular or dormitory accommodation.
  This overall response to the Chief Inspector's Report effectively constitutes a broad programme of action to establish and maintain safety at Wymott. The outcome of the evaluation of the wider recommendations contained in 7.23, 7.24, 7.25 and 7.29 should contribute further to this both at Wymott and in other establishments, whilst the local recommendations for a reduction in house unit Certified Normal Accommodation will be considered in the light of proper experience of the establishment's

  369
  new vulnerable prisoner population. This total response must be considered as part of the context for decisions now taken about the continuing and future use of accommodation at Wymott. These measures also in themselves contribute significantly to the maintenance and promotion of a safe environment for prisoners within this establishment.
  The Chief Inspector's Report makes two particular recommendations about the existing accommodation at Wymott:
  Recommendation 7.01, that the houses at Wymott should be redesigned and rebuilt or strengthened and converted to locked cellular accommodation; and
  Recommendation 7.02, that integral sanitation and an emergency call bell system should be installed throughout following the conversion to locked cellular accommodation.
  A decision has now been taken to demolish the two most severely damaged units (C and D Houses) and to replace this accommodation with cellular accommodation with integral sanitation and an emergency call bell system. The long term future of the remaining A and B Houses is being reviewed, and decisions on this should be reached in the early part of 1994.
  At this stage, however, work is well underway for the full refurbishment of these houses and the division of their existing 24 place accommodation units in half. The Chief Inspector's proposed means of creating cellular accommodation with integral sanitation within the refurbished house units were noted. This would involve difficult technical issues for the services supplied to the buildings, and is not considered to be essential.
  The implementation of several of the Chief Inspector's other recommendations, the further division of the existing accommodation units and changes already made to the daytime regime, night routines and the frequency of staff patrols together contribute significantly to the safety of Wymott's prisoner living areas. Such small cubicular accommodation with its access to night time sanitation is comparable with that found in several other establishments within the estate. This accommodation at Wymott has been certified for use in accordance with normal requirements of Section 14 of the Prison Act 1952 and Rule 23 of the Prison Rules 1964.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vulnerable prisoners are now held at Wymott prison.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about vulnerable prisoners at Wymott prison.
  On 2 November 1993, 129 vulnerable prisoners were located at Her Majesty's Prison Wymott.

  Police White Paper
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of the organisations and individuals who have responded to or commented on the police White Paper; and if he will place a copy of each comment and submission in the Library.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since the White Paper on police reform was published on 28 June, representations have been received from the 263 organisations set out in the following list. In addition, 95 letters have been received from individuals in response to the proposals.

  An additional 91 letters have been received from organisations and individuals in response to the specific proposals set out in the White Paper about possible adjustments to the boundaries of the Metropolitan police.

  Some organisations who have written may already have published their comments. But those commenting were not warned that their names or comments might be published
  370
  and I do not therefore think it right to name private individuals who have written, or to place copies of any of the letters in the Library.

  List of Organisations from whom responses to the White Paper on police reform have been received

  Alnwick District Council

  Arun District Council

  Assembly of Welsh Counties

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of County Councils

  Avon and Somerset police authority

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

  Bedfordshire Constabulary

  Bedfordshire police authority

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Belgrave Road local consultative committee

  Bidford on Avon Parish Council

  Blyth Valley Borough Council

  Bournemouth Town Council

  Bournville Lane police local consultative committee

  Bradford on Avon and District Crime Prevention Panel

  Brecknock police liaison Committee

  Brentwood Borough Council

  Bridlington police community liaison committee

  Bridlington Crime Prevention Panel

  Brighton Borough Council

  British Transport Police Federation

  Broadbury and Bishopsworth police and community consultative group

  Cambridgeshire police authority

  Camden Community and police consultative group

  Carmathen District Council

  Cheshire police authority

  Cheshire County Council

  Chester-le-Street district council

  Chester-le-Street police community consultative group

  Chesterfield Borough Council

  Chiltern District Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  Chute Parish Council

  Clwyd County Council

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Conservative Party West Midlands Area

  Coventry City Council

  Craven District Council

  Crigglestone Parish Council

  Cumbria police authority

  Dalton le Dale Parish Council

  Darlington police community consultative group

  Denby Dale Parish Council

  Derbyshire County Council

  Derwentside police community consultative group

  Devon and Cornwall police authority

  Dinefwr Borough

  Dorset County Council

  Durham police community consultative group

  Durham County Council

  Durham Association of Parish and Town Councils

  Dyfed Powys police authority

  Easington police community consultative group

  East Lindsey District Council

  East Sussex County Council

  East Birmingham Pensioners

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Ecclesfield community and police liaison forum

  Epping Town Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Essex police authority

  Featherstone Town Council

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Gloucestershire police authority

  Gloucestershire County Council

  Great Grimsby Borough Council

  Greater Manchester police authority

  Greater Manchester Superintendents' Association

  Gwent police authority

  Hampshire Superintendents' Association

  Harrow Police and Community Consultative Group

  371

  Hart District Council

  Hastings and St. Leonards police community consultative group

  Hastings Borough Council

  Healeyfield Parish Council

  Hebden Royd Town Council

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  Hertfordshire police authority

  Hertfordshire Police Federation joint branch board

  Hertfordshire Magistrates' Courts Committee

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  Hornsea Crime Prevention panel

  Hove Borough Council

  Hull Chamber of Commerce and Shipping

  Humberside police authority

  Ilkley Parish Council

  Isle of Anglesey Borough Council

  Isle of Wight County Council

  Kennet District Council

  Kent police authority

  Kirkburton Parish Council

  Kirklees Magistrates' Courts Committee

  Lancashire County

  Ledsham Parish Council

  Leeds City Council

  Leicestershire police authority

  Lewes police community consultative group

  Lichfield Police and Community Consultative Group

  Lincolnshire police authority

  Little Clacton Parish Council

  Macclesfield District Council

  Mere Parish Council

  Merseyside police authority

  Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale

  Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham

  Metropolitan Borough of Sefton

  Mid-Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce

  Montgomeryshire police liaison committee

  National Associaton of Local Councils

  Neath Borough Council

  Netherlands State Police

  Norfolk County Council

  Norfolk police authority

  North Yorkshire Branch of the Association of District Councils

  North Eastern Regional District Councils Association

  North Wiltshire District Council

  North Staffordshire police consultative committee

  North Yorkshire police authority

  North Wales police authority

  North Wiltshire District Council

  Northampton Borough Council

  Northamptonshire police authority

  Northern Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce

  Northumberland County Council

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Nottinghamshire police authority

  Odiham Parish Council

  Oxfordshire County Council

  Pelton Fell village action group

  Police Federation of England and Wales

  Police Superintendents' Association

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  Radnorshire police liaison committee

  Radwinter Parish Council

  Redditch Borough Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rotherham Chamber of Trade

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Ryhill Parish Council

  Scarcroft Parish Council

  Seaham Town Council

  Seaton with Slingley Parish Council

  Sharleston Parish Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Shropshire County Council

  Shropshire Association of Parish and Town Councils

  Skipsea Parish Council

  Slough Borough Council

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  Somerset County Council

  South Yorkshire Constabulary

  372

  South Yorkshire police authority

  South Kesteven District Council

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Council

  South Trafford police community consultative group

  Southwater Parish Council

  Spelthorne Borough Council

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  St. lye Parish Council

  Staffordshire police authority

  Staffordshire County Council

  Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

  Staffordshire Superintendents' Association

  Steeton-with-Eastburn Parish Council

  Suffolk police authority

  Suffolk County Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Surrey County Council

  Sussex police authority

  Sutton Borough Council

  Sutton Benger Parish Council

  Teesdale police and community consultative group

  Thames Valley police authority

  Thamesdown Racial Equality Council

  Todmorden Town Council

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Walkers Heath and District Residents' Association

  Warwickshire County Council

  Warwickshire police authority

  Watford Council

  Wednesbury police consultative committee

  Welwyn Hatfield Council

  West Bretton Parish Council

  West Midlands police consultative committee (F Division)

  West Yorkshire police authority

  West Lindsey District Council

  West Mercia police authority

  West Midlands police authority

  West Bretton Parish Council

  Wetherby Town Council

  Wickersley Parish Council

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wiltshire police authority

  Woodspring District Council

  Wootton Bassett Town Council

  Worthing Police Community Consultative Group

  Worthing Borough Council

  Worthing police community consultative group

  Wythenshawe police and community consultative group

  Wythenshawe Homewatch Committee

  Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Association

  381

  Police White Paper

    Juvenile Offenders
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the number and percentage of cases dealt with at first appearance at the juvenile court and subsequently youth court for each of the last five years(a) in England and Wales and (b) in each region for England and Wales;

    (2) what was the average length of time from offence to charge or summons for juveniles in each of the last five years (a) in England and Wales and (b) in each region of England and Wales;

    (3) what was the average length of time from first appearance to completion of a case at the juvenile court and subsequently youth court for each of the last five years (a) in England and Wales and (b) in each region for England and Wales;

    (4) what was the average length of time from charge or summons to first listing in the juvenile and subsequently youth court for each of the last five years (a) in England and Wales and (b) in each region for England and Wales.

    Mr. Maclean
    The readily available information, which is collected in selected sample weeks in February, June and
    373
    October of each year for indictable offences—including either way—is given in the table. Information from the 1993 samples will be available in early 1994.

    Average time taken for indictable proceedings1 in juvenile courts2 by stage of proceedings and area, 1989 to 1992

    Drugs/percentage

    Area/year

    Average number of days from

    Offence to charge or summons

    Charge or summons to first listing

    First listing to completion

    Offence to completion

    Percentage completed on first listing

    Numbers of defendants in sample

    London

    1989

    42

    18

    68

    128

    13

    363

    1990

    44

    19

    87

    150

    10

    326

    1991

    45

    19

    76

    141

    11

    292

    1992

    54

    18

    66

    137

    20

    323

    Other Metropolitan districts

    1989

    42

    21

    60

    123

    16

    543

    1990

    48

    20

    75

    143

    13

    582

    1991

    42

    21

    73

    136

    13

    610

    1992

    44

    20

    72

    135

    13

    651

    Non-Metropolitan Counties

    1989

    55

    25

    58

    137

    17

    1,054

    1990

    50

    24

    55

    130

    15

    998

    1991

    53

    25

    61

    139

    17

    895

    1992

    43

    24

    57

    123

    15

    1,028

    England and Wales

    1989

    49

    22

    60

    132

    16

    1,960

    1990

    49

    22

    67

    138

    13

    1,906

    1991

    48

    23

    67

    138

    15

    1,797

    1992

    45

    22

    63

    129

    15

    2,002

    1 Based on all indictable proceedings completed in sample weeks in February, June and October of each year.

    2 Youth courts from 1 October 1992.

    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to set targets for completion of each stage of the criminal justice process from offence to caution or completion of the court case in relation to juvenile offenders.

    Mr. Maclean
    Following implementation of recommendations from the pre-trial issues working group, a number of such targets applying to the court process are already in place for adults as well as juveniles. In addition, there are statutory limits governing the length of time that defendants can be held in custody while on remand. I do not intend to set time limits for the issuing of cautions.

    Burglaries
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries in the 12 months ended June 1993(a) in England and Wales and (b) in each police force area in England and Wales were (i) burglary of a home and (ii) other burglaries.

    Mr. Maclean
    The information requested is given in the table.

    Notifiable offences of burglary recorded by the police by police force area—12 months ending June 1993

    England and Wales

    Police force area

    Burglary in a dwelling

    Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

    Avon and Somerset

    24,095

    21,293

    Bedfordshire

    7,256

    8,806

    Cambridgeshire

    7,571

    8,706

    Cheshire

    10,929

    12,241

    374

    Police force area

    Burglary in a dwelling

    Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

    Cleveland

    12,426

    7,159

    Cumbria

    4,922

    7,032

    Derbyshire

    9,456

    15,212

    Devon and Cornwall

    14,608

    16,689

    Dorset

    5,859

    4,390

    Durham

    7,618

    6,422

    Essex

    10,325

    16,809

    Gloucestershire

    8,936

    8,861

    Greater Manchester

    66,263

    38,361

    Hampshire

    16,865

    18,854

    Hertfordshire

    5,627

    7,788

    Humberside

    18,789

    27,636

    Kent

    19,423

    12,288

    Lancashire

    18,823

    11,526

    Leicestershire

    14,046

    11,324

    Lincolnshire

    6,697

    5,535

    City of London

    33

    803

    Merseyside

    23,018

    12,395

    Metropolitan police district

    124,732

    63,063

    Norfolk

    6,340

    12,178

    Northamptonshire

    6,788

    6,670

    Northumbria

    31,652

    32,833

    North Yorkshire

    7,551

    9,047

    Nottinghamshire

    22,322

    17,760

    South Yorkshire

    23,274

    25,594

    Staffordshire

    13,562

    17,257

    Suffolk

    3,879

    5,615

    Surrey

    6,025

    7,322

    Sussex

    15,849

    14,054

    Thames Valley

    21,520

    17,928

    Warwickshire

    4,417

    8,794

    West Mercia

    8,340

    9,847

    West Midlands

    53,960

    50,717

    West Yorkshire

    56,624

    37,812

    Wiltshire

    4,492

    4,832

    England

    724,912

    621,453

    375

    Police force area

    Burglary in a dwelling

    Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

    Dwfed-Powys

    1,584

    3,297

    Gwent

    3,639

    4,083

    North Wales

    4,210

    8,270

    South Wales

    14,844

    24,726

    Wales

    24,277

    40,376

    England and Wales

    749,189

    661,829

    Disclosure Requirements
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to cut the amount of police time and time of civilian employees of police authorities to meet requirements of disclosure while allowing the necessary access on behalf of defendants.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice for simplifying the obligations for disclosure and reducing the burdens on the police. Any new provisions must be workable and fair.

    Prison, Doncaster
    Ms Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the levels of overcrowding on which tenders for the new prison at Doncaster have been invited.

    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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated November 1993:
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about levels of overcrowding at Her Majesty's Prison Doncaster. The Invitation to Tender stated that, in accordance with the current procedures for opening new prisons, it was not envisaged that Her Majesty's Prison would be overcrowed.
    In recognition of the population pressure, however, and of the importance of having the value of competitive pressure in setting performance outputs and prices, all tenderers have subsequently been asked for their proposals for operating the prison at above the Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) figure, including the impact on regime offerded on prisoner care.

    Courts
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) indictable offences, (b) summary motoring offences and (c) summary non-motoring offences were dealt with in the magistrates courts in each years since 1980 and in the last year for which figures are available;

    (2) how many (a) indictable offences, (b) summary motoring offences and (c) summary non-motoring offences were dealt with by the juvenile court and latterly by the youth court in each year since 1980 and in the last month available.

    Mr. Maclean
    Readily available information on the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts by age group and type of offence is published 376
    annually in the Command Paper "Criminal statistics England and Wales". Table 6.1 of the 1990 and 1991 editions refers. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. 1992 data—which are provisional—are given in the table. 1993 data will not be available until autumn 1994.

    England and Wales 19921

    (Thousands)

    Type of offence

    Persons aged 10 and under 17

    All defendants

    Indictable

    35

    490

    Summary non-motoring

    11

    601

    Summary motoring

    3

    938

    Total

    49

    2,030

    1 Provisional.

    Prosecution Costs
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of a prosecution(a) in the magistrates courts, (b) in the youth court and (c) in the Crown court.

    Mr. Maclean
    Comparative information on the costs of proceedings for either way offences in the magistrates and Crown court was included in "Costs of the Criminal Justice Systems 1992", published in December 1992 under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. No separate data are available in respect of the youth court.

    Fire and Rescue Services
    Mr. Tipping
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the standard spending assessment and planned budget for each fire and rescue service during the current financial year.

    Mr. Howard
    Standard spending assessments relate to fire and civil defence expenditure; and the table provides the information requested on that basis.

    (£ million)

    1993–94 Fire and Civil Defence SSA

    1993–94 Fire and Civil Defence budgeted spending

    County Fire Authority

    Avon

    20·473

    21·829

    Bedfordshire

    11·073

    11·780

    Berkshire

    16·601

    15·798

    Buckinghamshire

    12·360

    12·318

    Cambridgeshire

    12·039

    13·795

    Cheshire

    20·103

    21·002

    Cleveland

    19·464

    20·128

    Cornwall

    7·181

    10·146

    Cumbria

    8·753

    11·813

    Derbyshire

    17·067

    18·272

    Devon

    19·557

    22·240

    Dorset

    12·065

    13·748

    Durham

    12·973

    13·914

    East Sussex

    14·891

    16·600

    Essex

    31·445

    34·667

    Gloucestershire

    9·605

    10·285

    Hampshire

    31·585

    27·823

    Hereford and Worcester

    12·116

    12·025

    Hertfordshire

    20·328

    19·547

    Kent

    2·229

    3·396

    Humberside

    21·322

    22·168

    Isle of Wight

    30·998

    35·138

    377

    1993–94 Fire and Civil Defence SSA

    1993–94 Fire and Civil Defence budgeted spending

    Lancashire

    32·276

    33·320

    Leicestershire

    16·924

    14·878

    Lincolnshire

    9·583

    11·641

    Norfolk

    13·010

    14·999

    Northamptonshire

    11·260

    11·460

    Northumberland

    5·823

    8·433

    North Yorkshire

    12·001

    14·718

    Nottinghamshire

    21·087

    20·784

    Oxfordshire

    11·284

    11·326

    Shropshire

    7·839

    8·040

    Somerset

    7·693

    9·349

    Staffordshire

    19·345

    18·577

    Suffolk

    11·023

    12·770

    Surrey

    22·133

    26·288

    Warwickshire

    8·993

    11·574

    West Sussex

    14·836

    16·122

    Wiltshire

    10·054

    10·267

    Isles of Scilly

    0·053

    0·088

    Fire and Civil Defence Authority

    London

    247·910

    247·749

    Greater Manchester

    72·754

    70·516

    Merseyside

    48·327

    47·429

    South Yorkshire

    29·683

    30·104

    Tyne and Wear

    35·357

    33·803

    West Midlands

    69·070

    66·728

    West Yorkshire

    50·752

    52·392

    Note: The SSAs shown for county fire authorities take no account of capital financing costs.

    Police Authority Budgets
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for an increase in police authority budgets for policing costs in the second half of 1993–94.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    Police authorities will have taken account of the level of Government support for policing when setting their budgets for 1993–94. Any changes to these budgets would be a matter for the local authorities concerned.

    Car Crime
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing(a) for England and Wales and (b) for each police force area in England and Wales for the 12 months ended June 1993 (i) the total number of car crimes, (ii) the number of thefts from a vehicle and (iii) the number of thefts of vehicles.

    Mr. Maclean
    The requested information is given in the table.

    Notifiable offences of vehicle crime recorded by the police by police force area—12 months ending June 1993

    England and Wales

    Police force area

    Total vehicle crime

    Theft from a vehicle

    Theft of a vehicle

    Avon and Somerset

    67,561

    39,896

    27,665

    Bedfordshire

    20,860

    11,954

    8,906

    Cambridgeshire

    19,190

    12,538

    6,652

    Cheshire

    23,795

    14,247

    9,548

    Cleveland

    23,953

    10,632

    13,321

    Cumbria

    12,310

    9,033

    3,277

    Derbyshire

    27,111

    17,358

    9,753

    378

    Police force area

    Total vehicle crime

    Theft from a vehicle

    Theft of a vehicle

    Devon and Cornwall

    33,298

    24,483

    8,815

    Dorset

    12,741

    8,893

    3,848

    Durham

    18,702

    9,341

    9,361

    Essex

    31,549

    20,092

    11,457

    Gloucestershire

    19,483

    14,916

    4,567

    Greater Manchester

    119,051

    59,865

    59,186

    Hampshire

    40,362

    29,566

    10,796

    Hertfordshire

    18,871

    12,476

    6,395

    Humberside

    32,424

    21,207

    11,217

    Kent

    45,658

    26,001

    19,657

    Lancashire

    37,968

    24,430

    13,538

    Leicestershire

    30,509

    18,439

    12,070

    Lincolnshire

    11,110

    7,354

    3,756

    City of London

    1,023

    888

    135

    Merseyside

    34,577

    18,252

    16,325

    Metropolitan police district

    243,218

    163,650

    79,568

    Norfolk

    18,455

    13,559

    4,896

    Northamptonshire

    15,778

    9,085

    6,693

    Northumbria

    56,538

    26,125

    30,413

    North Yorkshire

    14,086

    9,342

    4,744

    Nottinghamshire

    43,666

    26,331

    17,335

    South Yorkshire

    44,889

    24,101

    20,788

    Staffordshire

    29,511

    17,436

    12,075

    Suffolk

    9,194

    6,528

    2,666

    Surrey

    15,512

    10,614

    4,898

    Sussex

    31,656

    22,855

    8,801

    Thames Valley

    64,820

    41,793

    23,027

    Warwickshire

    14,435

    9,200

    5,235

    West Mercia

    22,641

    14,176

    8,465

    West Midlands

    96,889

    55,530

    41,359

    West Yorkshire

    89,446

    51,204

    38,242

    Wiltshire

    9,984

    7,026

    2,958

    England

    1,502,824

    920,416

    582,408

    Dyfed-Powys

    4,466

    3,098

    1,368

    Gwent

    10,392

    6,563

    3,829

    North Wales

    12,622

    9,002

    3,620

    South Wales

    54,131

    30,796

    23,335

    Wales

    81,611

    49,459

    32,152

    England and Wales

    1,584,435

    969,875

    614,560

    Prisons Ombudsman
    Ms Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the post of prisons ombudsman to be readvertised; which personnel recruitment agencies were asked to tender for the contract to head-hunt potential candidates for post; and what is the anticipated cost of(a) advertising and (b) headhunting for the post.

    Mr. Howard
    The post of prisons ombudsman is being readvertised in the national press in the period 4 to 11 November 1993.

    Three firms were invited to tender for the contract to headhunt: Coopers and Lybrand Executive Resourcing Ltd., Goddard Kay Rogers and Associates Ltd. and SSI.

    The anticipated cost of advertising is £12,500. I am not able to provide details of the amount charged by the appointed headhunter since this information must be treated as commercial-in-confidence.

    Ms Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date interviews were held for the post of prisons ombudsman; on what date the unsuccessful candidates were informed of the outcome; and if he will make a statement.
    379
    Mr. Howard
    Interviews for the post of prisons ombudsman were held on 21 June 1993.

    Unsuccessful candidates were informed of the outcome on 2 August and on 10 September 1993.

    The post is now being readvertised.

    Youth Organisations (Funding)
    Ms Armstrong
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the level of grant in aid for all youth bodies in the United Kingdom for the last five years; and what plans there are for the funding of these organisations over the next five years.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Information listing grants made by each Government Department directly to voluntary organisations, and showing the broad area of work for which the grant was given, is available for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92. Copies of these lists are in the Library of the House. Prior to 1989–90 this information was not collected centrally.

    It is not possible to say what the level of funding of voluntary organisations will be over the next five years.

    INFORM
    Sir Ivan Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further grants he intends to make to INFORM, the information network focus on new religious movements.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Funding was originally provided to INFORM for a period of three years from 1987. This was extended for a further three years in 1990. Given competing bids for assistance from other voluntary sector groups, and the pressures on public expenditure generally, the Government have decided not to provide any additional funding for INFORM beyond the existing provision. Nor do the Government intend to fund any other groups working in this field.

    Smart, Pegg, Doody and Pierson
    Sir Ivan Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 27 July,Official Report, columns 863–65, if he will make a further statement about his proposals for implementing the House of Lords judgment of 24 June in the case of Smart, Pegg, Doody and Pierson.

    Mr. Howard
    The judgment is concerned with the disclosure to prisoners serving mandatory life sentences of information about the minimum period of custody that they will be required to serve in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Inter alia, it requires that the prisoner should be told the gist of the judicial advice which the Secretary of State receives on this subject, the Secretary of State's decision and the reasons for any departure from the judicial view.

    In my reply to my hon. and learned Friend on 27 July, I announced that I was consulting the Lord Chief Justice about the precise way in which the judgment would be implemented in respect of those prisoners who had already been sentenced. Those consultations have now been
    380
    completed. Disclosure of the matters required by the judgment has already been given to four prisoners immediately affected by the judgment and to another four, in respect of whom there were extant judicial review proceedings.

    Following this consultation, I propose now to commence a programme of disclosure to all mandatory life sentence prisoners. There are two categories of such prisoners. First, there are approximately 100 prisoners who were sentenced either shortly before, or after, the House of Lords judgment, for whom a minimum period of detention has not yet been considered by a Minister. In accordance with my previous answer, they will, as soon as is practicable, be informed of the relevant judicial recommendations in their cases so that they may, if they wish, submit written representations before that period is set. Any such representations will be considered by me or by a Minister acting on my behalf; and the prisoner will be informed of the decision with reasons for any departure from the judicial view.

    Secondly, there is a much larger number of some 2,600 prisoners whose cases have already been considered by Ministers, often some years ago, and who have already been notified of the date when their case would be first reviewed by the local review committee prior to consideration by the Parole Board. My officials will now begin the process of disclosure to them of the gist of the relevant judicial recommendations and advice, and of the decision by the Secretary of State of the day as to the minimum period which must be served for retribution and deterrence together, in appropriate cases, with a statement of the reasons why a recommendation from the judiciary was not followed. These prisoners will also be able to submit written representations. They will be considered and a response will be provided.

    It will inevitably take some time to clear the "backlog" of cases represented by this second group, given the limited resources available in my Department for the task. Taking account of the need to consider and respond to prisoners' representations, it will probably be some 12 months before every mandatory life sentence prisoner has been considered. Priority will be given to prisoners who have first local review committee dates in the calendar years 1994 to 1996 inclusive, in the order of those dates. In fairness to all, and to ensure maximum efficiency, cases will not normally be taken out of turn.

    Political Violence (Wales)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now set up an independent inquiry into the activities of an agent provocateur in cases of alleged political violence in Wales in the late 1960s; and if he will make a statement on the recent acknowledgement by a retired special branch officer of the existence of such an agent.

    Mr. Howard
    [holding answer 22 October 1993]: I have asked for a report from the North Wales police on the interview to which the hon. Member refers and shall write to him once I have considered it.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people live on income below the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest estimates for the take-up of income-related benefits are for 1989 and show that there were around 2.2 million people who were eligible for income support, housing benefit or family credit who had not claimed. Many of these would have been eligible only for small amounts of the relevant benefit.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer of 4 December 1992,Official Report, column 421–22 on national insurance rebates for personal pensions, giving estimates for 1994–95 in addition to earlier years.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the tables.

  Table 1

  Tax Year

  National insurance fund income (£ million)

  Percentage

  1988–89

  29,825

  1·1

  1989–90

  30,446

  8·5

  1990–91

  34,490

  6·3

  1991–92

  34,679

  7·4

  1992–93

  35,660

  7·7

  Housing benefit in new towns in Scotland and Scottish Homes

  (a) Number of occupied tenancies

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  7,222

  6,684

  5,957

  5,516

  4,979

  East Kilbride (DC)

  12,818

  11,320

  10,467

  10,516

  9,769

  Glenrothes (DC)

  6,820

  6,285

  5,914

  5,604

  5,384

  Irvine (DC)

  4,214

  4,006

  3,818

  3,774

  3,724

  Livingston (DC)

  8,834

  8,107

  7,849

  7,599

  7,351

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  66,860

  64,306

  60,496

  57,253

  Total

  2—

  103,262

  98,311

  93,505

  88,460

  (b) Number of cases in receipt of rent rebate

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  3,900

  3,800

  3,500

  3,400

  3,300

  East Kilbride (DC)

  6,000

  5,900

  5,300

  5,200

  5,200

  Glenrothes (DC)

  3,500

  3,300

  3,200

  3,200

  3,200

  Irvine (DC)

  2,000

  2,000

  1,900

  1,900

  1,900

  Livingston (DC)

  3,900

  3,800

  3,500

  3,600

  3,600

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  34,800

  33,500

  37,400

  36,300

  Total

  2—

  53,600

  50,900

  54,700

  53,500

  (c) Percentage in receipt of rent rebate

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbemauld (DC)

  54

  57

  59

  62

  66

  East Kilbride (DC)

  47

  52

  51

  49

  53

  Glenrothes (DC)

  51

  53

  54

  57

  59

  382

  Table 2

  Tax year

  Estimated national insurance fund income (£ million)

  Percentage

  1993–94

  44,357

  6·4

  1994–95

  45,353

  4·4

  Note. The projected fall in percentage for 1994–95 is due to the drop in the rebate from 5.8 per cent. to 4.8 per cent. from April 1993, the ending of the 2 per cent. incentive payment from April 1993 and the onset of the 1 per cent. additional rebate for personal pension holders aged 30 or over from April 1993. These changes are not reflected in the amounts paid out of the National Insurance fund until 1994–95 year.

  Housing Payments, Scotland
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each new town corporation in Scotland and Scottish Homes, for each available year since 1987–88(a) the number of tenancies in their stock, (b) the number of these tenants in receipt of rent rebate, (c) the number of tenants in receipt of rent rebate as a percentage of the overall number of tenants, (d) the total amount of housing benefit expenditure, (e) the numbers and amounts of housing benefit overpayments and the amount as a percentage of the overall housing benefit expenditure, (f) the numbers and amounts of housing benefit backdated awards under Regulation 72(15) and the amount paid as a percentage of the overall housing benefit expenditure and (g) the numbers and amounts of discretionary payments under Exceptional Circumstances Regulation 69(8) and their percentage in relation to total housing benefit expenditure.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the tables.
  383

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Irvine (DC)

  47

  50

  50

  50

  51

  Livingston (DC)

  44

  47

  45

  47

  49

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  52

  52

  62

  63

  Total

  2—

  52

  52

  58

  60

  (d) Total Housing Benefit expenditure (£)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  3,386,708

  3,562,957

  3,616,865

  3,798,328

  4,173,769

  East Kilbride (DC)

  4,437,371

  4,666,748

  4,972,683

  5,535,231

  6,405,684

  Glenrothes (DC)

  2,924,230

  3,078,029

  3,220,484

  3,578,474

  4,137,078

  Irvine (DC)

  1,707,373

  1,815,819

  1,879,451

  2,055,093

  2,362,064

  Livingston (DC)

  3,449,244

  3,619,755

  3,740,551

  4,249,920

  4,999,275

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  34,141,686

  37,288,386

  41,853,626

  (+)45,752,720

  Total

  2—

  50,884,994

  54,718,420

  61,070,672

  22,077,870

  (e) Number of cases of overpayment

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  5

  7

  118

  77

  85

  East Kilbride (DC)

  85

  48

  42

  258

  611

  Glenrothes (DC)

  373

  391

  432

  627

  1,805

  Irvine (DC)

  519

  1,262

  838

  636

  379

  Livingston (DC)

  10

  77

  82

  57

  90

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  6,390

  4,217

  4,632

  2—

  Total

  2—

  8,175

  5,729

  6,287

  2—

  (e) Amount of overpayment (£)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  1,802

  1,090

  42,432

  18,391

  18,102

  East Kilbride (DC)

  11,894

  16,854

  13,491

  39,461

  70,959

  Glenrothes (DC)

  26,793

  22,958

  27,017

  42,635

  104,544

  Irvine (DC)

  29,161

  64,332

  38,648

  42,959

  17,094

  Livingstone (DC)

  3,609

  27,156

  22,529

  17,606

  27,405

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  1,098,802

  956,231

  953,108

  2—

  Total

  2—

  1,231,192

  1,100,348

  1,114,160

  2—

  (e) Overpayment as percentage of total expenditure

  1988–89 Per cent.

  1989–90 Per cent.

  1990–91 Per cent.

  1991–92 Per cent.

  1992–93 Per cent.

  Cumbemauld (DC)

  0·05

  0·03

  1·17

  0·48

  0·43

  East Kilbride (DC)

  0·27

  0·36

  0·27

  0·71

  1·11

  Glenrothes (DC)

  0·92

  0·75

  0·84

  1·19

  2·53

  Irvine (DC)

  1·71

  3·54

  2·06

  2·09

  0·72

  Livingston (DC)

  0·10

  0·75

  0·60

  0·41

  0·55

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  3·22

  2·56

  2·28

  2—

  Total

  2—

  2·42

  2·01

  1·82

  2—

  (f) Number of cases of backdated payment

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  16

  20

  13

  30

  36

  East Kilbride (DC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Glenrothes (DC)

  0

  0

  2

  2

  3

  Irvine (DC)

  18

  25

  35

  30

  32

  Livingston (DC)

  5

  6

  16

  12

  19

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  263

  211

  194

  2—

  384 385

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total

  2—

  314

  277

  268

  2—

  (f) Amount of backdated benefit (£)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  4,320

  6,293

  2,646

  11,576

  15,159

  East Kilbride (DC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  371

  Glenrothes (DC)

  0

  0

  376

  584

  1,670

  Irvine (DC)

  2,216

  2,147

  3,822

  7,767

  4,386

  Livingston (DC)

  1,048

  1,612

  4,572

  3,467

  5,053

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  50,819

  37,872

  40,864

  2—

  Total

  2—

  60,871

  49,288

  64,258

  2—

  (f) Backdated amount as percentage of total expenditure

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbemauld (DC)

  0·13

  0·18

  0·07

  0·30

  0·36

  East Kilbride (DC)

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·01

  Glenrothes (DC)

  0·00

  0·00

  0·01

  0·02

  0·04

  Irvine (DC)

  0·13

  0·12

  0·20

  0·38

  0·19

  Livingston (DC)

  0·03

  0·04

  0·12

  0·08

  0·10

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  0·15

  0·10

  0·10

  2—

  Total

  2—

  0·12

  0·09

  0·11

  3—

  (g) Amounts of discretionary payments (£)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbemauld (DC)

  260

  106

  2—

  305

  0

  East Kilbride (DC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glenrothes (DC)

  *

  0

  0

  0

  893

  Irvine (DC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Livingston (DC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  16,021

  36,474

  49,962

  2—

  Total

  2—

  16,027

  36,474

  50,267

  2—

  (g) Discretionary amounts as percentage of total expenditure

  1988–89 Per cent.

  1989–90 Per cent.

  1990–91 Per cent.

  1991–92 Per cent.

  1992–93 Per cent.

  Cumbernauld (DC)

  0·01

  0·00

  2—

  0·01

  0·00

  East Kilbride (DC)

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Glenrothes (DC)

  2—

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·02

  Irvine (DC)

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Livingston (DC)

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Scottish Homes

  1—

  0·05

  0·10

  0·12

  2—

  Total

  2—

  0·03

  2—

  0·08

  2—

  Notes:

  1 Indicates that Scottish Homes did not exist in 1988.

  2 Not available.

  1. Scottish Homes figure for total expenditure in 1992–93 is from the mid-year estimate.

  2. Information on the number of discretionary payments is not available.

  Sources:

  Tenancies: Scottish Office.

  Cases: Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  Expenditure: Final Subsidy claim forms.

  Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of indexation for all social security benefits in 1994–95; and what would be the
  386
  net costs in addition to indexation of (a) raising all income-related benefits by 0.8 per cent., (b) raising all income-related benefits and the basic retirement pension by 0.8 per cent., (c) raising all benefits by 0.8 per cent., (d) giving all households on income support an extra £1 a week, (e) giving all households on income-related benefits

  387
  an extra £1 a week, (f) giving pensioners over 80 years of age on income support an extra £1 a week and (g) giving all households on income-related benefit and all retirement pensioners an extra £1 a week.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  The costs in 1994–95 of increases to the income-related benefits and the basic state pension

  (£ million pa, 1994–95)

  Option

  Cost

  Full cost for all benefits of indexation in line with RPU/Rossi increases

  1,820

  (a) increase all income-related benefits (IRBs) by extra 0.8 per cent.

  250

  (b) increase all IRBs and RP/linked benefits by extra 0·8 per cent.

  430

  (c) increase all benefits by extra 0.8 per cent.

  570

  (d) increase IS personal allowances by £1 per week

  410

  (e) increase personal allowances in all IRBs by £1 per week

  430

  (f) increase IS higher pensioner premium by £1 per week

  60

  (g) increase all IRB personal allowances and RP/linked benefits by £1 per week

  840

  Notes:

  1. All estimates are at 1994–95 levels. They are based upon results from the 1993–94 policy simulation model, and should therefore be regarded as provisional.

  2. Changes to the basic state pension have also been applied to those benefits that are statutorily linked (invalidity and widows' benefits).

  3. It is assumed that the current links between benefit rates in IS and other income-related benefits are maintained. Thus, changes to IS allowances and premia have been assumed to feed through into HB/CTB and, where appropriate, FC.

  4. In part (f), an extra £1 has been given to IS cases aged 80 and above by means of an increase in the higher pension premium.

  5. Where RP and linked benefits are increased by £1 per week, it is assumed that the related rates of category B pension and adult dependency increases rise by 60p per week.

  6. RPI/Rossi upratings in April 1994 are assumed to be 1.8/3.5 per cent.

  Post Office Fees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place a paper in the Library outlining the fee payment system to(a) sub-post offices and (b) the Post Office for benefit transactions, setting out all volume-related variable fees.

  Mr. Hague
  The system of fees to be paid by the Department of Social Security to Post Office Counters Limited for encashment of order books and other services in 1993–94 is still being negotiated.

  In earlier years the fee has included a fixed charge; a variable charge to cover costs which vary with changes in volume; a financial charge to cover the costs of activities necessary to ensure the supply of adequate quantities of notes and coin to pay pensions and allowances and other outpayments; and a publicity charge relating to the cost of providing display of posters and leaflets.

  The system for remunerating individual sub-post offices is a commercial agreement between Post Office Counters Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-postmasters.

  Index-linked Benefits
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the impact of a 1 per cent. rise in the retail prices index upon the cost of index-linked social security and unemployment benefits.
  388
  Mr. Hague
  A total of £710 million in 1994–5.

  Crisis Loans
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown of reasons for applications for crisis loans, including alignment payments based on the latest available information.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 3 November 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will give a breakdown of reasons for applications for crisis loans, including alignment payments based on the latest available information.
  Statistical information about the reason for a Crisis Loan application is not held. I have, therefore, provided details of the number of Crisis Loans awarded nationally and the purpose of the award. The information is attached at Annex A for the period 1 April 1993 to 30 September 1993 (latest available data).
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Annex

  A Number of crisis loan awards and reason for the award, 1 April 1993 to 30 September 1993 (latest available data)

  Purpose of the award

  Number of awards

  Bed

  13,235

  Bedding

  8,045

  Clothing and footwear

  4,879

  Cooker

  14,204

  Floor covering

  2,000

  Home improvement and maintenance

  472

  Living expenses alignment

  135,137

  Living expenses general

  165,901

  Household items

  20,467

  Others

  3,995

  Removal expenses

  1,122

  Rent in advance

  5,100

  Travelling expenses

  4,888

  Washing machine

  1,613

  Total

  381,058

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time he estimates for the administrative proceedings, including reception, social fund payment section, finance and social fund administrative recovery section, to be completed for an application for a crisis loan because of an alignment payment and the average length of time to administer a benefit payment.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  389
  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 3 November 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions raised about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking what is the average length of time he estimates for the administrative proceedings, including reception, social fund payment section, finance and social fund administrative recovery section, to be completed for an application for a crisis loan because of an alignment payment and the average length of time to administer a benefit payment.
  Unfortunately, figures are not available which relate specifically to a Crisis Loan because of an "alignment payment". I can, however, give you figures for the administrative procedure you request for Crisis Loans in general:

  Minutes

  Reception time

  4·6

  Time to process a Crisis Loan

  88·4

  Social Fund Loan Recovery and Transfer Action

  59·9

  Prepare and issue payment

  40

  Total time

  156·9

  I have given a figure for the time taken to prepare and issue a Crisis Loan payment, as it is part of the administrative procedures you are enquiring about. However, if you require details about the time taken to administer the payment of a specific benefit I would be happy to supply you with further information.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Benefits Agency
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the efficient use of staff time in the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Michael Bichard. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 3 November 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions raised about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the efficient use of staff time in the Benefits Agency.
  The Benefits Agency, as part of the Civil Service, is required to provide to Treasury improved efficiency of 2 per cent. each year. The savings are part of a rolling programme of efficiencies required under the Public Expenditure Survey.
  With the introduction of new technology and other improvements in organisation, current measurement shows that, between 1989–90 and 1992–93, staff efficiency in respect of output improved by around 20 per cent.
  The Benefits Agency seeks at all levels of the organisation improvements in service and efficiency through reviews of current methods and implementation of staff suggestions.
  The Benefits Agency also has in place an Efficiency Review Unit responsible for seeking improvements in efficiency and achieving savings in administration costs.
  As a result of the improvements in efficiency and working methods staff resources are more effectively used in delivering the service.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what targets the Child Support Agency has set itself to ensure maintenance payments in cases of parents flouting any order made by the courts;

  (2) what proportion of staff and resources of the Child Support Agency is being directed to the cases of parents who are already making maintenance payments as a result of a court order;

  (3) how many cases of fathers not making any maintenance payments the Child Support Agency is pursuing; and if he will make a statement about its success in such cases.

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

  Letter from Ms R. Hepplewhite to Mr. Paul Channon, dated 4 November 1993:
  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 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking a number of questions about the Agency's operations.
  You ask about parents who fail to comply with orders made by the courts and action taken by the Agency where fathers fail to pay maintenance. I should explain that the Agency is concerned only with pursuing maintenance in those cases for which we have accepted responsibility under the take on arrangements which are being phased in over a period of four years. We will pursue all those cases where we have made an assessment and the absent parent has subsequently failed to pay maintenance. Individual cases where payments are not made timeously are identified for follow up action but information on payments and arrears for the Agency as a whole is not yet available in a form which can be summarised.
  I am sorry that the precise information about previous court orders for which you ask is not available as the Child Support Computer System, upon which the work of the Agency is based, records the information which is relevant to the calculation of a maintenance assessment. Information on previous court orders is not therefore collected. Under the take on arrangements, we have already issued 527,000 Maintenance Application Forms and have made assessments in over 36,000 cases. Among those will be clients who already receive maintenance but we cannot separately identify what resources are applied specifically in such cases.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful but I hope you will find this explanation useful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated reduction in expenditure on each social security benefit resulting from the operation of the Child Support Agency in 1993–94; and what proportion this represents, in total, of the maintenance payments resulting from the agency's assessments.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that Child Support Agency operations in 1993–94 will reduce income support expenditure by £500 million. This includes an amount for parents with care who cease to claim income support due to maintenance related activity of the agency. Family credit and disability working allowance expenditure is estimated to reduce by £30 million.

  The proportion of total maintenance assessed by the Child Support Agency which is estimated to be recovered through reduced benefit payments is 90 per cent.

  Benefits, Lewisham
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are registered as self-employed in the London borough of Lewisham; and what estimate he has of the number claiming(a) sickness benefit, (b) invalidity benefit, (c) severe disability allowance, (d) family credit and (e) housing benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Teenage Lone Parents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 October,Official Report, column 504, on what statistical analysis he has based his policy towards teenage lone parents claiming one-parent benefit; and if he will now make it his policy to collect details of the number of such parents.

  Mr. Burt
  One-parent benefit is an increase of child benefit which is available to all lone parents who fulfil the qualifying conditions, regardless of age. Statistical information on the ages of lone parent income support recipients is contained in the Annual Statistical Enquiry. In addition, further information on teenage lone parents is available through a number of surveys and research projects commissioned by the Department, but very detailed tabulations are not always available due to small sample sizes and prohibitive costs.

EDUCATION

  Student Grants
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with the university vice chancellors on the level of student grants.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend and I last met the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals on Monday 25 October. We had a useful and interesting exchange of views on a number of current issues in higher education.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what procedures are being adopted to monitor the numbers of parents exercising their right to withdraw

  Expenditure on discretionary awards (£000 in current and 1983–84 prices3

  1983–84

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Current prices

  Current prices

  1983–84 prices

  Current prices

  1983–84 prices

  City of London

  1—

  205·9

  139·1

  25·5

  16·0

  Camden

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  746·9

  469·9

  Greenwich

  —

  353·7

  239·0

  770·4

  484·8

  Hackney

  —

  1,166·3

  788·0

  1,275·2

  802·4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  3,043·2

  2,056·2

  728·5

  458·4

  Islington

  —

  57·0

  38·5

  1,088·8

  685·1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  452·9

  306·0

  683·7

  430·2

  Lambeth

  —

  984·7

  665·3

  572·5

  360·2

  Lewisham

  —

  808·2

  5486·1

  1,058·8

  666·2

  Southwark

  —

  709·1

  479·1

  795·2

  500·4

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  860·9

  581·7

  550·2

  346·2

  Wandsworth

  —

  3,676·5

  2,484·1

  2n/a

  n/a

  City of Westminster

  —

  244·0

  164·9

  1,221·2

  768·4

  ILEA/LRB4

  13,637·4

  6,254·8

  4,226·2

  —

  —

  Barking

  231·0

  248·5

  167·9

  453·8

  285·6

  392
  their children from sex education lessons; to what extent these procedures will be based on the precedent created by the parental right of withdrawal of children from religious education; how many parents exercised this right in 1992 in relation to religious education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend will look to the Office of Standards in Education (OFSTED) to monitor and advise on the quality and effectiveness of sex education, as part of OFSTED's overall responsibilities for school inspections. We have no plans separately to monitor centrally the extent to which parents choose to withdraw their children from sex education. This information is not collected centrally in relation to religious education and collective worship.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the target date for the implementation of the parental right to withdraw children from sex education; what is the timetable for consultation on the departmental guidelines relating to sex education; which groups and individuals will be consulted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The new arrangements for sex education introduced under section 241 of the Education Act 1993, including the parental right of withdrawal, will come into effect from the start of the autumn term 1994. We plan to issue detailed guidance to schools next spring about these arrangements, in the light of responses to the consultative draft which will issue shortly to local authority associations, local education authorities and other interested parties.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the annual expenditure or discretionary awards by each local education authority in 1978–79, 1990–91 and 1991–92 at current prices and at 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. Boswell
  Data on expenditure for the academic year 1978–79 for each local education authority are not held centrally. The earliest year for which data for each authority are available is 1983–84. The information for 1983–84, 1990–91 and 1991–92 is included in the table, which shows expenditure in both current prices for those years and also 1983–84 prices.
  393

  1983–84

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Current prices

  Current prices

  1983–84 prices

  Current prices

  1983–84 prices

  Barnet

  788·6

  497·5

  336·1

  866·3

  545·1

  Bexley

  410·0

  397·6

  268·7

  628·7

  395·6

  Brent

  2,148·8

  831·0

  561·5

  1,083·1

  681·5

  Bromley

  444·2

  928·4

  627·3

  1,268·5

  798·1

  Croydon

  515·7

  698·7

  472·1

  813·9

  512·1

  Ealing

  556·5

  1,2484

  843·5

  1,668·1

  1,049·6

  Enfield

  347·4

  531·4

  359·0

  420·6

  264·7

  Haringey

  587·5

  105·8

  71·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Harrow

  346·6

  371·7

  251·2

  138·4

  87·1

  Havering

  399·7

  626·7

  423·5

  662·5

  416·9

  Hillingdon

  437·8

  327·8

  221·5

  386·7

  243·3

  Hounslow

  260·8

  349·8

  236·3

  105·1

  66·1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  148·3

  435·9

  294·5

  730·4

  459·5

  Merton

  130·5

  487·2

  329·2

  420·7

  264·7

  Newham

  372·3

  886·3

  598·9

  1,021·8

  642·9

  Redbridge

  396·6

  907·7

  613·3

  633·5

  398·6

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  366·6

  617·4

  417·1

  1,058·1

  665·8

  Sutton

  283·1

  348·4

  235·4

  475·5

  299·2

  Waltham Forest

  510·2

  909·7

  614·7

  1,003·3

  631·3

  Birmingham

  975·8

  2,708·9

  1,830·3

  2,925·3

  1,840·7

  Coventry

  591·5

  731·3

  494·1

  728·7

  458·5

  Dudley

  484·6

  673·0

  454·7

  698·2

  439·3

  Sandwell

  322·2

  897·8

  606·6

  1,010·9

  636·1

  Solihull

  147·0

  356·1

  240·6

  424·6

  267·1

  Walsall

  329·4

  1,608·5

  1,086·8

  2,265·5

  1,425·5

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  279·2

  188·7

  180·2

  113·4

  Knowsley

  921·3

  1,179·2

  796·8

  1,498·4

  942·8

  Liverpool

  1,518·3

  6,025·8

  4,071·5

  5,064·2

  3,186·4

  St· Helens

  508·7

  710·1

  479·8

  834·9

  525·3

  Sefton

  313·9

  1,209·8

  817·4

  1,237·7

  778·8

  Wirral

  1,330·6

  1,709·1

  1,154·8

  2,021·4

  1,271·9

  Bolton

  703·1

  1,381·8

  933·7

  1,048·8

  659·9

  Bury

  585·1

  982·4

  663·8

  1,183·2

  744·5

  Manchester

  1,413·0

  2,020·5

  1,365·2

  2,174·9

  1,368·5

  Oldham

  398·1

  808·2

  546·1

  740·8

  466·1

  Rochdale

  442·3

  821·5

  555·1

  975·0

  613·5

  Salford

  670·5

  577·1

  389·9

  390·4

  245·6

  Stockport

  779·9

  856·7

  578·8

  923·9

  581·3

  Tameside

  380·7

  465·0

  314·2

  532·0

  334·8

  Trafford

  172·6

  0·0

  0·0

  748·9

  471·2

  Wigan

  705·6

  680·5

  459·8

  614·3

  386·5

  Barnsley

  412·8

  1,387·1

  937·2

  945·6

  595·0

  Doncaster

  505·5

  869·6

  587·5

  878·1

  552·5

  Rotherham

  493·8

  861·2

  581·9

  1,264·4

  795·6

  Sheffield

  2,040·8

  2,403·3

  1,623·8

  2,166·7

  1,363·3

  Bradford

  1,582·7

  1,942·0

  1,312·2

  2,115·2

  1,330·9

  Calderdale

  349·7

  547·7

  370·1

  453·8

  285·6

  Kirklees

  1,356·1

  2,953·0

  1,995·3

  2,563·8

  1,613·2

  Leeds

  1,113·5

  2,501·4

  1,690·1

  2,899·3

  1,824·3

  Wakefield

  638·9

  1,236·5

  835·4

  1,319·6

  830·3

  Gateshead

  198·0

  710·6

  480·1

  639·0

  402·1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  736·7

  1,011·0

  683·1

  1,010·4

  635·8

  North Tyneside

  631·1

  932·0

  629·7

  1,213·9

  763·8

  South Tyneside

  245·2

  471·7

  318·7

  531·9

  334·7

  Sunderland

  774·8

  n/a

  n/a

  1,094·6

  688·7

  Avon

  2,456·5

  n/a

  n/a

  5,750·1

  3,618·0

  Bedfordshire

  933·3

  1,214·6

  820·7

  1,252·9

  788·3

  Berkshire

  1,402·9

  n/a

  n/a

  1,962·7

  1,234·9

  Buckinghamshire

  927·4

  1,257·0

  849·3

  997·7

  627·7

  Cambridgeshire

  990·5

  1,774·0

  1,198·7

  1,641·0

  1,032·5

  Cheshire

  2,452·0

  5,730·2

  3,871·8

  7,372·5

  4,638·9

  Cleveland

  1,382·4

  2,141·9

  1,447·2

  2,698·3

  1,697·8

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1,060·3

  2,474·9

  1,672·2

  3,116·7

  1,961·0

  Cumbria

  1,841·5

  3,882·2

  2,623·1

  6,824·2

  4,293·9

  Derbyshire

  2,201·5

  4,789·9

  3,236·5

  5,052·1

  3,178·8

  Devon

  3,008·1

  5,148·4

  3,478·6

  6,664·6

  4,193·4

  Dorset

  1,836·5

  3,332·9

  2,252·0

  4,767·4

  2,999·7

  Durham

  1,016·0

  1,879·7

  1,270·1

  3,274·2

  2,060·2

  East Sussex

  1,918·1

  1,282·2

  866·4

  1,620·7

  1,019·8

  Essex

  4,066·1

  6,364·8

  4,300·6

  7,581·4

  4,770·3

  Gloucestershire

  2,000·4

  2,828·5

  1,911·2

  3,166·0

  1,992·1

  Hampshire

  4,818·4

  6,468·5

  4,370·6

  5,987·4

  3,767·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,063·9

  1,456·5

  984·1

  1,770·1

  1,113·7

  Hertfordshire

  2,096·2

  3,412·3

  2,305·6

  3,158·6

  1,987·4

  Humberside

  2,798·0

  5,336·0

  3,605·4

  6,175·8

  3,885·9

  Isle of Wight

  315·0

  367·0

  248·0

  523·5

  329·4

  394 395

  1983–84

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Current prices

  Current prices

  1983–84 prices

  Current prices

  1983–84 prices

  Kent

  5,017·6

  5,799·1

  3,918·3

  6,398·5

  4,026·0

  Lancashire

  4,110·7

  9,764·9

  6,597·9

  14,419·2

  9,072·7

  Leicestershire

  2,494·3

  5,791·1

  3,912·9

  6,906·9

  4,345·9

  Lincolnshire

  1,382·8

  1,776·4

  1,200·3

  2,202·5

  1,385·9

  Norfolk

  1,465·0

  2,881·4

  1,946·9

  3,296·1

  2,073·9

  North Yorkshire

  3,385·0

  8,668·8

  5,857·3

  9,005·5

  5,666·4

  Northamptonshire

  912·3

  1,605·0

  1,084·5

  1,555·7

  978·9

  Northumberland

  864·9

  2,256·8

  1,524·9

  2,446·2

  1,539·2

  Nottinghamshire

  1,672·9

  3,012·7

  2,035·6

  2,532·2

  1,593·3

  Oxfordshire

  629·4

  1,255·4

  848·3

  1,249·5

  786·2

  Shropshire

  1,047·8

  1,721·1

  1,162·9

  2,280·1

  1,434·7

  Somerset

  791·4

  1,705·8

  1,152·5

  1,319·2

  830·1

  Staffordshire

  1,422·4

  1,754·0

  1,185·2

  1,943·0

  1,222·6

  Suffolk

  1,626·2

  3,059·8

  2,067·4

  3,348·7

  2,107·0

  Surrey

  1,621·2

  1,963·6

  1,326·7

  2,492·1

  1,563·1

  Warwickshire

  1,209·8

  1,136·9

  768·2

  625·1

  393·3

  West Sussex

  862·3

  1,419·6

  959·2

  705·5

  443·9

  Wiltshire

  1,150·6

  1,764·9

  1,192·5

  2,042·0

  1,284·8

  Clywd

  973·0

  1,948·7

  1,316·7

  4,348·8

  2,736·3

  Dyfed

  1,227·9

  2,445·1

  1,652·1

  2,159·2

  1,358·6

  Gwent

  1,744·2

  827·1

  558·9

  1,089·7

  685·7

  Gwynedd

  714·8

  1,059·8

  716·1

  1,384·4

  871·1

  Mid-Glamorgan

  402·4

  1,480·0

  1,000·0

  4,462·6

  2,808·0

  Powys

  597·1

  947·3

  640·1

  1,127·2

  709·3

  South Glamorgan

  1,063·0

  1,508·0

  1,018·9

  1,511·3

  950·9

  West Glamorgan

  865·0

  1,039·1

  702·1

  1,318·6

  829·7

  All English and Welsh LEAs5

  127,932·4

  209,325·9

  141,436·4

  239,696·3

  150,819·7

  1 Not applicable.

  2 n/a LEAs unable to provide appropriate information.

  3 Using March 1993 GDP deflator.

  4 ILBs took over responsibility from ILEA for most awards in 1990–91; some awards were made by the London Residuary Body.

  5 Total expenditure is grossed to compensate both for complete non-returners and partial returners and does not necessarily represent sum of constituent data.

  Student Loans
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the projected cost of the student loans scheme for each financial year from 1992–93 to 2022–23;

  (2) during which financial year he currently expects the student loans scheme to break even.

  Mr. Boswell
  The student loans scheme produced public expenditure savings, when compared to previous policies, in the first year of its operation, 1990–91.

  Actual United Kingdom expenditure on student loans in 1992–93—net of gross repayments—was £230 million (£183 million in 1990 prices). The table attached gives projections of net United Kingdom expenditure on loans in each financial year from 1993–94 to 2022–23.

  Projected net expenditure on student loans scheme

  United Kingdom, £ million 1990 prices

  Year

  Cost

  1993–94

  222

  1994–95

  271

  1995–96

  305

  1996–97

  338

  1997–98

  393

  1998–99

  473

  1999–2000

  579

  2000–2001

  685

  2001–2002

  724

  2002–2003

  723

  2003–2004

  716

  2004–2005

  713

  2005–2006

  709

  2006–2007

  709

  396

  Year

  Cost

  2007–2008

  698

  2008–2009

  678

  2009–2010

  628

  2010–2011

  580

  2011–2012

  524

  2012–2013

  494

  2013–2014

  465

  2014–2015

  442

  2015–2016

  422

  2016–2017

  402

  2017–2018

  384

  2018–2019

  369

  2019–2020

  355

  2020–2021

  344

  2021–2022

  329

  2022–2023

  316

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for total United Kingdom outlay on student loans, net of repayments of principal and interest.

  2. Underlying assumptions are consistent with the projections of net expenditure on loans in England and Wales for 1993–94 to 1995–96 set out in Cm 2210.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to abolish the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Boswell
  None.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the booklet entitled "Technology Colleges: Schools for the Future" were printed; what fee was paid for editorial services on the
  397
  booklet; what was the fee paid to Graphic Impressions of London for the design; what was the total cost of the printing; and what was the cost of the addition of the spot ultra-violet dried gloss varnish on the cover half-tone and title text.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Initially, 15,000 copies of the booklet were printed. In response to demand from schools and others, a further 10,000 copies were printed. No fees were paid for external editorial services. The fee paid to Graphic Impressions of London for the design is commercial in confidence, as is the cost of printing and the spot ultra-violet varnish. The total cost including mailing was less than £1 per copy.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the actual expenditure in the financial year 1992–93 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what is his latest estimate for for 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  The actual expenditure figures for advertising and other promotional materials by the Department for the financial year 1992–93 and the latest estimate for 1993–94 are given in the table.

  £000s

  1992–93

  1993–94 (estimate)

  Television advertising

  0

  0

  Radio advertising

  0

  29·2

  Newspaper advertising

  1,086·4

  1,105·8

  Other promotional material

  5,800·1

  7,639·6

  Schools Inspection
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the standards of probity with which the new tendering arrangements for schools inspection are being conducted.

  (£000's)

  1989–90

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1989–90 to 1991–92 by LEA in secondary schools

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Corporation of London

  5

  2

  7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  140

  456

  596

  219

  715

  934

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  142

  794

  936

  196

  305

  501

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  3

  394

  397

  153

  208

  361

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  62

  127

  189

  8

  301

  309

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  102

  504

  606

  137

  568

  705

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  162

  350

  512

  132

  538

  670

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  69

  140

  209

  88

  86

  174

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  121

  355

  476

  91

  259

  350

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  0

  399

  399

  0

  726

  726

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  151

  839

  990

  203

  917

  1,120

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  131

  1,377

  1,508

  157

  904

  1,061

  City of Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  43

  549

  592

  47

  753

  800

  Barking

  206

  867

  1,073

  199

  876

  1,075

  291

  736

  1,027

  Bamet

  319

  828

  1,147

  302

  874

  1,176

  394

  1,284

  1,678

  Bexley

  228

  991

  1,219

  223

  913

  1,136

  365

  1,235

  1,600

  Brent

  0

  1,262

  1,262

  0

  668

  668

  153

  971

  1,124

  Bromley

  240

  1,225

  1,465

  318

  880

  1,198

  307

  884

  1,191

  398
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The arrangements for inspecting schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 are a matter for Ofsted. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what further plans he has to remove responsibilities for education provision from local education authorities in addition to those announced already or which have been the subject of existing legislation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

  Books
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total spent by each local education authority on(a) primary school books, (b) secondary school books, (c) other books, (d) the total book expenditure on schools and (e) the total expenditure on books for each of the financial years 1987–88 until 1992–93.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information on local education authorities' spending on books and equipment in primary (including nursery) schools and secondary schools from 1989–90 to 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available, is shown in the tables. Figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The tables give information on books and equipment both separately and combined. This is because LEAs do not distinguish on a consistent basis between the two headings in their returns of expenditure due to differing local accounting practices. The figures shown for expenditure on books alone therefore do not provide a sound basis for comparisons between LEAs.
  399

  1989–90

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1989–90 to 1991–92 by LEA in secondary schools

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Croydon

  336

  1,196

  1,532

  305

  993

  1,298

  313

  1,032

  1,345

  Ealing

  77

  651

  728

  269

  710

  979

  201

  894

  1,095

  Enfield

  229

  635

  864

  189

  1,025

  1,214

  253

  1,058

  1,311

  Haringey

  159

  690

  849

  48

  71

  119

  35

  61

  96

  Harrow

  101

  601

  702

  115

  1,008

  1,123

  152

  885

  1,037

  Havering

  0

  1,712

  1,712

  0

  1,509

  1,509

  0

  1,933

  1,933

  Hillingdon

  223

  771

  994

  26

  650

  676

  205

  493

  698

  Hounslow

  230

  418

  648

  165

  987

  1,152

  229

  1,165

  1,394

  Kingston upon Thames

  123

  805

  928

  141

  463

  604

  132

  685

  817

  Merton

  252

  874

  1,126

  30

  744

  774

  6

  514

  520

  Newham

  180

  699

  879

  212

  685

  897

  338

  957

  1,295

  Redbridge

  347

  1,129

  1,476

  157

  1,569

  1,726

  436

  1,371

  1,807

  Richmond upon Thames

  93

  502

  595

  85

  483

  568

  112

  514

  626

  Sutton

  166

  565

  731

  162

  520

  682

  149

  430

  579

  Waltham Forest

  155

  864

  1,019

  141

  616

  757

  152

  613

  765

  Birmingham

  807

  4,342

  5,149

  927

  6,352

  7,279

  1,025

  4,099

  5,124

  Coventry

  60

  1,527

  1,587

  508

  1,448

  1,956

  241

  905

  1,146

  Dudley

  59

  1,062

  1,121

  240

  759

  999

  223

  677

  900

  Sandwell

  24

  1,630

  1,654

  26

  182

  208

  27

  287

  314

  Solihull

  17

  1,087

  1,104

  7

  1,231

  1,238

  0

  1,418

  1,418

  Walsall

  15

  195

  210

  39

  1,677

  1,716

  261

  1,521

  1,782

  Wolverhampton

  194

  607

  801

  184

  224

  408

  255

  1,082

  1,337

  Knowsley

  95

  628

  723

  106

  895

  1,001

  138

  932

  1,070

  Liverpool

  86

  1,214

  1,300

  199

  1,048

  1,247

  245

  1,386

  1,631

  St. Helens

  123

  579

  702

  98

  563

  661

  47

  821

  868

  Sefton

  605

  772

  1,377

  269

  165

  434

  337

  1,566

  1,903

  Wirral

  268

  2,468

  2,736

  410

  1,583

  1,993

  345

  1,353

  1,698

  Bolton

  198

  935

  1,133

  168

  784

  952

  5

  1,657

  1,662

  Bury

  161

  563

  724

  99

  477

  576

  104

  529

  633

  Manchester

  109

  1,305

  1,414

  128

  1,658

  1,786

  374

  1,741

  2,115

  Oldham

  150

  944

  1,094

  5

  1,114

  1,119

  202

  926

  1,128

  Rochdale

  131

  1,044

  1,175

  129

  688

  817

  145

  802

  947

  Salford

  3

  1,197

  1,200

  0

  1,098

  1,098

  116

  831

  947

  Stockport

  216

  1,491

  1,707

  244

  1,670

  1,914

  257

  2,062

  2,319

  Tameside

  253

  713

  966

  254

  589

  843

  312

  650

  962

  Trafford

  36

  820

  856

  39

  727

  766

  50

  931

  981

  Wigan

  49

  1,618

  1,667

  47

  1,684

  1,731

  44

  1,977

  2,021

  Barnsley

  123

  731

  854

  109

  517

  626

  182

  882

  1,064

  Doncaster

  274

  466

  740

  81

  189

  270

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  169

  1,011

  1,180

  162

  444

  606

  251

  666

  917

  Sheffield

  172

  790

  962

  165

  1,327

  1,492

  412

  1,574

  1,986

  Bradford

  0

  2,534

  2,534

  0

  2,522

  2,522

  0

  2,971

  2,971

  Calderdale

  161

  566

  727

  176

  825

  1,001

  221

  659

  880

  Kirklees

  552

  1,004

  1,556

  482

  986

  1,468

  89

  169

  258

  Leeds

  236

  282

  518

  454

  2,041

  2,495

  759

  2,326

  3,085

  Wakefield

  419

  917

  1,336

  213

  955

  1,168

  327

  1,280

  1,607

  Gateshead

  112

  517

  629

  50

  834

  884

  3

  1,221

  1,224

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  970

  508

  1,478

  195

  1,011

  1,206

  129

  1,250

  1,379

  North Tyneside

  206

  504

  710

  311

  663

  974

  294

  839

  1.133

  South Tyneside

  106

  759

  865

  56

  638

  694

  122

  482

  604

  Sunderland

  216

  1,205

  1,421

  163

  949

  1,112

  78

  2,030

  2,108

  Isles of Scilly

  10

  11

  21

  4

  16

  20

  1

  0

  1

  Avon

  753

  2,407

  3,160

  148

  4,155

  4,303

  48

  5,365

  5,413

  Bedfordshire

  1,025

  2,563

  3,588

  973

  2,604

  3,577

  1,116

  3,484

  4,600

  Berkshire

  1,124

  2,000

  3,124

  1,071

  3,295

  4,366

  534

  4,773

  5,307

  Buckinghamshire

  594

  2,275

  2,869

  563

  2,102

  2,665

  674

  2,022

  2,696

  Cambridgeshire

  881

  2,337

  3,218

  959

  2,571

  3,530

  718

  3,173

  3,891

  Cheshire

  1,396

  2,925

  4,321

  1,247

  3,420

  4,667

  1,266

  4,066

  5,332

  Cleveland

  195

  2,822

  3,017

  454

  1,207

  1,661

  716

  2,975

  3,691

  Cornwall

  563

  1,302

  1,865

  413

  1,793

  2,206

  490

  1,581

  2,071

  Cumbria

  464

  1,225

  1,689

  377

  1,443

  1,820

  490

  1,255

  1,745

  Derbyshire

  350

  6,203

  6,553

  514

  4,025

  4,539

  9

  5,282

  5,291

  Devon

  1,417

  3,856

  5,273

  1,331

  3,514

  4,845

  1,364

  4,004

  5,368

  Dorset

  400

  2,627

  3,027

  629

  2,538

  3,167

  822

  3,118

  3,940

  Durham

  486

  2,891

  3,377

  438

  2,827

  3,265

  691

  3,165

  3,856

  East Sussex

  620

  2,855

  3,475

  629

  2,332

  2,961

  925

  2,726

  3,651

  Essex

  1,289

  7,223

  8,512

  1,647

  5,270

  6,917

  2,195

  8,254

  10,449

  Gloucestershire

  643

  1,747

  2,390

  521

  2,120

  2,641

  521

  1,911

  2,432

  Hampshire

  431

  8,743

  9,174

  488

  5,330

  5,818

  542

  8,328

  8,870

  Hereford and Worcester

  615

  2,418

  3,033

  540

  4,381

  4,921

  1,086

  3,851

  4,937

  Hertfordshire

  1,364

  4,297

  5,661

  1,368

  5,011

  6,379

  688

  1,158

  1,846

  400 401

  1989–90

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1989–90 to 1991–92 by LEA in secondary schools

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Humberside

  913

  2,372

  3,285

  3,909

  1,376

  5,285

  4,484

  2,275

  6,759

  Isle of Wight

  129

  515

  644

  165

  518

  683

  181

  731

  912

  Kent

  843

  4,400

  5,243

  10,074

  0

  10,074

  1,739

  6,784

  8,523

  Lancashire

  984

  5,715

  6,699

  929

  4,598

  5,527

  1,260

  6,716

  7,976

  Leicestershire

  988

  4,655

  5,643

  1,104

  5,787

  6,891

  1,434

  6,666

  8,100

  Lincolnshire

  670

  673

  1,343

  734

  1,852

  2,586

  765

  3,256

  4,021

  Norfolk

  585

  2,264

  2,849

  643

  1,757

  2,400

  1,057

  2,166

  3,223

  North Yorkshire

  292

  3,155

  3,447

  392

  3,886

  4,278

  453

  4,278

  4,731

  Northamptonshire

  853

  2,843

  3,696

  734

  3,431

  4,165

  887

  3,931

  4,818

  Northumberland

  426

  1,962

  2,388

  526

  1,318

  1,844

  573

  1,306

  1,879

  Nottinghamshire

  1,228

  3,359

  4,587

  1,290

  3,414

  4,704

  1,477

  5,291

  6,768

  Oxfordshire

  628

  2,800

  3,428

  946

  2,372

  3,318

  676

  2,663

  3,339

  Shropshire

  532

  2,130

  2,662

  528

  2,275

  2,803

  656

  2,610

  3,266

  Somerset

  401

  2,670

  3,071

  313

  1,070

  1,383

  381

  1,038

  1,419

  Staffordshire

  72

  6,726

  6,798

  1,136

  4,656

  5,792

  1,247

  6,221

  7,468

  Suffolk

  655

  5,821

  6,476

  634

  3,903

  4,537

  103

  7,617

  7,720

  Surrey

  556

  2,750

  3,306

  553

  2,649

  3,202

  578

  3,512

  4,090

  Warwickshire

  377

  1,661

  2,038

  377

  1,590

  1,967

  568

  1,400

  1,968

  West Sussex

  718

  3,493

  4,211

  640

  2,425

  3,065

  674

  2,509

  3,183

  Wiltshire

  1,385

  1,261

  2,646

  188

  2,413

  2,601

  160

  2,858

  3,018

  TOTAL

  40,831

  187,053

  227,884

  51,085

  174,289

  225,374

  47,523

  212,816

  260,339

  (£000's)

  1989–90

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1989–90 to 1991–92 by LEA in nursery/ primary schools

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  ILEA

  2,457

  7,838

  10,295

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Corporation of London

  41

  15

  56

  2

  4

  6

  6

  5

  11

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  253

  285

  538

  122

  515

  637

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  194

  741

  935

  189

  229

  418

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  0

  15

  15

  270

  408

  678

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  77

  409

  486

  100

  363

  463

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  179

  435

  614

  231

  855

  1,086

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  145

  397

  542

  201

  519

  720

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  211

  185

  396

  208

  106

  314

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  153

  413

  566

  134

  161

  295

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  0

  973

  973

  0

  1,068

  1,068

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  307

  1,217

  1,524

  347

  1,396

  1,743

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  166

  1,303

  1,469

  239

  969

  1,208

  City of Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  103

  444

  547

  144

  752

  819

  Barking

  184

  737

  921

  150

  546

  696

  237

  572

  809

  Barnet

  287

  561

  848

  293

  591

  884

  392

  860

  1,252

  Bexley

  88

  479

  567

  78

  579

  657

  92

  685

  777

  Brent

  0

  1,009

  1,009

  0

  719

  719

  109

  993

  1,102

  Bromley

  212

  656

  868

  205

  571

  776

  246

  607

  853

  Croydon

  269

  745

  1,014

  239

  1,022

  1,261

  260

  1,010

  1,270

  Ealing

  114

  854

  968

  81

  939

  1,020

  64

  1,192

  1,256

  Enfield

  172

  540

  712

  134

  965

  1,099

  179

  782

  961

  Haringey

  203

  837

  1,040

  158

  81

  239

  172

  81

  253

  Harrow

  152

  628

  780

  189

  1,086

  1,275

  288

  1134

  1,422

  Havering

  0

  770

  770

  0

  832

  832

  0

  1,097

  1,097

  Hillingdon

  233

  464

  697

  305

  515

  820

  383

  402

  785

  Hounslow

  166

  523

  689

  142

  694

  836

  184

  1,060

  1,244

  Kingston upon Thames

  101

  501

  602

  109

  369

  478

  94

  472

  566

  Merton

  210

  403

  613

  19

  681

  700

  5

  619

  624

  Newham

  229

  630

  859

  216

  552

  768

  349

  1,109

  1,458

  Redbridge

  246

  577

  823

  251

  908

  1,159

  297

  1,009

  1,306

  Richmond upon Thames

  89

  352

  441

  70

  376

  446

  93

  575

  668

  Sutton

  165

  276

  441

  188

  249

  437

  209

  340

  549

  Waltham Forest

  90

  599

  689

  54

  354

  408

  118

  479

  597

  Birmingham

  680

  2,609

  3,289

  1,555

  4,812

  6,367

  1,088

  2,242

  3,330

  Coventry

  58

  921

  979

  227

  572

  799

  287

  901

  1,188

  Dudley

  0

  856

  856

  247

  718

  965

  294

  677

  971

  402 403

  1989–90

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1989–90 to 1991–92 by LEA in nursery/ primary schools

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Sandwell

  73

  888

  961

  78

  106

  184

  84

  366

  450

  Solihull

  18

  526

  544

  269

  531

  800

  0

  917

  917

  Walsall

  5

  542

  547

  172

  1,031

  1,203

  38

  1,143

  1,181

  Wolverhampton

  161

  454

  615

  156

  92

  248

  259

  887

  1,146

  Knowsley

  173

  400

  573

  165

  451

  616

  237

  788

  1,025

  Liverpool

  125

  920

  1,045

  359

  987

  1,346

  325

  1,182

  1,507

  St. Helens

  126

  581

  707

  79

  267

  346

  147

  544

  691

  Sefton

  192

  605

  797

  192

  44

  236

  231

  823

  1,054

  Wirral

  262

  1,306

  1,568

  239

  1,030

  1,269

  171

  665

  836

  Bolton

  263

  772

  1,035

  183

  852

  1,035

  226

  1,231

  1,457

  Bury

  144

  457

  601

  149

  384

  533

  142

  474

  616

  Manchester

  101

  842

  943

  151

  1,197

  1,348

  596

  1,544

  2,140

  Oldham

  137

  625

  762

  5

  1,160

  1,165

  210

  964

  1,174

  Rochdale

  172

  561

  733

  187

  468

  655

  204

  636

  840

  Salford

  4

  762

  766

  31

  680

  711

  67

  828

  895

  Stockport

  259

  650

  909

  290

  1,127

  1,417

  179

  1,386

  1,565

  Tameside

  243

  609

  852

  236

  528

  764

  252

  576

  828

  Trafford

  143

  655

  798

  156

  630

  786

  211

  876

  1,087

  Wigan

  46

  877

  923

  42

  914

  956

  44

  1,382

  1,426

  Barnsley

  102

  475

  577

  179

  475

  654

  317

  974

  1,291

  Doncaster

  199

  388

  587

  102

  202

  304

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  174

  612

  786

  141

  438

  579

  265

  601

  866

  Sheffield

  229

  874

  1,103

  197

  934

  1,131

  447

  1,366

  1,813

  Bradford

  0

  1,367

  1,367

  0

  1,232

  1,232

  0

  1,777

  1,777

  Calderdale

  172

  461

  633

  173

  776

  949

  320

  979

  1,299

  Kirklees

  226

  676

  902

  284

  684

  968

  336

  910

  1,246

  Leeds

  118

  221

  339

  371

  1,121

  1,492

  480

  1,702

  2,182

  Wakefield

  398

  644

  1,042

  227

  557

  784

  353

  891

  1,244

  Gateshead

  94

  442

  536

  2

  589

  591

  2

  994

  996

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  620

  326

  946

  552

  131

  683

  141

  822

  963

  North Tyneside

  137

  318

  455

  212

  317

  529

  168

  339

  507

  South Tyneside

  105

  322

  427

  56

  401

  457

  123

  486

  609

  Sunderland

  162

  592

  754

  201

  1,021

  1,222

  96

  2,248

  2,344

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  7

  8

  2

  12

  14

  2

  13

  15

  Avon

  779

  1,615

  2,394

  127

  2,930

  3,057

  15

  4,515

  4,530

  Bedfordshire

  365

  799

  1,164

  562

  1,155

  1,717

  642

  1,783

  2,425

  Berkshire

  791

  925

  1,716

  895

  2,167

  3,062

  808

  3,303

  4,111

  Buckinghamshire

  956

  1,688

  2,644

  1,012

  1,905

  2,917

  1,068

  2,135

  3,203

  Cambridgeshire

  669

  1,764

  2,433

  656

  1,667

  2,323

  977

  2,134

  3,111

  Cheshire

  767

  1,572

  2,339

  1,199

  1,957

  3,156

  1,409

  2,952

  4,361

  Cleveland

  58

  1,679

  1,737

  433

  654

  1,087

  552

  1,987

  2,539

  Cornwall

  466

  984

  1,450

  215

  948

  1,163

  313

  1,089

  1,402

  Cumbria

  529

  855

  1,384

  250

  753

  1,003

  451

  945

  1,396

  Derbyshire

  379

  2,833

  3,212

  109

  3,028

  3,137

  2

  3,074

  3,076

  Devon

  1,100

  2,006

  3,106

  1,362

  1,827

  3,189

  1,734

  3,897

  5,631

  Dorset

  259

  1,586

  1,845

  547

  1,801

  2,348

  717

  1,849

  2,566

  Durham

  457

  1,679

  2,136

  453

  1,741

  2,194

  816

  2,247

  3,063

  East Sussex

  453

  1,084

  1,537

  542

  1,414

  1,956

  931

  2,337

  3,268

  Essex

  1,237

  3,903

  5,140

  943

  2,977

  3,920

  1,230

  5,184

  6,414

  Gloucestershire

  535

  1,163

  1,698

  445

  1,419

  1,864

  369

  1,637

  2,006

  Hampshire

  293

  3,912

  4,205

  332

  4,059

  4,391

  368

  10,290

  10,658

  Hereford and Worcester

  564

  1,178

  1,742

  446

  3,916

  4,362

  932

  2,480

  3,412

  Hertfordshire

  1,304

  2,536

  3,840

  1,461

  2,889

  4,350

  1,139

  468

  1,607

  Humberside

  829

  1,871

  2,700

  2,610

  753

  3,363

  4,152

  1,842

  5,994

  Isle of Wight

  83

  142

  225

  86

  185

  271

  112

  299

  411

  Kent

  559

  2,487

  3,046

  4,501

  0

  4,501

  1,135

  5,759

  6,894

  Lancashire

  1,471

  3,976

  5,447

  1,559

  4,058

  5,617

  2,237

  5,171

  7,408

  Leicestershire

  1,000

  2,823

  3,823

  1,184

  2,981

  4,165

  1,554

  4,671

  6,225

  Lincolnshire

  591

  262

  853

  631

  1,431

  2,062

  954

  2,289

  3,243

  Norfolk

  546

  1,571

  2,117

  425

  1,831

  2,256

  825

  2,032

  2,857

  North Yorkshire

  331

  1,867

  2,198

  368

  1,863

  2,231

  618

  2,713

  3,331

  Northamptonshire

  431

  1,765

  2,196

  494

  2,187

  2,681

  686

  2,468

  3,154

  Northumberland

  208

  461

  669

  245

  494

  739

  241

  697

  938

  Nottinghamshire

  963

  2,127

  3,090

  1,028

  2,027

  3,055

  1,368

  3,266

  4,634

  Oxfordshire

  320

  1,333

  1,653

  351

  1,353

  1,704

  275

  2,006

  2,281

  Shropshire

  352

  1,080

  1,432

  386

  1,243

  1,629

  553

  1,644

  2,197

  Somerset

  242

  1,389

  1,631

  1,019

  1,321

  2,340

  941

  1,059

  2,000

  Staffordshire

  407

  2,923

  3,330

  864

  2,920

  3,784

  940

  3,649

  4,589

  Suffolk

  398

  1,635

  2,033

  305

  1,608

  1,913

  106

  6,569

  6,675

  Surrey

  418

  703

  1,121

  461

  1,069

  1,530

  592

  4,303

  4,895

  Warwickshire

  403

  751

  1,154

  364

  913

  1,277

  240

  994

  1,234

  West Sussex

  698

  2,394

  3,092

  557

  2,369

  2,926

  488

  2,736

  3,224

  404 405

  1989–90

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1991–92

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1989–90 to 1991–92 by LEA in nursery/ primary schools

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Text and library books

  Education equipment stationery and materials

  Books and equipment

  Wiltshire

  1,394

  687

  2,081

  485

  2,032

  2,517

  711

  2,289

  3,000

  Total

  35,435

  111,145

  146,580

  42,450

  118,766

  161,216

  47,505

  168,320

  215,825

  Notes:

  1. n/a indicates that the LEA has no secondary schools.

  2. Doncaster LEA submitted a nil return on books and equipment on their expenditure returns to the DoE for 1991–92.

  3. Figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the amount spent on books by each local education authority(a) per primary school pupil, (b) per secondary school pupil and (c) per school pupil.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on local education authorities' spending per pupil on books and equipment in primary (including nursery) schools and secondary schools in

  1991–92 Unit cost per FTE pupil (£)

  Text and library books

  Equipment, stationery and materials

  Combined books and equipment

  (a) Nursery and primary schools

  (b) Secondary schools

  (c) Total

  (a) Nursery and primary schools

  (b) Secondary schools

  (c) Total

  (a) Nursery and primary schools

  (b) Secondary schools

  (c) Total

  Corporation of London

  28

  n/a

  28

  24

  n/a

  24

  52

  n/a

  52

  Camden

  12

  22

  17

  50

  71

  60

  62

  92

  77

  Greenwich

  9

  14

  11

  11

  22

  16

  21

  36

  27

  Hackney

  17

  20

  18

  26

  27

  26

  43

  47

  44

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  11

  2

  8

  41

  62

  48

  52

  64

  56

  Islington

  16

  18

  17

  60

  75

  65

  76

  93

  82

  Kensington and Chelsea

  32

  44

  36

  83

  178

  114

  115

  221

  149

  Lambeth

  11

  15

  12

  6

  15

  8

  17

  30

  20

  Lewisham

  7

  8

  8

  8

  24

  14

  15

  32

  22

  Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  54

  82

  63

  54

  82

  63

  Tower Hamlets

  18

  20

  18

  71

  89

  77

  89

  109

  96

  Wandsworth

  18

  20

  16

  60

  115

  78

  74

  136

  94

  City of Westminster

  16

  7

  12

  85

  105

  94

  101

  112

  106

  Barking

  16

  32

  23

  40

  82

  56

  56

  114

  78

  Barnet

  17

  24

  20

  38

  79

  55

  55

  103

  75

  Bexley

  5

  26

  14

  39

  87

  60

  44

  112

  75

  Brent

  5

  15

  8

  47

  93

  62

  52

  107

  71

  Bromley

  13

  27

  18

  31

  77

  48

  43

  104

  66

  Croydon

  10

  21

  14

  40

  69

  51

  51

  90

  65

  Ealing

  2

  18

  7

  45

  81

  56

  48

  99

  63

  Enfield

  8

  15

  11

  36

  64

  48

  44

  80

  60

  Haringey

  10

  4

  8

  5

  7

  5

  14

  11

  13

  Harrow

  16

  19

  17

  62

  110

  76

  77

  129

  93

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  59

  122

  88

  59

  122

  88

  Hillingdon

  21

  24

  22

  22

  57

  33

  43

  81

  55

  Hounslow

  10

  17

  13

  59

  88

  71

  69

  106

  85

  Kingston upon Thames

  10

  18

  13

  49

  94

  68

  59

  113

  82

  Merton

  0

  1

  1

  46

  71

  55

  47

  72

  56

  Newham

  15

  26

  19

  49

  73

  58

  64

  99

  77

  Redbridge

  17

  31

  23

  57

  98

  75

  74

  129

  98

  Richmond upon Thames

  10

  16

  12

  60

  72

  65

  70

  88

  78

  Sutton

  18

  17

  17

  29

  50

  37

  46

  67

  55

  Waltham Forest

  6

  13

  9

  26

  54

  37

  33

  67

  46

  Birmingham

  10

  17

  13

  21

  69

  38

  32

  86

  51

  Coventry

  10

  13

  11

  32

  50

  39

  42

  63

  50

  Dudley

  11

  13

  12

  25

  40

  31

  36

  54

  43

  Sandwell

  3

  1

  2

  12

  16

  14

  15

  17

  16

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  50

  101

  72

  50

  101

  72

  Walsall

  1

  14

  7

  43

  82

  59

  45

  96

  66

  Wolverhampton

  11

  18

  14

  39

  77

  53

  50

  95

  67

  Knowsley

  14

  15

  14

  46

  105

  66

  60

  120

  81

  Liverpool

  7

  9

  8

  25

  50

  34

  32

  59

  41

  St. Helens

  9

  4

  7

  32

  67

  47

  41

  70

  54

  Sefton

  9

  18

  13

  32

  84

  54

  41

  102

  66

  Wirral

  6

  16

  10

  22

  64

  40

  28

  81

  50

  Bolton

  9

  0

  5

  47

  100

  68

  56

  100

  73

  Bury

  9

  10

  9

  30

  51

  38

  39

  61

  48

  Manchester

  13

  16

  14

  34

  73

  48

  48

  88

  62

  Oldham

  9

  13

  11

  41

  59

  49

  50

  72

  59

  Rochdale

  10

  12

  10

  30

  64

  43

  40

  76

  53

  Salford

  3

  9

  5

  36

  64

  46

  39

  73

  51

  406
  1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available, is shown in the table. The table gives information on books and equipment both separately and combined. This is because LEAs do not distinguish on a consistent basis between the two headings in their returns of expenditure due to differing local accounting practices. The figures shown for expenditure on books alone therefore do not provide a sound basis for comparisons between LEAs.
  407

  Text and library books

  Equipment, stationery and materials

  Combined books and equipment

  (a) Nursery and primary schools

  (b) Secondary schools

  (c) Total

  (a) Nursery and primary schools

  (b) Secondary schools

  (c) Total

  (a) Nursery and primary schools

  (b) Secondary schools

  (c) Total

  Stockport

  7

  14

  10

  56

  116

  81

  64

  130

  92

  Tameside

  12

  24

  16

  27

  49

  35

  39

  73

  52

  Trafford

  11

  5

  9

  47

  85

  61

  58

  90

  70

  Wigan

  2

  2

  2

  48

  96

  68

  50

  98

  70

  Barasley

  16

  15

  16

  49

  73

  58

  65

  88

  74

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  11

  14

  13

  26

  37

  31

  37

  52

  43

  Sheffield

  10

  17

  13

  31

  66

  44

  42

  83

  56

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  48

  68

  59

  48

  68

  59

  Calderdale

  17

  19

  18

  53

  56

  54

  70

  74

  72

  Kirklees

  10

  4

  7

  27

  7

  18

  37

  10

  26

  Leeds

  9

  15

  12

  33

  45

  39

  42

  60

  51

  Wakefield

  13

  16

  14

  33

  62

  46

  46

  78

  60

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  58

  106

  77

  58

  106

  77

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6

  8

  7

  37

  76

  54

  44

  84

  61

  North Tyneside

  11

  20

  15

  22

  56

  39

  33

  76

  55

  South Tyneside

  8

  14

  10

  32

  54

  40

  40

  67

  50

  Sunderland

  3

  4

  4

  77

  110

  90

  81

  114

  94

  Isles of Scilly

  12

  9

  11

  77

  0

  46

  88

  9

  57

  Avon

  0

  1

  0

  58

  103

  76

  59

  104

  77

  Bedfordshire

  16

  26

  21

  45

  80

  64

  62

  106

  85

  Berkshire

  14

  13

  13

  56

  116

  80

  69

  129

  94

  Buckinghamshire

  18

  21

  19

  36

  64

  46

  54

  86

  65

  Cambridgeshire

  17

  18

  17

  37

  78

  54

  55

  96

  72

  Cheshire

  16

  20

  18

  34

  64

  47

  51

  84

  65

  Cleveland

  9

  18

  13

  33

  76

  50

  42

  94

  63

  Cornwall

  8

  17

  12

  29

  55

  40

  37

  72

  52

  Cumbria

  11

  16

  13

  23

  42

  31

  34

  59

  44

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  39

  97

  63

  39

  98

  63

  Devon

  23

  25

  24

  51

  72

  60

  74

  97

  84

  Dorset

  17

  22

  20

  44

  85

  63

  62

  107

  83

  Durham

  15

  19

  16

  41

  86

  59

  56

  105

  76

  East Sussex

  20

  27

  23

  so

  80

  62

  69

  107

  85

  Essex

  10

  23

  16

  43

  87

  63

  54

  110

  79

  Gloucestershire

  9

  18

  13

  39

  66

  50

  48

  84

  63

  Hampshire

  3

  7

  4

  82

  103

  90

  85

  109

  94

  Hereford and Worcester

  20

  23

  21

  53

  81

  67

  73

  104

  89

  Hertfordshire

  15

  11

  13

  6

  19

  12

  21

  30

  25

  Humberside

  52

  78

  63

  23

  39

  30

  76

  117

  93

  Isle of Wight

  16

  18

  17

  43

  72

  60

  59

  90

  77

  Kent

  9

  19

  14

  48

  76

  60

  57

  95

  74

  Lancashire

  18

  16

  17

  41

  84

  58

  59

  99

  75

  Leicestershire

  20

  24

  22

  61

  112

  83

  81

  136

  105

  Lincolnshire

  20

  25

  22

  49

  107

  72

  69

  133

  94

  Norfolk

  14

  27

  19

  34

  55

  42

  48

  82

  61

  North Yorkshire

  11

  10

  11

  49

  99

  71

  60

  109

  82

  Northamptonshire

  14

  21

  18

  51

  95

  71

  65

  116

  89

  Northumberland

  12

  20

  17

  35

  46

  42

  48

  66

  58

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  24

  19

  39

  85

  59

  56

  108

  78

  Oxfordshire

  7

  20

  13

  51

  81

  65

  58

  101

  78

  Shropshire

  16

  25

  20

  49

  100

  71

  65

  126

  91

  Somerset

  28

  14

  21

  31

  38

  34

  59

  52

  56

  Staffordshire

  10

  18

  14

  40

  92

  62

  51

  110

  76

  Suffolk

  3

  2

  2

  160

  163

  162

  162

  165

  164

  Surrey

  8

  15

  10

  58

  88

  69

  66

  103

  79

  Warwickshire

  5

  24

  12

  22

  59

  35

  28

  83

  47

  West Sussex

  10

  17

  13

  54

  63

  58

  64

  80

  71

  Wiltshire

  16

  5

  11

  52

  88

  67

  68

  93

  78

  Notes:

  1. n/a indicates that the LEA has no secondary schools.

  2. Doncaster LEA submitted a nil return on books and equipment on their expenditure returns to the DoE.

  3. Figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department for Education.

  Middle School (Lowestoft)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to announce a decision on Suffolk county council's application to build a fourth middle school for north Lowestoft.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Suffolk's proposals are currently under consideration. My right hon. Friend will announce a decision on them as soon as possible.

  School Libraries
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will list the local education authorities(a) who fund school library service, (b) who subcontract school libraries services to an outside organisation and (c) who have no school library service.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not keep this information centrally.

  Opting Out (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what complaints he has received from parents in Nottinghamshire about the conduct of the county council during the opting out process of schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has not received any complaints from parents about the conduct of Nottinghamshire county council in relation to ballots for grant-maintained status since the Department's exchange of correspondence with the Director of Education about information circulated in connection with the ballots at Eastwood comprehensive school and George Spencer school at the end of last year.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he intends to take to ensure that schools are able to send teachers for training in child protection matters.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Schools are already able to send teachers for training in child protection matters.

  Capital allocations by standard English region (£000s)

  Region

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  South East

  114,968

  124,079

  159,364

  136,804

  South West

  38,364

  31,745

  38,347

  45,205

  East Anglia

  15,438

  11,756

  16,193

  16,545

  West Midlands

  43,661

  36,038

  39,150

  35,253

  East Midlands

  33,186

  28,481

  32,967

  29,859

  Northwest

  56,202

  59,129

  76,676

  69,516

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  40,988

  34,546

  49,032

  41,330

  Northern

  23,480

  24,447

  30,269

  30,172

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  South East

  191,185

  225,893

  244,759

  185,615

  South West

  60,886

  48,854

  60,990

  47,695

  East Anglia

  24,528

  21,794

  30,990

  20,328

  West Midlands

  50,707

  61,351

  62,733

  41,391

  East Midlands

  45,933

  54,921

  52,953

  42,183

  Northwest

  102,502

  112,214

  115,492

  72,187

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  51,383

  66,368

  88,896

  59,511

  Northern

  31,674

  39,809

  46,912

  38,032

  Notes:

  1. Tables are in £000s and in cash terms.

  2. Tables represent combined totals of:

  (a) voluntary aided and special agreement schools—approved levels of governors' expenditure eligible for 85 per cent. grant (there are no VA schools in the Scilly Isles);

  (b) LEA capital allocations and, from 1990–91, Annual Capital Guidelines, together with Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs).

  3. Allocations for self-governing (GM) schools are not included.

  4. Figures for 1979–80 are not available.

  5. Figures for 1993–94 include SCAs issued up to 3 November 1993.

  6. Figures prior to 1993–94 include allocations for FE/sixth form colleges.

  7. The following groups of LEAs have been used to define regions:

  South East: City of London, Inner London Boroughs, Outer London Boroughs, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, West Sussex;

  South West: Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire, Isles of Scilly;

  East Anglia: Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk;

  West Midlands: Hereford and Worcester, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall, Wolverhampton;

  East Midlands: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire;

  North West: Cheshire, Lancashire, Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan, Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton, Wirral;

  Yorkshire and Humberside: Humberside, North Yorkshire, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield, Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds, Wakefield;

  Northern: Cleveland, Curnbria, Durham, Northumberland, Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland.

  Repairs and Maintenance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he makes, and from what source, of the cost of the backlog of the repairs and maintenance of schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  An estimate based on the 1986 survey of school buildings suggested that some £2 billion at 1990 prices was required to remedy deficiencies in school buildings. Over £5 billion will have been spent on schools since, including the current financial year, much of it in meeting the deficiencies identified.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the regional total of capital allocations for education to the local authorities in England for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: Figures for 1979–80 are not available. The table gives figures for the other years as requested.
  411
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the national total of capital allocations for education to local authorities in England for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total

  Capital allocations by type of authority

  (£ thousands)

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (i) Non-metropolitan district councils1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (ii) County councils

  212,200

  208,070

  253,953

  242,373

  321,970

  361,380

  406,358

  301,306

  (iii) Metropolitan district councils

  103,967

  88,896

  128,710

  110,262

  146,430

  178,176

  196,631

  122,987

  (iv) London boroughs

  50,120

  53,255

  59,335

  52,049

  90,396

  91,647

  100,736

  82,649

  (v) City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  2

  0

  0

  National Total

  366,287

  350,221

  441,998

  404,684

  558,797

  631,205

  703,725

  506,941

  1 Allocations are not made to non-metropolitan district councils.

  Notes:

  1. Tables are in £ thousands and in cash terms.

  2. Tables represent combined totals of:

  (a) Voluntary aided and special agreement schools—approved levels of governors' expenditure eligible for 85 per cent. grant (there are no VA schools in the Scilly Isles);

  (b) LEA capital allocations and, from 1990–91, Annual Capital Guidelines, together with Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs).

  3. Allocations for self-governing (GM) schools are not included.

  4. Figures for 1979–80 are not available.

  5. Figures for 1993–94 include SCAs issued up to 3 November 1993.

  6. Figures prior to 1993–94 include allocations for FE/sixth form colleges.

  7. Figures for the City of London (v) prior to 1990–91 are included in the total London boroughs (iv).

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the capital allocation for education for each local authority in England for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89.

  Capital allocations by LEA (£000s)

  LEA Name

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Camden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Borough of Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ILEA

  18,926

  18,557

  20,106

  14,324

  London Borough of Barking

  3,126

  967

  1,654

  245

  London Borough of Barnet

  3,864

  4,974

  3,109

  2,388

  London Borough of Bexley

  761

  546

  1,851

  1,087

  London Borough of Brent

  2,124

  1,937

  2,999

  982

  London Borough of Bromley

  1,065

  839

  433

  668

  London Borough of Croydon

  382

  2,215

  1,635

  1,008

  London Borough of Ealing

  2,002

  2,792

  2,145

  552

  London Borough of Enfield

  538

  1,586

  1,701

  1,978

  London Borough of Haringey

  3,253

  2,070

  2,580

  2,606

  London Borough of Harrow

  598

  844

  1,668

  700

  London Borough of Havering

  414

  347

  762

  2,199

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  1,779

  588

  1,268

  950

  London Borough of Hounslow

  2,287

  2,390

  1,268

  529

  London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,990

  2,202

  1,695

  337

  London Borough of Merton

  733

  2,395

  1,023

  5,543

  London Borough of Newham

  2,501

  2,583

  3,246

  3,605

  London Borough of Redbridge

  1,124

  2,025

  3,779

  2,603

  London Borough Richmond-upon-Thames

  659

  379

  277

  898

  412
  between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: Figures for 1979–80 are not available. The table gives figures for the other years as requested.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: Figures for 1979–80 are not available. The table gives figures for the other years as requested.
  413

  LEA Name

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  London Borough of Sutton

  233

  659

  627

  817

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  1,761

  2,360

  5,509

  8,030

  Birmingham

  10,603

  4,765

  6,392

  7,210

  Coventry

  4,116

  3,164

  6,308

  3,242

  Dudley

  2,803

  3,337

  2,230

  3,707

  Sandwell

  1,682

  1,939

  1,148

  2,138

  Solihull

  750

  717

  1,338

  1,169

  Walsall

  3,306

  1,354

  998

  983

  Wovlerhampton

  3,224

  2,377

  2,090

  528

  Knowsley

  809

  1,413

  2,351

  2,268

  Liverpool

  6,490

  6,950

  3,528

  2,667

  St. Helens

  3,794

  1,890

  4,094

  5,415

  Sefton

  1,713

  1,723

  2,018

  2,400

  Wirral

  3,197

  1,631

  2,640

  4,642

  Bolton

  3,369

  1,148

  4,844

  1,536

  Bury

  856

  843

  1,519

  1,826

  Manchester

  4,228

  9,552

  12,199

  6,610

  Oldham

  1,186

  1,087

  5,185

  4,088

  Rochdale

  2,475

  1,927

  3,452

  3,364

  Salford

  1,491

  1,680

  4,445

  4,096

  Stockport

  1,540

  1,680

  2,928

  1,564

  Wigan

  4,885

  2,094

  3,893

  1,879

  Tameside

  1,879

  605

  806

  776

  Trafford

  676

  1,634

  476

  2,911

  Barnsley

  703

  1,090

  487

  270

  Doncaster

  1,664

  519

  506

  692

  Rotherham

  2,051

  527

  1,127

  840

  Sheffield

  4,990

  3,912

  8,187

  5,364

  Bradford

  5,226

  8,619

  11,158

  8,807

  Calderdale

  1,028

  981

  3,619

  2,882

  Kirklees

  4,492

  4,134

  1,726

  813

  Leeds

  7,327

  3,355

  5,036

  8,339

  Wakefield

  2,762

  1,563

  3,643

  3,365

  Gateshead

  567

  1,440

  2,977

  1,841

  Newcastle-U-Tyne

  2,200

  1,934

  4,619

  2,149

  North Tyneside

  1,127

  2,664

  2,758

  2,351

  South Tyneside

  1,931

  1,524

  2,793

  3,572

  Sunderland

  2,827

  3,124

  5,192

  3,958

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  139

  149

  Avon

  6,886

  4,342

  4,713

  4,587

  Bedfordshire

  4,314

  1,665

  1,630

  2,022

  Berkshire

  6,522

  8,002

  6,059

  7,000

  Buckinghamshire

  7,372

  5,989

  8,469

  7,797

  Cambridgeshire

  5,656

  4,474

  4,659

  6,050

  Cheshire

  7,220

  5,872

  5,406

  5,076

  Cleveland

  7,987

  4,693

  3,945

  5,527

  Cornwall

  5,353

  3,495

  6,558

  7,216

  Cumbria

  1,919

  4,331

  5,287

  7,312

  Derbyshire

  9,066

  7,614

  12,232

  12,070

  Devon

  9,028

  7,877

  9,053

  14,403

  Dorset

  6,136

  5,600

  5,473

  4,167

  Durham

  2,456

  3,443

  1,565

  2,179

  East Sussex

  5,191

  5,785

  11,906

  10,088

  Essex

  7,750

  12,146

  21,748

  17,231

  Gloucestershire

  3,205

  5,618

  5,838

  7,152

  Hampshire

  10,005

  12,404

  16,838

  8,867

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,631

  2,273

  3,258

  3,104

  Hertfordshire

  3,728

  6,169

  6,332

  5,505

  Humberside

  8,127

  4,158

  9,506

  7,640

  Isle of Wight

  493

  1,253

  2,502

  1,928

  Kent

  7,816

  5,516

  7,974

  9,544

  Lancashire

  10,394

  17,400

  16,892

  18,398

  Leicestershire

  8,979

  8,546

  9,223

  7,245

  Lincolnshire

  4,477

  4,342

  4,519

  3,026

  Norfolk

  6,039

  3,247

  4,274

  4,177

  North Yorkshire

  2,618

  5,688

  4,037

  2,318

  Northamptonshire

  5,126

  4,536

  3,322

  4,066

  Northumberland

  2,466

  1,294

  1,133

  1,283

  Nottinghamshire

  5,538

  3,443

  3,671

  3,452

  Oxfordshire

  4,320

  3,763

  5,355

  3,822

  Shropshire

  3,557

  4,208

  4,874

  5,063

  Somerset

  3,090

  1,273

  3,323

  4,594

  Staffordshire

  9,266

  9,956

  8,424

  5,749

  Suffolk

  3,743

  4,035

  7,260

  6,318

  Surrey

  4,902

  4,433

  6,519

  8,146

  Warwickshire

  1,723

  1,948

  2,090

  2,360

  West Sussex

  2,435

  3,699

  4,697

  2,805

  414 415

  LEA Name

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Wiltshire

  4,666

  3,540

  3,250

  2,937

  City of London

  0

  2

  0

  0

  London Borough of Camden

  2,518

  1,111

  2,653

  507

  London Borough of Greenwich

  1,649

  712

  1,198

  1,647

  London Borough of Hackney

  1,161

  2,187

  2,669

  3,164

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,499

  3,261

  4,756

  1,889

  London Borough of Islington

  417

  1,183

  1,345

  665

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,920

  4,486

  4307

  3,625

  London Borough Lambeth

  991

  1,222

  2,127

  1,823

  London Borough of Lewisham

  1,434

  2,577

  3,052

  1,685

  London Borough of Southwark

  2,615

  2,119

  3,435

  3,684

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  18,261

  19,637

  13,685

  12,440

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  1,303

  1,423

  2,857

  2,310

  London Borough of Westminster

  575

  948

  1,007

  1,164

  ILEA

  London Borough of Barking

  2,425

  2,528

  1.326

  949

  London Borough of Barnet

  1,800

  1,852

  2,395

  3,914

  London Borough of Bexley

  1.679

  2,196

  3.492

  2,443

  London Borough of Brent

  1,081

  1,268

  1,941

  1,681

  London Borough of Bromley

  1,764

  3,854

  2,671

  2,353

  London Borough of Croydon

  2,127

  3,865

  4,205

  1,413

  London Borough of Ealing

  982

  1,548

  4,038

  6,387

  London Borough of Enfield

  1,659

  2,273

  4,117

  3,139

  London Borough of Haringey

  3,468

  2,246

  1,872

  2,944

  London Borough of Harrow

  1,073

  1,057

  3,795

  4,078

  London Borough of Havering

  6,238

  2,092

  2,196

  1,060

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  1,372

  1,025

  1,819

  1,652

  London Borough of Houslow

  539

  1,569

  4,135

  4,918

  London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

  294

  1,303

  686

  838

  London Borough of Merton

  4,057

  1,727

  1,806

  990

  London Borough of Newham

  6,461

  8,721

  6,420

  1,509

  London Borough of Redbridge

  1,891

  868

  1,720

  2,790

  London Borough of Richraond-upon-Thames

  1,895

  1,149

  613

  491

  London Borough of Sutton

  3,586

  5,718

  3,945

  1,396

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  6,661

  3,924

  4,253

  3,099

  Birmingham

  11,666

  12,196

  13,325

  8,852

  Coventry

  2,882

  3,549

  6,122

  1,740

  Dudley

  5,415

  11,514

  10,627

  2,098

  Sandwell

  1,823

  1,460

  2,054

  2,720

  Solihull

  2,752

  1,938

  1,542

  2,729

  Walsall

  1,419

  1,410

  1,285

  1,115

  Wolverhampton

  936

  2,128

  3,119

  3,418

  Knowsley

  2,249

  1,744

  2,769

  1,397

  Liverpool

  14,229

  10,256

  11,439

  8,639

  St. Helens

  5,194

  5,002

  2,630

  1,035

  Sefton

  5,703

  5,958

  5,374

  2,940

  Wirral

  3,658

  4,010

  2,866

  2,139

  Bolton

  939

  1,335

  2,993

  664

  Bury

  1,456

  1,828

  1,485

  1,223

  Manchester

  4,391

  6,314

  10,985

  9,165

  Oldham

  6,126

  8,696

  4,115

  2,972

  Rochdale

  4,947

  8,567

  9,076

  1,254

  Salford

  4,288

  7,126

  2,988

  2,700

  Stockport

  1,972

  2,210

  2,001

  1,085

  Wigan

  5,077

  8,570

  5,966

  2,507

  Tameside

  1,490

  2,029

  3,506

  1,987

  Trafford

  9,740

  4,398

  3,195

  1,703

  Barnsley

  1,933

  1,053

  2,970

  2,883

  Doncaster

  1,075

  556

  910

  974

  Rotherham

  1,589

  1,284

  3,040

  1,730

  Sheffield

  2,948

  1,798

  6,951

  2,346

  Bradford

  10,881

  10,485

  11,405

  7,246

  Calderdale

  1,718

  2,105

  2,328

  1,379

  Kirklees

  1,360

  4,015

  6,525

  6,783

  Leeds

  10,653

  28,660

  29,775

  10,160

  Wakefield

  5,539

  2,645

  6,691

  11,780

  Gateshead

  1,139

  2,904

  2,074

  1,385

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  2,161

  4,130

  3,326

  2,075

  North Tyneside

  2,730

  1,105

  2,778

  4,473

  South Tyneside

  1,945

  2,009

  2,286

  958

  Sunderland

  2,409

  3,188

  6,111

  4,733

  Isles of Scilly

  221

  66

  116

  40

  Avon

  7,964

  5,564

  5,368

  5,954

  Bedfordshire

  2,424

  2,666

  5,040

  3,408

  416 417

  LEA Name

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Berkshire

  4,938

  4,025

  6,110

  4,631

  Buckinghamshire

  7,207

  9,914

  9,564

  7,964

  Cambridgeshire

  13,287

  8,615

  15,151

  8,072

  Cheshire

  7,550

  7,254

  12,229

  13,348

  Cleveland

  4,929

  3,377

  5,430

  5,192

  Cornwall

  7,723

  7,215

  9,534

  3,069

  Cumbria

  8,584

  10,788

  13,015

  10,097

  Derbyshire

  15,875

  22,219

  18,187

  14,374

  Devon

  13,449

  8,659

  13,679

  11,527

  Dorset

  8,700

  6,590

  8,043

  8,739

  Durham

  5,201

  7,629

  8,661

  6,618

  East Sussex

  10,338

  17,826

  19,277

  11,942

  Essex

  14,424

  23,220

  22,304

  12,466

  Gloucestershire

  8,840

  7,671

  9,367

  9,979

  Hampshire

  16,989

  18,443

  16,009

  11,538

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,329

  8,130

  5,756

  3,307

  Hertfordshire

  6,728

  8,180

  8,546

  4,986

  Humberside

  9,512

  8,417

  10,406

  7,326

  Isle of Wight

  1,999

  2,473

  2,100

  1,983

  Kent

  18,966

  26,610

  28,409

  18,144

  Lancashire

  23,494

  26,916

  31,875

  17,428

  Leicestershire

  11,613

  8,440

  10,040

  7,046

  Lincolnshire

  7,512

  10,292

  13,366

  11,616

  Norfolk

  3,064

  2,845

  3,667

  4,531

  North Yorkshire

  4,174

  5,350

  7,894

  6,905

  Northamptonshire

  6,182

  8,668

  5,142

  5,878

  Northumberland

  2,576

  4,681

  3,231

  2,501

  Nottinghamshire

  4,752

  5,302

  6,217

  3,269

  Oxfordshire

  5,671

  9,127

  8,784

  4,309

  Shropshire

  6,439

  6,820

  4,655

  4,554

  Somerset

  6,966

  7,048

  8,485

  5,636

  Staffordshire

  7,443

  9,623

  11,220

  8,095

  Suffolk

  8,177

  10,334

  12,172

  7,725

  Surrey

  4,947

  6,377

  13,376

  16,869

  Warwickshire

  2,604

  2,583

  3,028

  2,765

  West Sussex

  6,160

  5,383

  4,504

  4,725

  Wiltshire

  7,023

  6,041

  6,398

  2,752

  Notes:

  1. Tables are in £000s and in cash terms.

  2. Tables represent combined totals of:

  a. voluntary aided and special agreement schools—approved levels of governors' expenditure eligible for 85 per cent. grant (there are no VA schools in the Scilly Isles);

  b. LEA capital allocations and, from 1990–91, Annual Capital Guidelines, together with Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs).

  3. Allocations for self-governing (GM) schools are not included.

  4. Figures for 1979–80 are not available.

  5. Figures for 1993–94 include SCAs issued up to 3 November 1993.

  6. Figures prior to 1993–94 include allocations for FE/sixth form colleges.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have to declare a moratorium on British nuclear testing.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no such plans, but we have made it clear that we will carry out no nuclear tests while the United States moratorium continues.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussion he has had with the Government of the United States of America on making representations to the Government of China with a view to dissuading them from conducting an underground nuclear test; and what action he took as a result.

  The Prime Minister
  The United States Government informed us in September of their intention to seek to dissuade China from conducting a nuclear test. In the 418
  event, the Chinese conducted a test on 5 October. We have expressed our regret at this, given the background of restraint on testing by the other nuclear powers.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the United States Government on the prospects for concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996; and what plans the Government have to announce a date by which they hope such a treaty may be concluded.

  The Prime Minister
  In our exchanges with the United States Government on approaches to a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT), the time scale for concluding such a treaty is one of a number of issues we have discussed. We do not believe that setting a deadline for the treaty's conclusion will necessarily help the conduct of negotiations.

  Cyprus
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the United Nations Security Council the continued Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We hope that direct talks between the parties, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, will resume after next month's elections in northern Cyprus. We stand ready, together with other Security Council members, to consider alternative ways to promote the effective implementation of United Nations resolutions on Cyprus should there be no further progress by the time of Mr. Boutros Ghali's next report.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Agency for Health and Safety
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the costs and benefits to the United Kingdom in financial and administrative terms of the establishment of the Agency for Health and Safety.

  The Prime Minister
  It is too early to say, but we believe that the agency should be beneficial if it can facilitate the use of risk assessment as a basis for prioritising commission proposals; if it can avoid duplication of research; and if it can contribute to more consistent standards of enforcement.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances the Government would recommend a referendum in the United Kingdom over constitutional proposals for Northern Ireland based on an agreement reached with the Government of the Irish Republic.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are fully committed to seeking a comprehensive political settlement with the four main Northern Ireland constitutional parties and the Irish Government, which addresses all three main relationships: those within Northern Ireland; those within the island of Ireland; and those between the British and Irish Governments. The Government believe that the best way forward lies with the talks process and the question of how any such agreement is subsequently endorsed is a matter for discussion between all the participants in this process.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister what is meant by the full use of EMU as set out in the presidency conclusions.

  The Prime Minister
  The presidency conclusions of the European Council on 29 October recorded all member 420
  states' commitment to the full implementation of the second stage of economic and monetary union. In addition to the establishment of the European Monetary Institute, this will mean strengthened co-operation between member states on their economic and monetary policies to facilitate economic convergence.

  Maastricht
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister how the mechanisms for co-ordinating economic policies laid down in the Maastricht treaty will strengthen the process of convergence with the aim of returning to growth and reducing unemployment.

  The Prime Minister
  The provisions in the Maastricht treaty relating to multilateral surveillance of member states' economic policies and the excessive deficits procedure will enable the Council to monitor progress with economic convergence. The Council's discussions on these issues will inform national Governments as they frame their economic policies.

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Central Policy Review Staff staff were absorbed into the No. 10 policy unit in 1983–84; at what cost; and what was the cost of the policy unit in that year and at the latest available date.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: Two staff were absorbed into the No. 10 policy unit from the Central Policy Review Staff; the cost involved was negligible.

  The cost of the policy unit in 1983–84 was £154,923 and the estimated cost for 1993–94 is £615,000. Both figures include the costs of unit members and secretarial support staff.

  National Portrait Gallery
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister how many nominations he received in appointing the new director of the national portrait gallery; and to what extent the views of trustees were presented to him.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: As is required by law, the board of trustees of the national portrait gallery submitted to me for my approval their proposal for the new director of the gallery. In the knowledge that the trustees had conducted an open competition for the post, I was content to approve their choice of appointee on the basis of their recommendation.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart Programmes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list contractors approved for the running of restart programmes and the number of places they are contracted for in the current financial year; and what is the standard length of contract periods for such courses.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  421
  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 4 November 1993
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about Restart Courses. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Restart Courses aim to help those people who have been unemployed for a long time and are having the most difficulty in getting back to work. Attending a course complements regular job search by providing people with the opportunity to explore all the options open to them arid give them confidence to take the next step back to work. They normally last a week.
  We currently have around 180 Restart course contracts with organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors. These contracts are normally awarded as a result of a full competitive tendering exercise. Full details about each contract are held locally by the Area Manager who awarded the contract. I attach a list of contractors which was last compiled In April 1993.
  Contracts normally run for 2 years. In some cases contracts may be either extended or shortened where changes to the programme are anticipated. In the current financial year we aim to provide up to 140,000 Restart Course places.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Accents

  Park House

  63 Park Street

  Bridgend

  Advantage Enterprises

  290 Stanton Road

  Stanton

  Burton on Trent

  DE15 9SQ

  Aintree training Services

  Merseyside Centre for the Deaf

  Queens Drive

  West Derby

  Liverpool

  L13 OAR

  London Connection

  12 Adelaide Street

  London WC2

  Aintree Training Services

  44 Eastgate

  Leeds

  LS2 IAA

  Al-Falah

  Richmond Road

  Bradford

  BD7 1DR

  Alan Honnor Associates Ltd.

  2 The Square

  Wimbourne Dorset

  BH21 1JA

  Apex Trust

  Northfield School

  Tinkes Farm Road

  Birmingham

  B31 1RR

  Arrow training

  School Hill Trading Estate

  Chepstow

  422

  Arun District council

  Arun Civic Centre

  Maltravers Road

  Littlehampton

  Sussex

  BN17 5LF

  Astra Training

  Leeholme Road

  Billingham

  Cleveland

  Bath City Council

  Saw Close

  Bath

  Bexley Training Group

  17 Upland Road

  Bexley Heath

  Kent

  DA7 4NR

  Birmingham Rathbone Society

  19–20 Tenby Street North

  Hockley

  Birmingham

  B1 3EN

  Boston College

  Rowley Road

  Boston

  Lincs

  PE21 6JF

  Bournville CFE

  Bridge Centre

  Bristol Road South

  Birmingham

  B31 2AJ

  Bromley Adult Education

  Princes Plain

  Church Lane

  Bromley

  Kent

  BTG Training and Consultancy

  27 Stafford Street

  Hanley

  Stoke on Trent

  ST1 1JU

  Business 2 Business

  14 Melton Road

  Leicester

  LE4 5EA

  Cambridge Jobsearch Ltd.

  25 Gwydir Street

  Cambridge

  CB1 2LG

  Capital Trading

  343A Kilburn High Road

  London

  NW6 7QB

  Cathedral Training

  42 Hartlepool Road

  Vauxhall

  London SE11 5AY

  Chamber of Commerce

  Industry House

  Summer Lane

  Barnsley

  CHET

  Oaklands College

  423

  Hatfield Campus

  Woods Avenue

  Hatfield

  CICT

  Hamilton House

  Cargo Fleet Lane

  Middlesbrough

  Cleveland

  City Trading

  39–41 Chapel Street

  Bradford

  BD1 5BY

  Combined Training Services

  8 Rolle Street

  Exmouth

  EX8 1HE

  Community Education Project

  1st Floor, YMCA

  North View

  Ashington

  NE63 9EQ

  Computer Insight

  159 High Street

  Penge

  London

  SE20 7DS

  Convergence Systems

  5th Floor West

  Niel House

  3–15 Whitechapel Road

  London E11

  CTC

  139 Southchurch Road

  Southend

  SS1 2NW

  DCC

  Community Education Service

  Area Education Office

  St. Thomas Green

  Haverfordwest

  Antur Teifi

  Midland Bank Chambers

  Newcastle Emlyn

  Dyfed

  Di-Bacc

  Old Bank Buildings

  Porth

  Mid-Glamorgan

  Dial Training

  51 Cardiff Road

  Caerphilly

  Direct Training Services

  2nd Floor

  Grosvenor House

  Anlaby Road

  Hull

  Dunstable College

  Finbar House

  Dunstable College

  21–24 Vernon Place

  Dunstable

  East Birmingham College

  Garretts Green Lane

  Birmingham 33

  424

  East Yorkshire College

  St. Mary's Walk

  Bridlington

  YO16 5JW

  East Lindsey Training Services

  Meripian House

  Eastgate

  Louth

  Lincs

  EKTA

  Victoria Road

  Margate Kent

  Emp-Tech

  18 Devon Square

  Newton Abbot

  TQ12 2HR

  EMRMC

  Management House

  Daleside Road

  Nottingham

  Families Housing and Welfare Services

  4801 Horne Road

  Catterick Garrison

  North Yorks

  DL9 4JJ

  Fernly Business Services

  The Derwent Business Centre

  Clarke Street

  Derby

  DE1 2BU

  Filton College

  Filton Avenue

  Bristol

  GMCS

  91 Brick Lane

  London

  E1 6QN

  Gordon Franks

  7 Freedom Street

  Birmingham 5

  Grand Met Trust

  Suite 4, Thrift House

  12/15 Wellington Place

  Hastings

  TN34 1NY

  Grand Met Trust

  Two Rivers Industrial Estate

  Braunton Road

  Barnstaple

  EX31 IJY

  Grand Met Trust

  Parkside Chambers

  Parkside Road

  Paignton

  TQ4 6AE

  Grand Met Trust

  681 Holloway Road

  London N19

  Grand Met Trust

  64–65 North Road

  Brighton

  BN1 1YD

  Grand Met Trust

  1st Floor

  425

  The Pithay

  Bristol

  BS1 2NQ

  Grand Met Trust

  38 Rumbridge street

  Totton

  Hants

  SO4 4DS

  Greenwich Training Co

  Ferranti Close

  Westminster Industrial estate

  Woolwich

  London SE18

  Gwynedd Local Education Authority

  County Offices

  Caernarfon

  Gwynedd

  Harrogate Training Services

  1 Prospect Crescent

  Harrogate

  HG1 1RH

  Headwey (UK) Ltd

  14–16 Carlton Road

  South 1

  Weymouth

  DT4 7PJ

  Hotel and Catering

  International House

  High Street

  Ealing

  London

  Humberside County Council

  Boothferry Adult Education

  Parkside

  Weston Road

  Goole

  Humberside Business Training

  Globe House

  Modder Street

  Ashby

  Scunthorpe

  DA16 2SH

  Incomm Business Services

  7th Floor, Albany House

  Hurst Street

  Birmingham

  Instant Muscle Ltd

  13 Market Street

  Pontypridd

  CF37 2ST

  Instant Muscle Ltd

  Carmelite House

  Posterngate

  Hull

  Intec Business Colleges

  Garmston Court

  18 St. Martin's Lane

  Lincoln

  Invicta Training

  17 Garden Road

  Tunbridge Wells

  Jasmire Ltd

  6 Trafalgar Road

  Kettering

  NN16 8DA

  426

  Jay Training Services

  Masters House

  1 Marlborough Hill

  Harrow

  Middlesex

  HA1 1TJ

  JDA

  194 Kingrosia Park

  Clydach

  Swansea

  SA6 5PF

  JEG Group Ltd

  Dennis House

  Hawley Road

  Hinckley

  Leics

  JHP Training Ltd

  Sutherland House

  Matlock Road

  Foleshill

  Coventry

  CV1 4JQ

  JHP

  2nd Floor, Sutherland House

  Matlock Road

  Foleshill

  Coventry

  CV1 4JQ

  JHP Training

  Sutherland House

  Matlock Road

  Foleshill

  Coventry

  CV1 4JQ

  JHP Training

  Estdale Centre

  Mill Street

  Slough

  SL2 5DP

  JIL Training

  The Effective Learning

  15 The Butts

  Rochdale

  OL16 1FS

  Joblink Trust

  1st Floor, Victoria Station House

  191 Victoria Street

  London

  SW1E 5NE

  Jobworld

  Suite 6

  Walker Building

  49 Whitechapel

  Liverpool

  L1 6DT

  John Christopher associates

  3 Gwynfaes

  Tanrallt

  Llanllyfni

  Gwynedd

  Johnstoane Wintrip Associates

  Glendale House

  Washington

  KADTAL

  New Devonshire House

  427

  Devonshire Street

  Keighley

  BD21 2AU

  Kennedy Scott

  1 Penn Place

  Rickmansworth

  Herts WD3

  Kennedy Scott Ltd.

  Oakwood

  Marriotts Gate

  Lutton

  Spalding

  Lincolnshire

  Key Training

  Granville Chambers

  Midland Road

  Wellingborough

  NN8 1HA

  Y Training Services

  19 Sturton Street

  Cambridge

  CB1 2QB

  LBC

  Llanelli

  Borough Training Centre

  North Dock

  Llanelli

  LCHE

  Park Square

  Luton

  LU1 3JU

  Leeds Chamber Training Services

  2nd Floor

  7 Eastgate

  Leeds

  LS2 7LY

  Lewisham African Organisation

  53 Deptford Broadway

  Deptford

  London SE8

  Lynne Bier

  60 Lyndhurst Road

  London N22

  Mantech Training Ltd

  4th Floor

  The Arbour

  87 Lord Street

  Liverpool

  L2 6PG

  Mantech Training

  The Arbour

  87 Lord Street

  Liverpool

  L2 6PG

  Merthyr College

  Ynysfach

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Michael Carter Associates

  Malt House Studio

  30 New Road

  Crickhowell

  Powys

  Microcom

  Inverclyde House

  428

  6 Orchard Avenue

  Bothwell

  G71 8NF

  Mid Kent AEC

  9 Sittingbourne Road

  Maidstone

  Kent

  Mid Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce

  Commerce House

  Wakefield Road

  Aspley

  Huddersfield

  HD5 9AA

  Mr. S. Goldman

  St. James House

  108 Hampstead Road

  London

  NW1 2LS

  MSS

  The Cottage

  Linden Road

  The Pludds

  Ruarden

  Gloucestershire

  MYCC

  New Commerce House

  168 Westgate

  Wakefield

  WF2 9FR

  NACRO

  Maesgwyn Road

  Wrexham

  Clwyd

  NACRO

  Bowden House

  210–216 Newhall Road

  Sheffield

  S9 2QL

  NACRO NCT

  Colton House

  2–4 Colton Street

  Leicester

  LE1 1QB

  Nechells Employment Resource Agency

  42 Revesby Walk

  Nechells

  Birmingham

  B7 4LG

  NNCFE

  Carlton Road

  Worksop

  Notts

  Norfolk Training Services

  Harford Centre

  Hall Road

  Norwich

  Norfolk and Waveney Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  10 Castle Meadow

  Norfolk

  NORTEC

  8 White Lion Walk

  Banbury

  OX16 8UD

  429

  North Kent AEC

  College Road

  Sittingbourne

  Kent

  North West Kent College

  Miskin Road

  Dartford

  Kent

  North West Kent AES

  Victoria Centre

  Darnley Road

  Gravesend

  North Devon College

  Old Sticklepath Hill

  Barnstable

  Devon EX31 2BQ

  North Avon Training

  Canningford House

  38 Victoria Street

  Bristol

  North Hertfordshire College

  Broadway

  Letchworth

  Herts

  NYCC

  Fresh Options

  6 Zetnad Street

  Northallerton

  OTR

  22 Queen Street

  Mansfield

  Partnership Services Ltd

  North Oxon College of Further Education

  Broughton Road

  Banbury

  OX16 9QA

  PCS Ltd

  2 Christina Street

  Swansea

  SA1 4EW

  PDC

  24–26 Barclay Road

  Croydon

  Peter Yaxley

  Tipota

  Lansmead

  Blindly Heath

  Lingfield

  Surrey

  Peterlee College

  Peterlee

  Co Durham

  POC Associates

  10–12 Fore Street

  Trowbridge

  Portals Engineering Ltd

  259 Greenstead Road

  Colchester

  Powys Adult Guidance Service

  Spa Road East

  Llandrindod Wells

  Gwynedd

  Powys Adult Guidance Service

  Powys County Hall

  Llandrindod Wells

  Powys

  430

  Prospect Training

  Prospect House

  48 Doncaster Road

  Mexborough

  Prospects

  3 The Broadway

  Lace Market

  Nottingham

  PTS

  257–259 Commercial Road

  Portsmouth

  PO1 4BP

  Quantum Business Services

  Thornton House

  Cemetery Road

  Shelton

  Stoke on Trent

  ST4 2NL

  RDA Management Services

  3 Usk View

  Glangrwyney

  Crickhowell

  Powys

  Read Enterprises

  Poppy Pastures

  10 School Lane

  Ropsley

  Grantham

  NG33 4BT

  Ridgemond Training

  Ridgemond Park

  Telford Avenue

  Stevenage

  Rite Associates

  Trebarvah Woon

  Seworgan

  Constantine

  Falmouth

  TR11 5QL

  Roger Worth Training

  Vanguard House

  90 Bank Street

  Wakefield

  WF1 1EH

  Roger Worth

  CMA House

  Castle Square

  Sheffield

  SACES

  The Oasthouse

  Kingston Road

  Staines

  Middlesex

  Scout Enterprises

  The Old Gas Works

  Dovercourt Road

  Horfield

  Bristol

  BS7 9SL

  SEETEC

  Main Road

  Hockley

  SS5 4RG

  Selby Training Centre

  St. Mary's Old School

  431

  Brook Street

  Selby

  YO8 OHD

  SFMA

  Uxbridge College

  Hayes Centre

  Central Avenue

  Hayes

  UB3 2DD

  Skills Training 2000

  1 Rosedale Terrace

  Dalling Road

  London W6

  Smith's Personnel House

  Robertstown House

  Robertstown

  Aberdare

  Solihull Training Group

  Cranmore Avenue

  Shirley

  Solihull

  B90 4LE

  Solihull College of Technology

  Blossomfield Road

  Solihull

  South West Management Ltd

  10 Beach Road

  Weston-super-Mare

  South Bristol College

  Markesbury Road

  Bedminster Bristol

  B53 5JL

  South Glamorgan County Council

  Adult Education Centre

  The Friary

  Cardiff

  Specialised Technical Services

  2–4 Broadway West

  Ennis Square

  Dormastown

  Redcar

  Strategic Consultants

  5 East Bank Road

  Sheffield

  S2 3PZ

  STS

  21 Parkway

  Burnt Oak

  Edgeware

  HA8 5EY

  Surrey Heath Adult Education Institute

  France Hill Drive

  Camberley

  Surrey

  GU15 3QA

  SWIM

  Swale Training Centre

  10 Crown Quay Lane

  Sittingbourne Kent

  Tarka Training

  1 Bridge Chambers

  The Square

  Barnstable

  EX31 1HB

  432

  TED Training Services Ltd

  91 St Ann's Road

  Tottenham

  London

  N15 6NU

  TEIFI Counselling Services

  Crib-y-Gwynt

  Verwig

  Cardigan

  The Training Factory

  Kirkdale House

  Kirkdale Road

  London

  E11 1HF

  The Course Centre

  13 Lorraine Road

  London

  N7 6EZ

  Thurrock College

  Woodview

  Grays

  RM16 4 YR

  Training Advice Centre

  47050 Nile Street

  Sunderland

  Training Network

  196 Great Cambridge Road

  Enfield

  Middlesex

  Training in Rural Areas

  Training Division

  Kilnwell Road

  Market Rasen

  Lincoln

  LN8 3BL

  Training and Management Wales

  15 Pendragon House

  Cwmbran

  Training Network

  547 Leabridge Road

  London

  E11 7RB

  Trent Valley Business College

  Trent House

  28 High Street

  Long Eaton

  Notts

  NG10 1LL

  TTS Ltd

  19a Westgate

  Huddesfield

  HD1 1NP

  TVBC

  28 High Street

  Long Eaton

  Nottingham

  Tynedale Business Centre

  14 Gilesgate

  Hexham

  NE46 3NJ

  Wandsworth Training Services

  79 Wandsworth High Street

  Wandsworth

  London

  SW18 4LQ

  433

  WEA

  Martins Gate

  Bretonside

  Plymouth

  PL4 OAT

  Westcountry Training

  Central House

  New North Road

  Exeter EX4 4HF

  WGCC

  Job Review Unit

  YMCA

  Kingsway

  Swansea

  Wiltshire Training

  Education Department

  County Hall

  Bythesea Road

  Trowbridge

  Workshop 6

  82 Countess Road

  Sheffield

  S1 4TE

  Workskills and Latymer Training

  59 Fulham High Street

  London SW6

  Workskills

  1 Holly Terrace

  Highgate West Hill

  London N6 6LX

  WTS

  79 Wandsworth High Street

  Wandsworth

  London

  SW18 4LQ

  Y Training Services

  54 Hollybush Lane

  Sevenoaks

  Kent

  TN13 3TL

  Y Training Services

  The Stables

  77 Hallgarth Street

  Durham

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the policy of the Health and Safety Executive in regard to the commissioning process for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant under condition 21(2) of the Sellafield site licence.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When granting nuclear site licences under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended) the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has the power to attach such conditions as may appear to them to be necessary or desirable in the interests of safety. The Health and Safety Executive has developed a set of standardised nuclear site licence conditions with the aim of producing consistent nuclear safety requirements which are non prescriptive and flexible. This allows a nuclear site licensee to exercise responsibility for safety and develop arrangements particular to the circumstances of the operation.

  The Health and Safety Executive has satisfied itself that British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) has made and implemented
  434
  adequate arrangements under condition 21(1) of the Sellafield site licence for the commissioning of plants or processes which may affect safety, and in particular for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant. There has been no requirement for HSE to exercise its powers under condition 21(2).

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the level of unemployment in the Bentley and Darlaston North and Darlaston South wards of Walsall for each year since 1986.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Unadjusted data on claimant unemployment levels by ward can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for over a year in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In July 1993, the latest available date, the unadjusted number of people who have been claimant unemployed for over one year stood at 1,081,165 compared to 1,356,521 in April 1986.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created in the London borough of Lewisham to date by schemes associated with the South East Thames training and enterprise council.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. The main role of training and enterprise councils is not direct job creation but the delivery of Government training programmes, business start-up and such special initiatives as individual TECs see fit.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies notified in each of the last six months in the London borough of Lewisham were(a) full time, (b) part time, (c) permanent and (d) temporary.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 November 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the number and type of vacancies notified to the Employment Service in the London Borough of Lewisham in each of the last six months. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  As we do not record statistical information on a Borough basis, I have produced a "best fit" by using figures from four of my offices within Lewisham namely, Catford, Deptford, Forest Hill and Lewisham. The information is shown in the attached table.
  The table shows that total number of vacancies notified to Jobcentres in each of the last six months. We only provide an indept breakdown of the figures on a quarterly basis.
  I hope this is helpful.

  435
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Vacancies notified to employment service offices in Catford, Deptford, Forest Hill and Lewisham

  Month

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Notified vacancies

  —

  1,507

  150

  1,627

  30

  April

  536

  —

  —

  —

  —

  May

  627

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June

  494

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,705

  178

  1,820

  63

  July

  626

  —

  —

  —

  —

  August

  613

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September

  644

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shipping Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed in the shipping industry in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of employees in employment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry in the United Kingdom is shown in the following table:

  Employees in employment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry: United Kingdom

  Numbers

  September 1981

  127,000

  September 1984

  93,000

  September 1987

  62,000

  September 1989

  54,000

  September 1991

  49,000

  Employee estimates at detailed industry level for the United Kingdom are available only from the census of employment.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce specific legislation to end age discrimination in employment recruitment; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are well aware that some employers discriminate on age grounds. This is wasteful and short-sighted. However, legislation does not offer a satisfactory solution. If this country is to prosper employers must, as far as possible, be free to manage their own affairs. Legislation to regulate their behaviour can only be appropriate, therefore, if:(a) it would solve a problem, and (b) it is the only solution. Experience from abroad confirms that legislation against age discrimination meets neither of these criteria.

  The right approach is to persuade employers of the benefits of treating people on merit, regardless of age. Through the work of our advisory group on older workers this is just what we are doing. The recent launch of "Getting On", offering employers a five-point plan to avoid agism, demonstrates our commitment to promoting the interests of older people at work.

  Community Action Schemes
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many community action schemes have been approved by his Department for each county area in Wales; and how many extra jobs have been created by each scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Gareth Wardell, dated 4 November 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the number of Community Action schemes which have been approved for each county area in Wales and the number of extra jobs created by each scheme. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unfortunately, I am unable to provide the information you have requested on Community Action for eachWelsh County Area as statistics of this nature are collected through my four Area Offices in Wales. The attached table shows the number of contracts which have been awarded to providing organisations and the number of Community Action places these contracts will create.
  Community Action is a new programme of help for people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. It enables them to gain recent work experience by working on projects of benefit to local communities. An important feature of the programme is structured help in looking for work.
  Community Action is not employment but work experience, and the programme will be carefully monitored to ensure that job substitution does not take place. I am confident that the help offered through Community Action will significantly increase participants' chances of finding paid employment.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Community Action Wales

  Area

  Number of contracts

  Places

  Mid South

  5

  259

  North Wales

  8

  197

  South East

  8

  242

  South West

  7

  240

  TOTAL

  938

  Workstart Pilot Schemes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to expand the workstart pilot schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We will evaluate the performance of the existing workstart pilots before deciding whether to extend them.

  Miniing Safety
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many violations of the dust regulations are known or suspected to have occurred in British mines in each of the last three years and so far in 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  According to the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate of mines, violations of the Respirable Dust Regulations 1975 have occurred at three British mines, one in financial year 1991–92 and two in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of consistency between independent sampling of dust in British mines and the official monitoring carried out by British Coal; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Respirable Dust Regulations 1975 require mine owners to put in place arrangements to collect and analyse dust samples. The regulations do not require independent sampling of dust to take place in British mines, but British Coal has voluntarily put in place an additional procedure to check on its own statutory dust sampling arrangements, to evaluate the continuing effectiveness of its systems. Some results of such check sampling have been higher than those taken under routine sampling and therefore, in addition to the action that British Coal is taking to establish the reasons for the variation in sample checks, the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate of mines will be carrying out a full investigation of the procedures for statutory and check samples.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the action taken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines in regard to dust sampling in British mines and by granting exemption for working under unsupported roofs and the use of roof bolts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) inspectorate of mines are responsible for the enforcement of the statutory health and safety regulations which apply in British mines. They have advised me that the prevalence of pneumoconiosis in British coal mines has dropped progressively throughout the last 30 years, and they are satisfied that the Respirable Dust Regulations have been appropriately applied and wish to see the continuance of the downward trend in this disease. The HSE's inspectorate of mines will continue to work with mine owners to ensure compliance with the regulations.

  I understand that no exemptions have been issued which allow men to work under unsupported ground. HSE's inspectorate of mines advise me that a district inspector of mines will grant an exemption for the use of rockbolts only
  438
  after thorough scrutiny of the proposed system by an inspector of mines, and only if he is satisfied that the health and safety of the work force will not be jeopardised.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action was taken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines in regard to the under-reporting of dust counts in British mines which was referred to the inspectorate earlier this year; and when the inspectorate was first aware of the under-reporting.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Dust levels are not routinely notified to the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate of mines unless they are in excess of the statutory limits. Managers have to record the results of statutory sampling and these are examined by the inspectorate. I understand that the inspectorate first became aware of differences between statutory samples and British Coal's check samples in August. The Chief Inspector of Mines has advised me that these differences are being investigated.

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total establishment of the railway inspectorate part of the Health and Safety Executive; and how many staff are in post.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total establishment of the railway inspectorate is 75. There are 69 staff in post; including one seconded to another division in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the staff of the railway inspectorate part of the Health and Safety Executive are deployed on work related to(a) the channel tunnel and (b) overseas projects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Four staff are involved in channel tunnel work. The inspectorate is involved only intermittently in overseas projects. When required, three inspectors undertake this work.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total establishment of the railway inspectorate part of the Health and Safety Executive deployed on safety on Network SouthEast, London Underground and the docklands light railway; and how many are in post.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is difficult to reply precisely to the question since a number of the inspectors involved in the operational and staff safety of these railways have similar responsibilities for other railway businesses.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a forecast of expenditure on youth training and training for work in 1993–194; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am not able to give forecasts of programme expenditure in year. Planned expenditure by training and enterprise councils (TECs) on youth training (YT) and youth credits in England this year is £704 million. At the end of September £269 million had been spent by TECs which was £69 million less than the anticipated level at that stage of the year.
  439
  I expect the rate of spend on YT and youth credits to increase towards the end of the year, although expenditure has been affected by larger numbers of young people staying on at school and college than had been anticipated.

  The Government's guarantee of a place on YT stands. At 14 October only 3,322 young people had been waiting for a place for more than eight weeks. This compares with a figure of over 27,000 a year ago.

  Planned expenditure on training for work in England this year is £782 million. At the end of September, £313 million had been spent which was £32 million less than the anticipated level.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Feed
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to accept requests from hon. Members to the Central Office of Information to pay for and receive the same live feed from the Chamber as the Central Office of Information provides for Government Departments.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The authority for providing live feed from the Chamber rests with the Select Committee on Broadcasting and is not at the discretion of the Central Office of Information, which acts as agent on behalf of the Select Committee.

SCOTLAND

  Greenwich Mean Time
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 682, in estimated deaths and injuries arising from the use of Greenwich mean time, what is the population (i) in and (ii) not in the northern half of the United Kingdom; if he will estimate the actual number (i) overall and (ii) not in the northern half who may not be killed or injured; and what steps his Department has taken to reconcile their estimates with those of the Policy Studies Institute.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated population of Scotland in mid-1991 was 5,107,000 and for the northern half of the country, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member on 27 October at column 682, the corresponding figure is 1,806,000. That answer also indicated that road accident casualty savings for all Scotland from the adoption of central European time might amount to just over 1 per cent. This represents a possible saving of between 260 and 310 casualties based on 1992 figures. These recent estimates of casualty changes arising from adoption of CET are not sufficiently robust as to permit a separate estimate for the northern half of Scotland but the Transport Research Laboratory Report No. 228 indicated an increase in fatal and serious casualties and a decrease in all casualties in the northern half of Scotland during the winter of 1968–70 when British summer time was retained experimentally. Discussions have already taken place between the Scottish Office, the Transport Research Laboratory and the Policy Studies Institute on
  440
  possible methods of estimating casualty changes from CET. Further work is being undertaken to provide more comprehensive estimates for Scotland but is not yet complete. The results so far obtained are being provided to the Transport Research Laboratory and the Policy Studies Institute to allow them to comment.

  Beef Premium Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on the practical difficulties involved in the operation of the beef special premium scheme at auction marts.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend and I have received correspondence from hon. Members, the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland, individual auction marts and a number of farmers.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to review the practical difficulties being encountered in the operation of the beef special premium scheme at auction marts;

  (2) if he will set up an inquiry into the additional administration involved in the operation in the beef special premium scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I am well aware of the burdens the new arrangements for the beef special premium scheme impose on the industry. The United Kingdom, however, had no choice but to implement the scheme according to the EC regulations in order that the beef sector in this country could benefit from the increased rates and coverage of the premium. The Government have no plans to set up an inquiry, but we are pressing the European Commission to look at the future operation of the scheme with a view to its simplification.

  Health Boards
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the contracts for hospital and health services awarded so far under the competitive tendering process by Argyll and Clyde health board including the successful tenderer and the value of the contract;

  (2) if he will list the contracts for hospital and health services awarded so far under the competitive tendering process by Ayrshire and Arran health board including the successful tenderer and the value of the contract;

  (3) if he will list the contracts for hospital and health services awarded so far under the competitive tendering process by Highland health board including the successful tenderer and the value of the contract;

  (4) if he will list the contracts for hospital and health services awarded so far under the competitive tendering process by Greater Glasgow health board including the successful tenderer and the value of the contract;

  (5) if he will list the contracts for hospital and health services awarded so far under the competitive tendering process by Grampian health board including the successful tenderer and the value of the contract.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information in the table is in respect of contracts awarded between 1988 and 31 October 1993.
  441

  Service type and hospital

  Contractor

  Tender value £'000s

  ARYLL AND CLYDE HEALTH BOARD

  Catering

  Dumbarton Group

  In-house

  580

  Argyll and Bute, Mid Argyll, Lochgilphead

  In-house

  308

  Domestic

  Rankin Maternity/Inverclyde

  In-house

  143

  Dumbarton Hospitals and Community

  In-house

  748

  Renfrew Community

  In-house

  172

  Hotel

  Merchiston, Edlerslie and Johnstone

  In-house

  526

  Oban

  In-house

  423

  Ravenscraig

  In-house

  495

  Dykebar, Hawkhead, Barshaw, Gilmour, Westward, Paisley

  In-house

  1,383

  Lochgilphead

  In-house

  440

  Royal Alexandra

  Mediguard

  1,627

  Inverclyde Royal

  In-house

  1,000

  Inverclyde Community

  In-house

  121

  Dunoon General

  In-house

  283

  Portering

  Dumbarton and Helensburgh

  In-house

  189

  Inverclyde Royal

  In-house

  384

  Royal Alexandra

  In-house

  482

  Transport

  Argyll and Dumbarton

  In-house

  138

  Renfrew and Inverclyde

  In-house

  227

  Painterwork

  Dumbarton

  John Miller & Son

  34

  Argyll

  In-house

  48

  Dumbarton

  John Miller & Son

  —

  Argyll

  Capital Decorator

  —

  Renfrew Acute Unit

  In-house

  46

  Renfrew Acute Unit

  John Miller & Son

  —

  Renfrew Priority

  In-house

  84

  Renfrew Priority

  John Miller & Son

  —

  Inverclyde, Cowal and Bute

  Trident Maintenance Services

  49

  Inverclyde, Cowal and Bute

  Capital Decorator

  —

  Ground Maintenance

  Rothesay, Dunoon, Inverclyde

  In-house

  106

  Renfrew Acute Unit

  In-house

  44

  Renfrew Priority Unit

  In-house

  84

  AYRSHIRE AND ARRAN

  Catering

  Crosshouse

  In-house

  779

  Ayrshire Central

  In-house

  516

  Domestic

  Crosshouse

  In-house

  765

  Ayrshire Central

  In-house

  401

  Hotel

  North Clinics and Health Centres

  In-house

  55

  Kirklandside

  In-house

  401

  Ballochmyle/Holmhead

  In-house

  1,142

  Ailsa

  In-house

  1,399

  Ayrshire Central/Ravenspark

  In-house

  947

  Biggart/Thornyflat

  In-house

  537

  Davidson Cottage

  In-house

  100

  Crosshouse

  In-house

  692

  South Clinics and Health Centres

  In-house

  43

  Painterwork

  All Board

  Moss Painting

  195

  Baxter & Gillespie

  56

  Baxter & Gillespie

  28

  Vehicle Maintenance

  All Board

  In-house

  121

  442 443

  Service type and hospital

  Contractor

  Tender value £'000s

  Laundry

  All Board

  In-house

  945

  HIGHLAND

  Catering

  Mental Health Unit

  In-house

  486

  Raigmore/Royal Northern

  In-house

  639

  Domestic

  Royal Northern

  In-house

  75

  Mental Health Unit

  In-house

  483

  Inverness Clinic

  In-house

  32

  Hotel

  Caithness Unit

  In-house

  387

  Sutherland Unit

  In-house

  204

  Southern Unit

  In-house

  1,109

  Laundry

  Northern Unit

  John O'Groat

  42

  GREATER GLASGOW

  Catering

  Gartnavel Royal/General

  In-house

  1,376

  Parkside/Duke Street

  In-house

  326

  Glasgow Royal

  Sodexho

  1,552

  RHSC Yorkhill/Queen Mother's

  In-house

  468

  Canniesburn/Drumchapel

  In-house

  449

  Southern General/Darnley

  In-house

  1,303

  Leverndale/Cowglen

  In-house

  775

  Ruchill/Birdston/Broomhill/Lenzie

  In-house

  654

  Stobhill

  In-house

  1,204

  Glasgow Royal/Rutherglen Maternity

  In-house

  309

  Woodilee/Stoneyetts

  In-house

  419

  Victoria/Royal Samaritan

  In-house

  841

  Knightswood

  In-house

  331

  Gartloch

  In-house

  448

  Mearnskirk/Philipshill

  In-house

  424

  Belvidere/Lightburn

  In-house

  429

  Western Infirmary

  In-house

  746

  Domestic

  Stobhill

  Hospital Hygiene

  820

  Victoria Group

  Hospital Hygiene

  592

  Gartloch/Parkhead

  In-house

  460

  Belvidere/Duke Street/Lightburn

  In-house

  432

  Gartnavel Royal

  Sunlight

  360

  Royal Maternity and Rutherglen Maternity

  Initial

  266

  Mearnskirk/Philipshill

  In-house

  291

  Western Infirmary

  In-house

  548

  Gartnavel General

  Initial

  312

  Canniesburn/Drumchapel

  Initial

  249

  Woodilee/Stoneyetts

  Initial

  332

  Royal Infirmary

  Hospital Hygiene

  954

  Gartnavel General

  Initial

  315

  Ruchill/Birston/Broomhill/Lenzie

  In-house

  416

  Knightswood/Blanarthill/Duntocher

  In-house

  190

  Southern General/Cowglen/Darnley

  In-house

  857

  RHSC Yorkhill/Queen Mother's

  In-house

  426

  Leverndale

  In-house

  502

  Community

  South Sector

  Olscot Ltd.

  96

  North East Sector

  Olscot Ltd.

  86

  North West Sector

  Olscot Ltd.

  95

  Hotel

  Lennoxcastle/Waverley Park

  In-house

  1,598

  Portering

  Glasgow Royal

  Mediguard

  511

  Western Infirmary

  In-house

  477

  Mearnskirk/Philipshill

  In-house

  140

  Southern General

  Sunlight

  708

  Knightswood

  In-house

  89

  Gartnavel Royal

  Hospital Hygiene

  164

  Leverndale

  Mediguard

  175

  444 445

  Service type and hospital

  Contractor

  Tender value £'000s

  Stobhill

  Hospital Hygiene

  527

  RHSC Queen Mother's

  Sunlight

  258

  Woodilee/Stoneyetts

  In-house

  150

  Royal Maternity/Rutherglen Maternity

  Hospital Hygiene

  185

  Ruchill

  Sunlight

  253

  Canniesbum/Drumchapel

  In-house

  307

  Belvidere, Duke Street/Lightburn

  Sunlight

  378

  Victoria Group

  In-house

  339

  Community Care Unit

  In-house

  237

  Gartloch/Parkhead

  In-house

  209

  Painterwork

  Community Primary Care Unit

  Hat Painting Ltd.

  60

  Yorkhill Hospitals

  MacLean & Speirs

  39

  Mental Health Unit

  Hat Painting Ltd.

  304

  Royal Infirmary Unit

  MacLean & Speirs

  111

  Care of the Elderly Unit

  Fitzroy Building

  63

  Stobhill

  Hat Painting Ltd.

  150

  Southern General

  MacLean & Speirs

  91

  Ground Maintenance

  Royal Infirmary

  CBC Lands Division

  29

  Stobhill

  P & D Services

  70

  Community Primary Care

  OCS Cleanmaster

  39

  Western Infirmary/Yorkhill

  In-house

  29

  Victoria Infirmary

  CBC Lands Division

  34

  Southern General

  CBC Lands Division

  57

  Mental Health Unit

  In-house

  201

  Care of the Elderly

  CBC Lands Division

  57

  Boiler Maintenance

  All Board

  In-house

  1,428

  Laundry and Linen

  Southern General

  In-house

  1,269

  Knightswood

  In-house

  1,568

  Ruchill

  In-house

  1,701

  GRAMPIAN

  Catering

  Geriatric and Specialist Services Unit

  In-house

  879

  Mental Health Unit

  In-house

  940

  West Unit

  In-house

  541

  Community Unit

  In-house

  564

  Domestic

  Geriatric and Specialist Services Unit

  Mediguard

  805

  Mental Health Unit

  Mediguard

  885

  West Unit

  In-house

  468

  Community Unit

  Mediguard

  473

  Hotel

  Foresterhill

  In-house

  3,475

  Community Health Services

  In-house

  2,253

  West Unit

  In-house

  123

  Portering

  Mental Health Unit

  In-house

  146

  Transport

  All Board

  In-house

  396

  Painterwork

  Foresterhill

  In-house

  742

  Ground Maintenance

  West Unit

  In-house

  28

  Foresterhill

  In-house

  129

  Management of Care

  City Hospital/Geriatric Unit

  CHS Tender

  2,356

  446

  Nursery Education
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision of nursery education in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have no plans to impose a statutory duty on education authorities to provide nursery education. In our view local authorities are best able to decide the most appropriate level of nursery school provision in their areas, taking into account local needs and circumstances. The Government provide local authorities with resources to fund education through the aggregate external finance settlement. Under these arrangements, local authorities have the opportunity to increase nursery education spending where they view this as a priority.

  Rannoch Moor
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the outcome of his action relating to the denial of public access to part of the public footpath across Rannoch moor referred to in his letter to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 30 June.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In Scotland the duty to assert, protect and keep open any public rights of way lies with regional and district planning authorities, in this case Highland regional council. I understand that the regional council is seeking to reach agreement with the landowner over the creation of an alternative route to the existing right of way. When such an agreement is reached, the regional council will require to make a public path diversion order, in terms of section 35 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Until such an order is made by the local authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State, an existing public right of way will continue to exist.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department holds a register from which appointments are made to non-departmental public bodies in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. The Scottish Office public appointments list is one source of names for appointments to non-departmental public bodies.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers in Scotland are currently eligible for ewe annual premium payments; how many claims for payment have been received; how many have been paid; and when those outstanding claims will be paid.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have no figures regarding the number of sheep farmers who are eligible to apply. Some 17,000 claims have been received under the 1993 scheme and about 11,500 have been paid the first and second advances, together with the less favoured area supplement where appropriate. Outstanding eligible claims will be paid as soon as possible.

  Lobster Creels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the damage done to lobster creels by seals.
  448
  Sir Hector Monro
  While I am aware of reports from Scottish fishermen that seals have damaged their creels, my scientists at the marine laboratory in Aberdeen have not investigated them in view of the practical difficulties of obtaining firm evidence of how the damage was caused.

  Libraries
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public libraries in Scotland are open for 60 hours a week or more.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office does not collect this information. However, according to the Library Statistics 1993 published by the library and information statistics unit at Loughborough university of technology, 36 public libraries in Scotland were open for 60 hours a week or more in the year 1991–92.

  Estuarial Crossings
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which estuarial crossings have received central Government assistance in the form of grant, loan or debt write-off or suspension; and how much assistance has been given, and in what form, in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The majority of estuarial crossings in Scotland have been financed directly by central government as elements of the trunk road programme, including the tolled road bridge at Erskine. The Forth road bridge, which opened in 1964, attracted a grant from central government of £4.65 million towards initial capital expenditure and a loan of £14.5 million on which interest payments of some £1.66 million were waived during construction; and additional £7.1 million of unpaid interest between 1964 and 1984 was capitalised and added to the loan. It is expected that the full outstanding debt will be repaid by May 1995. The Tay road bridge, which opened in 1966, received loans from central government totalling £3.97 million; the sum of these loans outstanding in May 1993 was £3.36 million.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which estuarial crossings are the responsibility of(a) central Government, (b) local authorities and (c) private owners; and which of these are (i) subject to tolls and (ii) not subject to tolls.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The majority of estuarial crossings in Scotland are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland as part of the trunk road network, and are not subject to tolls. Tolls are charged on the Erskine, Forth and Tay road bridges where the responsible authorities are as follows:

  Erskine road bridge—Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Forth road bridge—Forth road bridge joint board (Fife and Lothian regional councils).

  Tay road bridge—Tay road bridge joint board (Fife and Tayside regional councils).

  Arable Crops
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which EC countries have overshot the regional base areas for arable crops; and what action they have taken regarding this matter.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Comprehensive statistics on claims made in other EC member states under the arable payments
  449
  scheme as part of the integrated administration and control system have not yet been made available by the EC Commission.

  A1 (Speed Cameras)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of speed cameras on the A1 road; and at what vehicle speeds the cameras are triggered on(a) single and (b) dual carriageway sections.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since the introduction of speed detection cameras on the A1 on 30 August this year initial monitoring of traffic flows indicates a very encouraging trend. The number of cars exceeding the speed limit has been approximately halved while the number of HGVs exceeding speed limits has dropped by one third.

  The police are responsible for the setting of speed detection cameras and their day to day operation. It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose the threshold speed above which photographs of offending vehicles are taken. Furthermore, these thresholds can be varied at short notice.

  Farming Census Forms
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of farmers, who(a) received and (b) returned the 4 June statistical census forms in (i) 1989, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1991.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The June agricultural census relates to main holdings only. The number of forms issued and received was:

  Year

  Issued

  Received

  1989

  26,760

  24,803

  1990

  27,166

  25,003

  1991

  30,902

  28,652

  Note: In addition to the June census, an annual minor holdings sample survey is conducted in May. The classification of holdings into main or minor is regularly reviewed.

  Housing Association Tenants Ombudsman
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers will be afforded the Housing Association Tenants Ombudsman for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The main role of the independent Housing Association Tenants Ombudsman for Scotland, to be appointed by Scottish Homes with effect from 1 December, will be to investigatge complaints from individual tenants covering allegations of maladministration in all registered housing associations in Scotland. The appointment will be non-statutory, and the Ombudsman himself will have no specific powers, but findings in favour of tenants can be followed up by Scottish Homes under its existing powers of supervision. The non-statutory basis of the appointment will be kept under review.

  Hospital Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many hospitals in Scotland have their own waste incinerators;
  450
  (2) what plans he has to allow NHS hospitals to incinerate commercial waste;

  (3) whether NHS trust hospitals which have incinerators will be allowed to burn commercial waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the signed letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Travellers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the definition of travelling people used for the purposes of the guidance given to local authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 October 1993]: Section 13 of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 defines travellers as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin".

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total amount awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the past five years; what was(a) the average award concerning violent criminal acts against the person and (b) the average award to victims of rape;

  (2) how many cases were judged by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the past five years; and what was the average waiting time for the completion of an application.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answers 1 November 1993]: The latest available information is summarised in the table. This is taken from the published annual reports of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. The board does not collate details of the average time taken to complete claims, but percentages of cases resolved within various periods of time are given in the board's annual reports. All awards made by the board are in respect of crimes of violence, but information about the average award made to victims of rape is not recorded centrally.

  Financial year

  Cases resolved

  Compensation paid (£ million)

  Average award (£)

  1987–88

  29,153

  52·043

  2,479

  1988–89

  38,830

  69·381

  2,500

  1989–90

  38,620

  72·722

  2,604

  451

  Financial year

  Cases resolved

  Compensation paid (£ million)

  Average award (£)

  1990–91

  53,384

  109·330

  3,107

  1991–92

  60,113

  143·660

  3,660

  Ambulance Staff
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of ambulance staff employed by the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992, expressed as a whole-time equivalent.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 25 October at column 482.

  Victim Support
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of funding for victim support in the current financial year; what plans he has to increase the sum in future financial years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: Scottish Office funding to the Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes has risen from £600 in 1984–85 to £764,000 for the current financial year.

  Decisions have not yet been made regarding funding for 1994–95 of future years.

  These will be taken in the light of competing priorities but in line with the Government's continuing policy to improve services to victims of crime.

HEALTH

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken into the causes, treatment and cure for bulimia and anorexia nervosa.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology, is currently supporting a research project into eating disorders by the department of clinical pharmacology at Oxford university. In addition, the MRC recently funded a controlled trial of psychological treatment of adolescent anorexia nervosa, based at the Institute of Psychiatry, London, and a study of the outcome of bulimia nervosa, at the university of Oxford. The MRC is also supporting a considerable amount of basic research which may have some relevance to bulimia and anorexia nervosa, and the council is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals for research in competition with other applications. No information is held centrally on other relevant work which the universities' medical schools or medical research charities may be supporting.

  Drug Withdrawals
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of licensed drugs which have been found to be harmful to human health and subsequently withdrawn from the market in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This subject has been reviewed in the literature by Spriet-Poulla and Auriche in a book called Drug Safety published in 1988 by PJB publications. Copies of the relevant information will be placed in the Library. This covers the period from 1961 to 1987. Since that time the principal drugs withdrawn in the United Kingdom on safety grounds have been as follows:

  L-tryptophan (Optimax, Pacitron)

  Metipranolol (Glauline)

  Prostaglandin E2 pessary (Propess)

  Terodiline (Micturin)

  Triazolam (Halcion)

  Temafloxacin (Teflox)

  Human monoclonal anibody (Centoxin)

  Flosequinan (Manoplax)

  Primary Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what geographical inequalities she has identified in primary care expenditure in England; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about the pattern of family health services authority expenditure on primary care services is published annually in Health Service Indicators, copies of which are available in the Library. The same volume also includes some data on the community health services. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 1 November at column 60.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what planning the NHS Management Executive has undertaken in light of the proposed increase in VAT on fuel.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave her on 2 November and 3 November.

  Tobacco-related Illnesses
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost of treating tobacco-related illness.

  Mr. Sackville
  Treatment costs to the national health service are estimated to be £437 million annually. This figure is for hospital costs only and does not include the costs of the care given by general practitioners or at health clinics or other care in the community.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost of working days lost through tobacco-related illness.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 26 January at column 697.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 October,Official Report, columns 494–95, whether a general practitioner's fund-holding practice is permitted to pool part of its budget with (a) other fund-holding practices or (b) the local district health authority to enable one-off or extra-contractual referrals to be purchased in such a way as to ensure equity of treatment for patients of fund-holding and non fund-holding general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fund holders and district health authorities are funded in as similar a way as possible, allowing for different population sizes. They do not therefore need to pool their budgets. But both fund holders and districts should be working to achieve the highest quality of care for their patients and can jointly agree common standards in contracts for hospital treatment.

  Geriatric Patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many geriatric patients were admitted to hospital as a result of iatrogenic disease in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the available evidence about the medical background to repetitive strain injury.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no medical consensus on whether repetitive strain injury is a single syndrome or a collection of differing conditions; nor is there general agreement on its cause or treatment.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical research has been conducted by her Department into repetitive strain injury.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I understand that the MRC is not currently supporting any research specifically into repetitive strain injury (RSI), but is always willing to consider scientifically based sound proposals for research. The prospects for funding of research into RSI will, therefore, depend on the nature of any applications received.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the statistics for each year from 1987 relating to the number of people who having been detained in a mental institution for any period longer than a week since 1980, either(a) took their own lives or (b) were subsequently convicted of murder or manslaughter.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Heart Pacemakers
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines were given to hospitals in recalling patients fitted with pacemaker models 1010T, 1050T and Prototype 93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The guidelines given to hospitals in recalling patients fitted with pacemaker lead models 1010T, 1050T and the Prototype T93, were set out in the Department of Health's Pacemaker Technical Note No. 48, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients in(a) Lewisham, (b) London and (c) nationwide have had pacemaker models 1010T, 1050T and Prototype 93 removed and replaced;

  (2) how many patients in (a) Lewisham, (b) London and (c) nationwide were fitted with pacemaker models 1010T, 1050T and Prototype 93.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 4,429 pacemaker leads of models 1010T, 1050T and Prototype T93 have been fitted in the United Kingdom and 235 replaced. Individual patient information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Siemens, the manufacturers of pacemakers 1010T, 1050T and Prototype 93, warned her Department that these models had faults.

  Mr. Sackville
  On 22 January 1993.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in(a) Lewisham, (b) London and (c) nationwide have died since being fitted with pacemaker models 1010T, 1050T and Prototype 93; and what has been the cause of death in each case.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 314 patients nationwide have died since being fitted with pacemaker lead models 1010T, 1050T and Prototype T93. The cause of death in less than I per cent. of these patients has been identified as being related to the pacemaker lead. The residue were due to a variety of pacemaker-unrelated causes. Individual patient information is not held centrally.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the banning of tobacco and cigarette advertisements.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government believe that the imposition of a ban on all forms of advertising of a product which it is legal to sell would be a major change of principle which would need to be justified in terms of the likely size of any effect. The Government remain to be convinced that sufficient evidence is presently available to provide such justification, although it is considering the responses received to the Department of Health report on the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption.

  Child Migrant Trust
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on what she found out about the work of the Child Migrant Trust during her visit to Sydney in September.
  455
  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 October at columns 501–2.

  Bogus Marriages
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) of 28 April,Official Report, columns 448–49, on marriages for immigration purposes, how many of the cases in the London borough of Lewisham which were reported to the Registrar General were passed on to the Home Office; and how many of those complaints were proven.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Registrar General passed on to the Home Office 27 of the cases reported to him in the London borough of Lewisham.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has provided the following information about the 27 cases passed to his office:
  11 cases: No further action taken immediately.
  14 cases: Information referred to case working groups to be taken into account in the consideration of outstanding applications for further leave to remain.
  2 cases: Referred for immediate enforcement action; one case involved the subject of a deportation order and the other an illegal entrant.

  Working Days Lost
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of working days lost through sickness, ill health and injury in 1992–93 and the estimated total cost of that absence from work.

  Mr. Sackville
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of working days lost through problems of mental health in 1992–93 and the estimated total cost of that absence from work.

  Mr. Bowis
  I understand that there were some 105,849,000 days of certified incapacity for sickness/invalidity benefit caused by mental disorders in the period 1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992; the latest year for which statistics are available.

  No estimate has been made of the total public expenditure or the costs to employers associated with this absence.

  Neo-natal Intensive Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to respond to the report of the clinical standards advisory group on neo-natal intensive care.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health, on behalf of the United Kingdom Health Departments, published the Government's response to the reports of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group on Access to and Availability of Specialist Services, including Neonatal Intensive Care, on 6 July. Copies of the response and of the reports are available in the Library.

  Lister Hospital, Stevenage
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she has taken to guarantee that the privatisation of pathology services at Lister hospital in Stevenage has no detrimental impact upon the availability of those services to local patients;
  456
  (2) what representations she has received regarding the privatisation of pathology services at the Lister hospital in Stevenage.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received several letters about the decision announced by the North Herts Trust that its pathology services will be provided by the independent sector. It is for trusts to assess and make decisions on the nature of their pathology provision to meet the requirements of their purchasers. We understand that the North Herts Trust expects the new arrangement to improve services for its patients.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from hypothermia took place in each region in 1992 among(a) men aged 65 years and over and (b) women aged 60 years and over.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Numbers of deaths with mention of hypothermia on the death certificate for men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over by regional health authority of usual residence for 1992

  Regional health authority

  Men aged 65 years and over

  Women aged 60 years and over

  Northern

  6

  16

  Yorkshire

  7

  19

  Trent

  14

  15

  East Anglian

  8

  12

  North West Thames

  11

  12

  North East Thames

  13

  22

  South East Thames

  11

  9

  South West Thames

  9

  15

  Wessex

  5

  13

  Oxford

  5

  6

  South Western

  9

  19

  West Midlands

  18

  20

  Mersey

  3

  9

  North Western

  11

  15

  Wales

  8

  11

  Child Protection
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how local authorities should fund the work of area child protection committees.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities should allocate funds to Area Child Protection Committees in accordance with the guidance contained in "Working Together under the Children Act 1989". Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if young people accommodated under section 20(3) of the Children Act 1989 are entitled to housing benefit.

  Mr. Bowis
  Matters relating to entitlement to housing benefit are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance to advise local authorities as to the membership of area child protection committees following the changes to the health service.

  Mr. Bowis
  "Working Together under the Children Act 1989", the Government guide to arrangements for
  457
  inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse, gives guidance on area child protection committees including membership.

  Copies of the guide are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to monitor the effect of changes to the health service and education on inter-agency working in child protection.

  Mr. Bowis
  A multi-disciplinary group in the Department of Health has undertaken a study in a representative sample of district health authorities in England to examine the way in which child protection services are being contracted and provided in the light of the national health service reforms. The Department will consider the findings of this study and those of various research studies which will provide information on inter-agency working in child protection.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent evidence she has(a) commissioned and (b) received on the causes of salmonella food poisoning.

  Mr. Sackville
  A number of research/surveillance projects have been commissioned which will aid surveillance and throw further light on the sources of human salmonella infection. The largest is a study of infectious intestinal disease in England being carried out on behalf of the steering group on the microbiological safety of food which will provide more information on the sources and true incidence of salmonella infection. Initial results from the study are expected in 1994–95. Other steering group surveillance studies across the food chain specifically look for salmonella, with a view to identifying where contamination occurs and can be controlled.

  The advisory committee on the microbiological safety of food (ACMSF) has assessed the contribution made by eggs to human foodborne salmonellosis. The ACMSF report on salmonella in eggs was published on 9 February 1993: copies will be placed in the Library. The ACMSF is currently reviewing hygiene practices in the poultrymeat industry. Such a review will include an assessment of the possible links between poultrymeat and human foodborne disease. The ACMSF expects to report to the United Kingdom Health and Agriculture Ministers in mid-1994.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what health evidence recommendations for the storage and handling of eggs are based; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) on what specific evidence it was concluded in cases of salmonella food poisoning where foods containing eggs were found to be the source that the source of salmonella in the food was eggs rather than any other potential source; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The role of eggs in human salmonellosis was considered in depth by the advisory committee on the microbiological safety of food, whose report "Salmonella in Eggs" was published on 9 February 1993, and included recommendations about the storage and handling of eggs. Copies of the report and the Government's response which endorsed these recommendations are available in the Library.
  458
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what specific evidence the Chief Medical Officer bases the health warnings given on eggs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The then Chief Medical Officer issued advice, 88/285, to the public on the safe handling of eggs on 26 August 1988.

  This advice was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food in their report "Salmonella in Eggs", published on 9 February 1993.

  Copies of the advice and report will be placed in the Library.

  Intensive Care, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many recent cases in Greater Manchester people with life-threatening conditions and in need of intensive care have been referred to hospitals outside the conurbation; to which hospitals they were referred; what assessment she has made as to the adequacy of intensive care provision in the conurbation for the coming winter months; what actions she will be taking; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware of four such cases. Three were referred to Blackpool Victoria hospital, the other to Burnley general hospital.

  Purchasers of health care are responsible for ensuring the availability of a comprehensive range of services, within available resources. It is for them to decide, in discussion with providers, how best to meet the need for intensive care facilities.

  The Government are currently funding a study by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, in consultation with the Intensive Care Society and other royal colleges, into access to intensive care.

  Intensive Care (Children)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the Government's survey on children's intensive care, drawn up by the British Paediatric Association.

  Mr. Bowis
  Publication of the report is a matter for the British Paediatric Association, which carried out the survey.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases infants in need of intensive care have been referred to intensive care units for adults; what steps she is taking to ensure more availability of paediatric intensive care facilities; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of(a) administrative and clerical staff, (b) managerial staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff employed in each region in 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  459

  Nurses and midwives (excluding agency), general/senior managers and administrative and clerical staff by region in England at 30 September 1992 in whole time equivalents

  Region

  Nurses and midwives

  General/senior managers

  Admin and clerical

  Northern

  25,120

  710

  7,590

  Yorkshire

  27,560

  1,350

  9,020

  Trent

  35,790

  1,040

  10,900

  East Anglian

  15,390

  650

  4,290

  North West Thames

  24,770

  940

  9,500

  North East Thames

  31,250

  1,560

  10,370

  South East Thames

  28,570

  1,090

  9,880

  South West Thames

  22,380

  520

  7,470

  Wessex

  22,170

  970

  6,540

  Oxford

  16,370

  760

  5,910

  South Western

  26,160

  840

  8,360

  West Midlands

  41,320

  1,730

  13,010

  Mersey

  19,390

  860

  6,240

  North Western

  35,290

  1,250

  11,200

  SHAs

  7,210

  460

  2,600

  Others

  50

  1,940

  12,120

  England

  378,790

  16,690

  134,990

  Source: Department of Health form KM49.

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Notes:

  1. The figures for all regions include those in National Health Service trusts.

  2. "Others" include the London Ambulance Service, family health service authorities and other statutory authorities.

  3. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4. The number of administrative staff and clerical staff has increased over the past few years—reflecting both the strengthening of administrative functions such as information technology and personnel together with increased support to clinical services.

  5. General and senior managers numbers have grown over the past few years—reflecting the planned introduction of management posts in a series of phased implementations since 1986.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) managers and (b) clerical and administrative staff have been employed by each regional health authority in each year since 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the estimated capital cost of £1,300,000 for the fluoridation of water referred to in the press release issued by the Northern regional health authority on 26 October will be centrally funded; and what proportion will come from funds already committed to the regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to say at this stage what part, if any, of the estimated costs will be met by the Department.

  Suicide
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicides were reported of patients receiving(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient psychiatric care in each of the last five years for which figures are available, in each region.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have(a) succeeded and (b) failed to meet each of the targets in the patients charter in each region in each quarter since they were introduced.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Data on performance by individual hospitals against patients charter rights and standards is not available centrally, although a package of key data is collected about the performance of district health authorities. Information about the performance of individual hospitals in this area during 1992–93 has recently been published by district health authorities in the form of patients charter annual reports. Copies of reports can be obtained from the district health authority concerned.

  Sessional Fees (Benefits)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the scheme agreed with the British Medical Association for the payment of sessional fees to medical practitioners for providing information relating to benefits which require medical assessment, including details of the fee agreed and those participating; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Hospital consultants may charge a fee for examinations and reports for third parties which do not form part of their normal contractual national health service duties relating to the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness. The determination of that fee is a matter for the practitioner and the third party concerned. Fees for any such examinations or reports provided to the Benefits Agency are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to the adequacy of stocks of influenza vaccine for the coming winter months; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are making every effort to ensure the adequacy of stocks of influenza vaccine for the forthcoming winter, and is being assisted in this by the vaccine manufacturers. Supplies already issued this year are close to the level reached for the entire programme last year and further supplies are likely to be available shortly. However, it is essential that the vaccines that are used routinely have been licensed by the Medicines Control Agency and have met recognised standards for potency and purity.

  Patient Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many formal complaints were made by patients in each region in each year since 1987; and what were the major categories of complaints received;

  (2) how many patient complaints were (a) received and (b) investigated by her Department from each of the health regions in each of the last five years; and what were the major categories of complaints.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: The Department of Health does not deal with complaints

  461
  directly from patients. The table sets out the number of formal complaints made in the hospital and community health services by patients for each of the national health service regions. Information about the number of formal complaints made to family health services authorities is not

  Number of written complaints, 1987–88 to 1991–92, for each regional health authority and England

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Region

  Hospital

  Community

  Hospital

  Community

  Hospital

  Community

  Hospital

  Community

  Hospital

  Community

  England

  29,956

  5,030

  28,935

  4,338

  31,470

  4,700

  32,996

  4,307

  44,680

  6,399

  Northern

  1,346

  387

  1,226

  320

  1,460

  290

  1,892

  149

  2,236

  369

  Yorkshire

  2,068

  247

  1,805

  210

  2,040

  193

  2,169

  215

  2,466

  313

  Trent

  2,191

  454

  2,109

  289

  2,729

  241

  2,395

  377

  3,328

  444

  East Anglian

  885

  80

  1,019

  85

  1,002

  205

  1,345

  159

  1,718

  159

  North West Thames

  2,565

  371

  2,382

  242

  2,965

  383

  3,154

  379

  4,038

  467

  North East Thames

  3,739

  545

  3,763

  354

  3,858

  492

  3,766

  441

  5,553

  479

  South East Thames

  2,997

  301

  2,753

  323

  2,047

  209

  2,247

  268

  4,878

  594

  South West Thames

  2,115

  891

  2,124

  819

  2,464

  746

  2,552

  297

  3,172

  893

  Wessex

  1,497

  448

  1,632

  210

  1,735

  374

  1,687

  375

  2,649

  377

  Oxford

  991

  72

  1,301

  70

  1,379

  92

  1,502

  320

  1,489

  239

  South Western

  1,592

  218

  1,335

  282

  1,689

  375

  1,971

  277

  2,321

  210

  West Midlands

  3,375

  476

  2,708

  533

  3,378

  516

  3,246

  612

  4,054

  1,046

  Mersey

  1,333

  176

  1,566

  237

  1,423

  231

  1,281

  224

  2,216

  91

  North Western

  2,718

  364

  2,667

  364

  2,703

  351

  3,020

  214

  3,763

  712

  SHAs

  544

  0

  545

  0

  598

  2

  769

  0

  799

  6

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact that widening VAT would have on the spending power of those whose earnings are below the basic rate income tax threshold.

  Sir John Cope
  The impact would depend on the precise categories of goods to which VAT was extended and the rate of tax chosen.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in the last month concerning value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  A number of representations have been received about value added tax. It would not be appropriate to make a statement before 30 November.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increase to the average family's tax bill that will occur following the VAT changes outlined in the March Budget.

  Sir John Cope
  Standard rate VAT on domestic fuel and power applied to the average household's existing fuel bill would cost about £2.30 per week.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the possible imposition of VAT on books, newspapers and other publications.

  Sir John Cope
  Ministers have received a number of representations from all sectors of the publishing industry
  462
  available centrally. National figures of the number of formal investigations concluded by FHSAs are in the publication "Health and Social Services Statistics", copies of which are in the Library.

  and from various educational establishments about VAT and reading matter. These will be carefully considered in the run-up to the budget.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the items currently zero rated for VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  Not before 30 November.

  Mr. Wiliam O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the changes in the rates of VAT since the beginning of 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  At the beginning of 1979 there were two positive rates of VAT, 8 and 12–5 per cent. On 18 June 1979 these were replaced by a single rate of 15 per cent. which was increased to 17.5 per cent. on 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from how many businesses Customs and Excise has withdrawn use of the VAT cash accounting scheme in each of the last five years for which statistics are available; how many businesses entering the scheme in each year have withdrawn from it at the order of Customs and Excise; how many businesses in total were taken on to the scheme in each of the last five years, including new registrations and re-registration; and against how many times in each of the last five years Customs and Excise has been party to bankruptcy proceedings on account of poor VAT payments.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 November 19931]: Figures are not available for the number of businesses from whom Customs and Excise has withdrawn use of the VAT cash accounting scheme or how many businesses entering the scheme in each year have withdrawn from it at the order of Customs and Excise. Formal approval for entry to

  463
  the scheme is no longer required. The number of businesses approved to start using cash accounting in each of the last five years was:

  Year to 31 March

  Take-up

  1989

  21,674

  1990

  26,097

  1991

  33,778

  1992

  23,782

  11993

  19,485

  1 Figures from February onwards are not available.

  Figures on bankruptcies are available for the last three financial years only:

  Year to 31 March

  Number of bankruptcy petitions presented by Customs and Excise

  Number of bankruptcy orders made

  1991

  4,674

  1,394

  1992

  5,601

  3,025

  1993

  9,245

  4,006

  Housing
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he proposes to stimulate the housing market.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out our fiscal plans in the Budget statement on 30 November.

  Business Taxation
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has on the effects of the business taxation regime on inward investment into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1992 the United Kingdom was the largest recipient of foreign direct investment of all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Life Assurance
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the need for reform of the taxation of life assurance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are evaluating the changes to life assurance taxation introduced in 1989. Interested bodies have been invited to contribute.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to control public spending.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).

  Taxation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on tax levels.

  Mr. Dorrell
  General government tax and royalty receipts are expected to be £166.5 billion in 1993–94.
  464
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is expected to be raised from(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax and (c) VAT in the current year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The forecast yields from these taxes in 1993–94, set out in table 1.2 of the 1993–94 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", are as follows:

  (a) £57.5 billion

  (b) £14.6 billion

  (c) £39.9 billion

  Updated estimates will be presented in the Budget on 30 November.

  Consumer Expenditure
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage change since 1979 of(a) consumer expenditure and (b) gross domestic product.

  Mr. Nelson
  Between 1979 and 1992 real consumer expenditure rose by 370 per cent. and real GDP, at factor cost, rose by 24 per cent.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to take fiscal measures to improve the competitiveness and capacity of Britain's manufacturing industries.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's fiscal plans will be set out in the Budget statement on 30 November.

  Small Firms
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement of the effect of recent fiscal and interest rate measures on the profitability of small firms.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of measures in his March Budget of particular assistance to small firms and we now have the lowest interest rates for over 15 years. Small firms are therefore well placed to show renewed growth and to take advantage of sustained economic recovery, based on low inflation, sound public finances and improved competitiveness.

  Inflation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current annual rate of inflation; what was the rate in(a) 1988, (b) 1976 and (c) 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table gives the information based on the changes in the retail prices index:

  Percentage change over 12 months

  September 19931

  1·8

  1988 annual average

  4·9

  1976 annual average

  16·6

  1975 annual average

  24·2

  1 The latest month for which data are available.

  Beer
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present rates of duty on beer in each of the EC member states; and what monitoring is
  465
  carried out by the European Commission of the effect of disparities in duty on the cross-border or cross-channel trade in beer for personal consumption.

  Sir John Cope
  The present comparative rates of excise duty on beer in each of the EC member states are as follows:

  United Kingdom pence per pint at 5 per cent. alcohol by volume

  Pence

  Belgium

  7·7

  Denmark

  20·0

  Germany

  3·8

  Greece

  12·3

  Spain

  3·4

  France

  4·2

  Ireland

  46·4

  Italy

  7·9

  Luxembourg

  12·6

  Netherlands

  8·7

  Portugal

  5·9

  United Kingdom

  29·7

  1Before implementation of Council directive 92/84/EEC.

  No monitoring is currently being carried out by the European Commission of the effect of disparities in duty on the cross-border or cross-channel trade in beer for personal consumption. However, the Commission is obliged every two years to review the rates of duty in force in member states and report to the Council taking into account the proper functioning of the internal market, competition between the different categories of alcoholic drinks, the real value of the rates of duty and the wider objectives of the treaty. The first such review is due not later than 31 December 1994.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been prosecuted in each standard region of the United Kingdom for illegally reselling beer imported for domestic consumption since 1 January.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: Customs and Excise has prosecuted four individuals for illegally reselling beer which has not borne United Kingdom duty and VAT. The areas of the country concerned are Hampshire, Kent and Yorkshire. There are 108 other cases involving excise goods generally—alcoholic liquors and tobacco products—for which prosecution proceedings have been instituted but not yet brought to a conclusion.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of imposing VAT on domestic fuel for overall Government expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public expenditure cost of extending VAT to domestic fuel will depend on the measures we take to help those on low incomes. Measures will be announced in the Budget.

  Businesses, Lewisham
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new businesses have registered for VAT in the London borough of Lewisham since 1992.

  Sir John Cope
  Separate figures are not held for VAT registrations in individual London boroughs. Lewisham,466
  with several other boroughs, was until early 1993 in the catchment area of Kennington local VAT office (LVO). In early 1993 with three other LVOs it formed the South Bank LVO. The number of new VAT registrations for the two offices since 1992 is as follows:

  January 1992—December 1992 Kennington LVO 2,205

  January 1993—September 1993 South Bank LVO 8,629

  House Prices/Earnings Ratio
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 249, if he will publish figures for the average house price to earnings ratio for each region for each available quarter of 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates for the first and second quarters of 1993 are given in the table. For the reason explained in the answer given on 27 January 1993,Official Report, column 746, figures for Northern Ireland are available in the second quarter of each year only.

  Average house price to earnings ratio:

  Region

  Q1 1993

  Q2 1993

  United Kingdom

  —

  3·67

  Great Britain

  3·70

  3·69

  North

  3·04

  3·29

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3·80

  3·41

  East Midlands

  3·45

  3·53

  East Anglia

  3·69

  3 87

  South East

  Greater London

  3·78

  3·72

  Rest of South-east

  4·31

  4·30

  South-west

  3·79

  3·81

  West Midlands

  3·95

  3·64

  North-west

  3·56

  3·41

  England

  3·78

  3·73

  Wales

  3·58

  3·61

  Scotland

  2·79

  3·40

  Northern Ireland

  —

  2·54

  Offshore Banking Centres
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of United Kingdom Government debt now held in offshore banking centres.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual sum in interest paid by his Department to holders of United Kingdom Government debt in offshore banking centres; and if he will list the payments paid to each offshore centre for each year from 1989 to 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available.

  London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what information was sought by his Department from Companies house on the controlling interests of London and Bishopsgate International Management plc when the company applied for a principal's licence under the provisions of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958;
  467
  (2) what review he has made of the extent to which his Department undertook all the necessary checks to assure itself that the controlling interests and directors of London and Bishopsgate International Management plc were fit and proper persons in order to be granted a principal's licence.

  Mr. Nelson
  The usual checks carried out under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 were made before a licence was issued.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what information London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc provided to his Department in respect of its application for a principal's licence on(a) the names and addresses of all past and present shareholders who had held at any time individually more than 25 per cent. of the capital of the company, (b) the names of the beneficial owners of shares held by nominees and (c) where these names were corporations, the controlling interests in those corporations;

  (2) what information London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc provided in its application for a principal's licence on any person not disclosed elsewhere in the application who had, or intended to have, any measure of control over the company's business;

  (3) what reference was made to Mr. Robert Maxwell in London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc's application for a principal's licence.

  Mr. Nelson
  Under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 a company applying for a principal's licence to carry on the business of dealing in securities was obliged to inform the Department of the names of all directors, controllers and managers of the company. The directors, controllers and managers of London and Bishopsgate International Management plc were notified as Andrew Smith, Kevin Maxwell and Larry Trachtenberg.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks his Department made with the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation that London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc had applied for membership of the SRO when his Department was considering the company's application for a principal's licence; and what information was exchanged between his Department and IMRO on the company and its controlling interests.

  Mr. Nelson
  The usual checks carried out under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 were made before a licence was issued. Exchanges of information amount regulators are confidential.

  Privatisation Fees
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the fees paid to each financial institution used in each privatisation since 1982;

  (2) if he will list the fees paid to each firm of accountants used as advisers in each privatisation since 1982;

  (3) what amounts of fees were paid to each advertising agency used in each privatisation since 1982;

  (4) if he will list the fees paid to each solicitors partnership and company used as advisers to each privatisation since 1982.
  468
  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Fees paid to specific firms or individuals are treated as commercially confidential. However, privatisation expenses are open to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and, where the Comptroller and Auditor General publishes a report, the sale costs are summarised within.

  EC Cohesion Funds
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount he expects to be paid to each EC country for each year between 1993 and 1999 arising from cohesion; and how much each non-recipient country would pay in each case based on(a) current projections and (b) on EC growth rates of (i)¼ per cent., (ii)½ per cent., (iii) 1 per cent. and (iv) 2 per cent. per annum less than those envisaged at the time of the Edinburgh summit.

  Sir John Cope
  Following the decisions of the European Council at Edinburgh on 11 and 12 December 1992, EC expenditure commitments in respect of cohesion are planned to be:

  million ecu

  Structural funds

  Cohesion funds

  1993 prices

  1993

  20,627

  1,575

  1994 prices

  1994

  21,323

  1,853

  1995

  22,747

  2,118

  1996

  24,082

  2,383

  1997

  25,444

  2,648

  1998

  27,206

  2,700

  1999

  29,017

  2,753

  The European Council also agreed the following indicative allocation of the cohesion fund:

  Per cent.

  Spain

  52–58

  Greece

  16–20

  Portugal

  16–20

  Ireland

  7–10

  All member states are expected to benefit from some cohesion spending. It is not possible to say yet exactly how these commitments will be allocated between member states because detailed programmes for the structural funds are still being discussed.

  Member states' contributions to the Community budget are, in general, to the budget as a whole, rather than in respect of specific policies. Member states' contributions to the Community budget depend upon a number of factors, including the size and composition of the Community budget—which may affect the abatement of the United Kingdom's contribution—and relative growth —which may affect the VAT and GNP-based contributions. Member states' shares of total gross contributions in the 1993 adopted budget after taking account of the United Kingdom abatement, were:

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  4·0

  Denmark

  2·0

  Germany

  29·0

  Greece

  1·0

  469

  Per cent.

  Spain

  9·0

  France

  18·0

  Ireland

  1·0

  Italy

  16·0

  Luxembourg

  0·2

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  2·0

  United Kingdom1

  12·0

  1 The cost of additional spending within the Community would normally be met by the GNP-based resource, at a cost to the United Kingdom of about 5 per cent. after abatement.

  While these figures could be used to illustrate the cost of different policies, the effect of different growth patterns on spending on particular policies, and hence member states' contributions in respect of those policies, cannot be predicted. The effect would depend upon decisions which would be taken in the annual budgetary procedure to ensure respect for the own resources ceiling.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing capital expenditure on(a) roads, (b) schools, (c) railways, (d) housing, distinguishing between new build and repair and (e) health, for each year since 1978, in cash, in constant prices and on a constant price index where 1978=100.

  Mr. Portillo
  Figures for public sector asset creation spending on roads, education, British Rail, housing and health and personal social services for the years 1987–88 to 1992–93 are shown in cash terms in table 8.2 of the statistical supplement to the 1992 "Autumn Statement (Cm 2219). Figures prior to 1987–88 are shown at a more aggregated level in table 8.3. The figures can be converted to real terms using the GDP deflator published in table 2.1.

  Longer-term series for capital spending on roads and transport, central government spending on health and personal social services, local authority spending on education and housing, and capital spending by British Rail and London Transport, are shown in the article published in Vol. 3, issue 1 of the Treasury bulletin on "Trends in public sector capital spending".

  Payments of tax credit to foreign residents under double taxation agreements

  £ thousand

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1989–90

  1988–89

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1985–86

  Totals of which

  172,469

  174,263

  146,526

  182,098

  95,147

  105,578

  86,278

  83,851

  Australia

  943

  1,032

  802

  791

  473

  582

  552

  560

  Belgium

  1,331

  2,220

  345

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Canada

  7,785

  7,355

  11,284

  11,748

  6,117

  7,928

  9,435

  9,655

  Denmark

  1,168

  1,308

  1,394

  663

  272

  1,063

  2,094

  138

  France

  2,763

  3,596

  3,225

  1,401

  1,167

  1,456

  985

  1,090

  Ireland

  12,479

  10,086

  7,232

  5,705

  4,110

  4,873

  4,907

  4,584

  Italy

  572

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Japan

  11,238

  8,114

  3,093

  2,392

  1,517

  658

  1,324

  385

  Luxembourg

  104

  84

  138

  440

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Malta

  160

  78

  61

  74

  1—

  60

  98

  112

  Netherlands

  17,819

  11,991

  8,898

  11,155

  7,127

  6,238

  2,530

  1,753

  New Zealand

  666

  577

  380

  316

  282

  306

  331

  335

  Norway

  632

  194

  98

  122

  118

  257

  328

  118

  Singapore

  124

  85

  445

  8

  1—

  164

  1—

  86

  Spain

  259

  88

  75

  83

  72

  59

  76

  59

  Sweden

  3,027

  1,582

  975

  490

  417

  172

  538

  455

  Switzerland

  4,262

  5,239

  4,180

  3,775

  5,801

  5,879

  8,148

  4,528

  United States of America

  107,289

  119,218

  102,552

  142,430

  53,488

  75,357

  44,075

  59,488

  1 Less than £50,000.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of corporation tax receipts derive from unquoted companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that information is not available in precisely the form requested. However, about 8 per cent. of corporation tax is paid by the 300,000 companies charged at the small companies rate; these are likely to include a high proportion of unquoted companies.

  Business Cycle
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the United Kingdom last entered an upswing in the business cycle with a current account deficit of 2 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: Figures for the current account and gross domestic product are published in "Economic Trends".

  Foreign Investors
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are his Department's estimates for the level of cash repayments by the Inland Revenue to foreign investors on the basis of tax credits on dividends for 1993 and 1994;

  (2) how much cash was paid out by the Inland Revenue to foreign investors on the basis of dividend tax credits for each year since 1985;

  (3) if he will list by country the cash repayments made by the Inland Revenue to foreign investors on the basis of tax credits on dividends, for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: Estimates of payments of tax credits to foreign residents under double taxation agreements are given in the table. They exclude, for example, payments to sovereign immune bodies which are not separately identified for repayment of other taxes. The table only identifies countries where payments of tax credits in 1992–93 were greater than £100,000. Forecasts of the levels of payments in future years are not available.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's estimate of the total volume of tax credits issued by dividend paying companies in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: The following is the information:

  Tax credits available on dividends paid by United Kingdom companies

  £ billion

  1985

  3·8

  1986

  4·5

  1987

  4·9

  1988

  6·2

  1989

  7·3

  1990

  7·7

  1991

  7·9

  1992

  8·7

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much cash was repaid to domestic investors by the Inland Revenue on the basis of dividend tax credits in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 November 1993]: Payments of tax credits to United Kingdom residents cannot be separately identified from repayments of income tax. Total income tax repayments and payments of tax credits are given in table 2.10 of "Inland Revenue Statistics" 1993.

DEFENCE

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish for the last two years for which figures are available, the figures for defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product in each NATO member country.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Country

  Defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  1991

  1992

  Belgium

  2·3

  1·9

  Canada

  2·0

  2·0

  Denmark

  2·1

  1·9

  France

  3·5

  3·4

  Germany

  2·3

  2·2

  Greece

  5·5

  5·5

  Italy

  2·1

  2·0

  Luxembourg

  1·2

  1·2

  Netherlands

  2·5

  2·5

  Norway

  3·1

  3·4

  Portugal

  3·1

  2·9

  Spain

  1·7

  1·7

  Turkey

  3·8

  3·9

  United Kingdom

  4·3

  4·1

  United States

  5·1

  5·2

  Belize
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he expects to be saved by a partial withdrawal from Belize; and how this sum was arrived at.

  Mr. Hanley
  The decision to withdraw the Belize garrison was taken in the light of the improved security situation in Belize and the improved relations with Guatemala and not for financial reasons. The withdrawal will however, save some £4,038,000 in 1994–95 and some £7,587,000 in each year thereafter. The savings come from a reduction of the "in-country" costs on manpower (overseas allowances for United Kingdom personnel and locally employed civilian costs), travel, fuel and utilities, communications, casualty evacuation, local purchase, hirings and works services.

  SA80
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all difficulties in each theatre with the SA80 have now been resolved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  With the modifications we have developed, and proper maintenance, we are confident that the SA80 will perform satisfactorily in all theatres where it is deployed. However, all small arms can have difficulties operating in extreme environmental conditions.

  Army Act Executions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many letters and representations the Government have received in support of pardons for soldiers in the great war who were found guilty of charges under the Army Acts who subsequently were executed.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1989 the Ministry of Defence has received some 189 requests from Members of Parliament and members of the public for pardons for the soldiers who were executed during the first world war.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF low-flying sorties were carried out in the last year for which figures are available in(a) the Netherlands, (b) Italy, (c) Denmark and (d) Belgium; down to what minimum level in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 22 October 1993 at column 369.

  Civilian Staff
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a breakdown, by top level budget holder area, agency, where appropriate, and principal category, of United Kingdom-based industrial civilian staff.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested, as at 1 April 1993, is as follows:
  473

  MOD United Kingdom-based Industrial civilians by top level budget holder

  Number

  (Full-time equivalent) MOD total

  41,341·0

  Navy total

  14,137·5

  2nd Sea Lord

  296·0

  Chief of Fleet Support

  6,547·0

  CinC Naval Home

  4,895·5

  CinC Fleet

  2,316·0

  Unallocated

  83·0

  Army total

  15,082·5

  CinC UK Land Forces

  7,459·5

  CinC BAOR

  7·0

  Adjutant General

  273·5

  Quartermaster General

  5,563·0

  Assistant Chief of the General Staff

  1,779·5

  RAF total

  7,248·0

  Air Member for Supply and Organisation

  13·5

  Air Member for Personnel

  5·0

  AOCinC Strike Command

  2,691·0

  AOCinC RAF Support Command

  4,538·5

  Centre total

  761·5

  Vice Chief of Defence Staff

  109·0

  2nd PUS

  224·0

  Chief Scientific Adviser

  188·0

  Chief of Defence Intelligence

  95·5

  Meteorological Office

  27·5

  Vice Chief of Defence Staff (Commitments)

  117·5

  PE total

  4,111·5

  Chief of Defence Procurement

  1,508·5

  Chief Executive Defence Research Agency

  2,603·0

  MOD United Kingdom-based industrial civilians employed within MOD agencies (full-time equivalents)

  Number

  MOD agencies total

  9,638·5

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  2,669·0

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  177·0

  Defence Animal Centre

  21·5

  Director General of Defence Accounts

  7·0

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  11·0

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  20·0

  Defence Postal and Courier Service

  19·0

  Defence Research Agency

  2,603·0

  Hydrographic Office

  35·0

  Meteorological Office

  27·5

  Military Survey

  54·0

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  1,067·0

  Queen Victoria School

  13·0

  RAF Maintenance Command

  2,914·5

  Information by principal category is not available without disproportionate cost.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a breakdown by grade, location and occupational group of the United Kingdom-based civilians shown in table 2.3 of Defence Statistics 1993 as employed in(a) Army doctrine and training, (b) each of the five Army districts, (c) naval policy and advice to the Chief of Naval Personnel, (d) non-military advice and financial management for the Chief of Fleet Support and (e) non-effectives and other staff of the second permanent under-secretary.

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

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the cosmetic works being done to the Whitehall frontage of his Department's main building and the works being undertaken in the car parking area to the west of the building.

  Mr. Hanley
  No cosmetic works are being undertaken but a works programme is in progress to improve the security of the south car park of MOD main building, at an estimated cost of £620,000. The movement of the statues and the associated works on Raleigh Green are being managed by the Department of the Environment. The total cost of this work is approximately £164,000, a proportion of which will be met by the MOD.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures the Government are presently taking to stop the proliferation and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines.

  Mr. Aitken
  We believe that our current stringent controls on the export of defence equipment, including mines, are sufficient to stop the sales of these weapons to countries which may use them in an irresponsible manner. The United Kingdom fully adheres to the principles of the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention, protocol II, which contains strict rules governing the use of mines.

  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the United Kingdom is making to anti-personnel mine clearance overseas.

  Mr. Hanley
  British service men are not at present involved in mine-clearance operations, other than those necessary for the passage of aid convoys in the former Yugoslavia. Until UNTAC's mandate ended in August however, a British Army mine clearance training team participated in the United Nations operation in Cambodia.

  AWE Sites
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods he will use to ensure the monitoring of safety of the older facilities at AWE sites, as described at paragraph 14 of annex B of the Government's memorandum of reply to the Defence Committee's sixth report of Session 1992–93, published in the fifth special report, HC 917.

  Mr. Aitken
  Methods to ensure the monitoring of safety of all facilities, including older ones, at AWE sites involve the use of inspections, reviews and audits carried out by a number of bodies, including the compliance office and the regulatory authorities concerned with the environmental, health and safety aspects of the sites. These arrangements are in addition to the detailed management, monitoring and audit responsibilities carried out by the contractor (Hunting-BRAE) under the requirements laid down in the term contract.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since 1979 when a submarine commander has failed to notify the requisite
  475
  authorities within the mandatory time of an accident involving a United Kingdom nuclear submarine; and what action has been taken on such occasions.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1979 there has only been one such incident. The commanding officer of the submarine concerned was the subject of a recent court martial.

  Chemical Weapons (Vaccines)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on medical prophylactic measures taken to protect British service men who served in Operation Granby in Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia against chemical weapons attack; and what assessment has been made of the deleterious health effects arising from these protection measures.

  Mr. Hanley
  The only medical prophylactic agent employed against chemical weapon attack was the drug pyridostigmine bromide. It was issued in tablet packs called nerve agent pre-treatment sets (NAPS). One tablet containing 30 mg of the drug was taken every eight hours while the threat of chemical attack remained. NAPS has undergone trials at CBDE Porton Down and the drug pyridostigmine bromide has been used for many years in the treatment of the nerve disorder myasthenia gravis. Apart from the temporary minor side effects, the trials revealed that NAPS produced no deleterious health effects. Occasional minor side effects were reported during Operation Granby but these ceased as soon as NAPS was stopped.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for keeping records of protective vaccines administered to British service men; and whether such records are available for inspection by(a) serving members of the armed forces, (b) former members of the armed forces and (c) general practitioners or hospital doctors treating former members of the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  Standard procedures involve records of vaccines administered being kept in an individual's service medical documents. In operational situations these procedures may need to be modified to meet the circumstances existing at the time. During Operation Granby, for logistic reasons, individual service medical documents were not held locally. Any vaccines given were entered on a nominal roll for later transfer to individual records. Given the rapid repatriation and demobilisation of personnel at the end of the conflict it is possible that some individual records were not annotated with vaccination details. I have placed a copy of an internal Ministry of Defence report on the vaccines used for Operation Granby in the Library of the House.

  Individual medical documents have the privacy marking "Medical in Confidence". Access to them is therefore restricted to members of the medical professions or to the patient concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990. When a Service person leaves the Armed Forces, their Service medical documents remain the property of the MOD. Civilian GPs or hospital specialists will be provided, upon request and with the patient's consent, with any further information, or copies of records, they require to assist in the management of individual patients.
  476
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of nerve agent pre-treatment vaccines are held by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Nerve agent pre-treatment vaccines are not held by the MOD. Protection for Her Majesty's forces against nerve agent poisoning is achieved by the use of NAPS. Sufficient stocks are held to meet the operational requirements of all three services. It is not the Department's practice to disclose stock levels.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the British Society for Allergy and Environmental Medicine in regard to service men or former service men who are suffering deleterious health effects having served in Operation Granby in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received no representations from the British Society for Allergy and Environmental Medicine. One member of the society has, however, written to the Department in his capacity as a medical practitioner in relation to one of his patients. For reasons of medical confidentiality, I am unable to give further details.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 705, what representations he has received from the general public regarding concerns over the storage of depleted uranium at his Department's establishments.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received no such representations. Officials have received a small number of inquiries on this subject from the general public.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the storage sites which have been authorised for storage or handling of his Department's raw stocks of depleted uranium prior to manufacture into ammunition.

  Mr. Aitken
  Depleted uranium (DU) for the production of DU projectiles is procured direct by the manufacturers and handling and storage are a matter for them. The Defence Research Agency holds some stocks of raw DU at Fort Halstead for research purposes.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the last assessment of the level of risk facing British forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina from(a) Croat, (b) Muslim and (c) Serb forces; how often such levels of risk are assessed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  British forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina face considerable risks in carrying out their task of escorting humanitarian aid. The principal threat is posed by fighting between Bosnian factions in the vicinity of British bases, rather than by deliberate targeting. We keep the level of danger under continuous review; assessments are made daily both in the United Kingdom and in theatre.

  Overseas Forces
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel are currently stationed overseas; what is the total expenditure incurred; and if he will provide a breakdown of this information by individual country and location.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  EC Defence Spending
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the level of defence spending in each of the European Community member states as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Hanley
  Defence expenditure in 1992 for all EC countries other than the Republic of Ireland is set out in the 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates (Cm 2270). The Republic of Ireland is expected to devote around 1.2 per cent. of its GDP to defence in 1992–93.

  Flying Training
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedure he intends to adopt in making decisions following the review of RAF flying training.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will consider carefully the proposals and recommendations emanating from the review. These proposals will then be the subject of consultation with the MOD trades unions and other interested parties before any final decisions on the future organisation of RAF flying training are taken.

  Mr. David Hart
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times and on what dates Mr. David Hart has visited his Department or any other MOD installation in the last six months.
  478
  Mr. Hanley
  The number of occasions Mr. Hart has visited the MOD over the last six months has not been centrally recorded. Mr. Hart visited RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe on 27 May 1993.

  Terrain Mobile Platforms
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 October,Official Report, column 728, if he will set out the arrangements under which the all terrain mobile platforms are available for the use of 5 Airborne Brigade; which unit has peacetime control of these vehicles; what plans he has to authorise a formal establishment of such vehicles for 5 Airborne Brigade; what similar vehicles are available to 24 Airmobile Brigade; what plans he has to provide a formal establishment of such vehicles for 24 Airmobile Brigade; whether it will be possible for both brigades to be operationally deployed simultaneously; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  5 Airborne Brigade has first priority use of 39 all terrain mobile platforms from a central operational pool of equipment. They are currently held and maintained by 5 Airborne Brigade, although the holding is not established and there are no current plans to establish it. Routine replacement of these vehicles is planned. We are considering the future requirement for additional all terrain mobile platforms, including for 24 Airmobile Brigade. Both brigades could be operationally deployed simultaneously now if necessary.

  Pregnant Women
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the sums required to be paid in compensation to pregnant women will have on the size of the defence budget in each year from 1992–93 to 1995–96.

  Mr. Hanley
  At the present time, it is not possible to estimate the total cost of the compensation.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Baroness Dacre Baroness Dacre—Took the Oath.

Scotch Whisky: Tax Level
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before I ask my Question I should like to make a statement. Because I tabled two Questions on whisky there is a rumour that I have a financial interest in the whisky industry, which is not the case. It is obvious that the rumour arose because my first cousin, whose name is also John Mackie, is deep in the whisky trade. My only interest in whisky is in the nice bottle of malt on my sideboard, which my family are inclined to say I renew rather too often.
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to the level of lax on Scotch whisky; and what effect they consider the level of such tax has on the whisky distilling and bottling industry in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we take into consideration a wide range of social, economic and health factors as well as revenue considerations when setting the level of taxation on spirits.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl says that the Government take those matters into consideration. Do they realise that because of the export of whisky, free of tax, to France, Italy and Germany, they have lost £80 million in taxes? The noble Earl mentioned the social question of whisky the last time I asked this Question. Do the Government realise that around 40 per cent. of the men in the trade have lost their jobs? That is in an area, as he well knows, where there is not a lot of work. Many other factors are also contributing to a difficult situation in the whisky industry. If the Government do not improve their management of those matters—it is indeed bad management when one looks at what is happening—they will be in trouble.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, how nice it is to answer another Question on whisky from the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is one of a number that he asks at this time of year. He knows that I cannot discuss the rates because of the coming Budget. However, as I have said previously, it is up to each country to set its duty and taxation limits. That is right. I know that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that, far from the so-called halcyon days of Labour when 80 per cent. of the cost of whisky was attributable to taxation, that is now down to 64.3 per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has not the position been radically altered by the adoption of the European rule that anyone can bring liquor into each country duty free? It is therefore easy to buy commodities like whisky or wine at the infinitely lower rate of duty prevailing on the Continent thus providing unfair competition to the British producer.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that as a result of the single market one can bring in duty-paid goods for one's own consumption. The initial estimate for the full year revenue loss on all goods was estimated at around £250 million. That does not seem to be too far off the mark.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned health considerations. Is he aware that over the years the medical profession has offered advice to me that whisky is an excellent beverage for human health, provided it is taken in moderation? That is because my home and former constituency are in the heart of the distilling area of northern Scotland.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend says. However, it did not take the medical profession to tell me that it was good for my health, in moderation.
Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden: My Lords, 1 declare an interest as the chairman of the United Distillers, the largest company in the Scotch whisky industry. It is surely not a matter of debate but a matter of fact that Scotch whisky is discriminated against in this country. The mathematics are irrefutable. The duty on a single whisky is more than double the duty on a glass of wine of the same alcoholic content. Is it not surprising therefore that over the past 10 years wine sales have flourished and Scotch whisky sales have decreased? Why do the Government continue to disadvantage to such an outrageous extent the product for which Scotland is best known and which is also one of the UK's top export earners?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says. However, a wide range of issues are taken into account when setting the levels of taxation.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what are the Government's estimates of the consequences of a reduction in the whisky duty for overall sales and consequently for government revenue? For example, were the duty on whisky to be reduced by 10 per cent., would the sales increase by more than 10 per cent. and revenue consequently increase? What is the Government's current estimate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord would not expect me to be able to answer that question without notice.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the outrageous tax on whisky in this country is highly discriminatory? If one takes into account that one can buy for £6.50 in Gibraltar a litre bottle of

1155
Famous Grouse whisky which in this country costs £16, one must see that that is discriminating against the whisky industry.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend agrees that each country should have the freedom to set its own duty rate. That is why we find a variable price from country to country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister accept that an export industry as valuable as the Scotch whisky industry needs a prosperous home market? With the industry already struggling against the existing rates of tax, it is no help if, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says, whisky drinkers travelling abroad are constantly bringing back supplies. The home market is essential for the export trade.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note with care what the noble Lord says.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister agree that now we have a single European market we must think about a policy which leads to wide tax differences on tobacco and alcohol? Does the Treasury have any thoughts on how it is going to re-think that policy fundamentally? If not, the losses will continue to grow.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we thought of that long before the single market existed and gave consideration to it. However, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is for each country to set its own duty rates.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to build on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was there a greater take when total duty was 80 per cent. compared with 60 per cent.?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the figure that I quoted to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was tax and duty as a percentage of the price. That has gone down. With regard to the duty yield, I cannot go back as far as that. But in cash terms, it looks much the same as in 1985–86.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl did not give a very good reply to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on the subject of the amount of whisky being brought back into this country on which the Government lose all the tax. It is an enormous figure. Should that point not be considered very carefully?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I took up the question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and gave a very full reply that included not only whisky but all imported spirits and beers.

First World War: "Cowardice" Verdicts
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered the request to reconsider the verdicts on soldiers executed for "cowardice" in the First World War; and, if so, what are their conclusions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have considered this matter with the utmost care but have concluded that it would not be appropriate to reconsider the verdicts.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is a matter of great regret that there has been no change in the Government's response since Andrew MacKinlay's splendid initiative in raising this issue in another place 18 months ago? We now know clearly what was not appreciated in the 1914 war, that there were irregularities in the courts martial. There was no legal representation or right of appeal for men on trial for their lives. We now know that violence does affect the minds of some men. If the Government still refuse to remove this badge of shame, it will be unjust to the memories of these men, unfair to the families and incomprehensible to the public.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and indeed to his honourable friend from the other place, I do not think anyone disputes the humanity that they have shown in considering this extremely difficult subject. I would point out to the noble Lord that from a close examination of a very strong cross-section of the files concerned—I must say, as someone who has read a number of these files, it is a very harrowing experience—it is perfectly clear that the irregularities he alleges are not supported by a reading of the files and that the regulations in operation at the time were not breached by the authorities. The noble Lord will know that a number of the people who are aware of the campaign that he and his honourable friend have been conducting were not aware of the circumstances of their husband's, father's or relation's death, and the campaign itself has raised questions in their minds which were not there before.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, although in the only war in which I served these unhappy folk would never have been convicted or executed at all, would it not be kinder to all concerned if we left their souls to rest in peace without disintering them from time to time for further discussion in this way?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wholly agree with what my noble and learned friend says and with his proposition that circumstances have changed and that no one in the Second World War was shot for the reasons that these people were shot in the First World War. Our understanding of matters such as post-traumatic stress

1157
disorder has immeasurably improved. Indeed, our treatment of these matters has improved in the short time that has elapsed between the Falklands conflict and the Gulf conflict; and no doubt in the unfortunate event of another conflict taking place, our understanding will have improved still more.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, since the Private Member's Bill on this subject was introduced, by leave, into the House of Commons a fortnight ago, there has been a sharp rise in public interest in the fate of these men? The noble Viscount must expect to hear further on this subject as that Bill makes progress, as I feel sure that it will. But one aspect of this great tragedy of the First World War is that people are still troubled in their conscience as to where these soldiers are buried. What identification, if any, marks the place where their remains have been buried? Are they under the auspices of the War Graves Commission? Are they identified as having suffered the fate that they did? Will this stain on the memory of men in the First World War continue forever? There are a number of questions on this subject which, now that the matter has been raised with increasing interest, will have to be answered. So will the noble Viscount prepare himself for further questions on the matter?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, when the noble Lord utters that kind of warning it behoves me to take careful note, particularly in view of his own experience in that dreadful conflict. I am all too aware of the public interest that this subject has rightly aroused if only because of the number of television interviews I have been constrained to give on the subject. In view of the noble Lord's question about where these people are buried, I would point out to him that, so far as I am aware, only one gravestone says that the victim was shot. That legend was put on the gravestone at the request of the family concerned. The authorities tried to show some consideration by not drawing attention to the eventual fate of the people concerned; and I think that does them great credit.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would it be true to say that some of the people who were described as cowards were in fact conscientious objectors and that their Christian witness would not be an evidence of cowardice?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord will be as aware as I am that some of the bravest people in both world wars were conscientious objectors. I am also well aware that my own great grandfather was chairman of the board which considered the question of conscientious objectors. I certainly know from my own papers and indeed from public records on the subject that he and his colleagues took enormous trouble to try to ensure that conscientious objectors were properly looked after and were looked after with sympathy. Indeed, there are a number of letters to him on the subject paying tribute to his work. I would say to the noble Lord that, on the whole, the commission did its work well and it is something of which we can be proud.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware—
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that throughout history every generation has judged its contemporaries and every succeeding generation has judged the judgment itself? Is not our compassionate duty to look at the judgment as a whole; not to disinter individual cases but to let them, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham suggested, rest in peace?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I find it extremely difficult to be dogmatic about what I found to be one of the most difficult judgments I have ever been called to make; and certainly the most difficult judgment I have ever been called to make during the course of my 18 months at the Ministry of Defence. I have been much interested by the reaction of people with whom I have discussed this matter at length. Like me, they started by taking much the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. On longer consideration, we have all been constrained—not all, but most of us—to see that there are other considerations which we have to take into account, one of which was the consideration that my noble friend has just mentioned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the leave of noble Lords opposite, perhaps the Opposition Front Bench may have its word. Is the noble Viscount aware that I was somewhat surprised when he said that he had read through the files? As I understand it, according to the Ministry of Defence, a number of files were no longer required for administrative use in 1947 and were thrown away. Is that the case? Is that true? Will the noble Viscount reconsider the matter of whether he has actually read through these files; whether he has read through the file of the man not yet 18 who was found lost after an artillery barrage and then shot? Has the Minister read the file of a 19 year-old volunteer who refused to put his cap on despite an officer's order and who was sentenced to death? In order that these souls may rest in peace—I say this in front of the most reverend Primate—is it not time that the Government showed a little Christian charity?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as regards the files, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, gives me an opportunity to put him right on his understanding of the facts. Perhaps the noble Lord is not aware that just over 10 per cent. of the soldiers condemned to death as a result of the court martials which we are discussing today were shot. Nearly 90 per cent. were reprieved and overwhelmingly at the insistence of the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Haig. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say what he did, but I suspect that he has not read the files. The files which survive—if the noble Lord would like to listen while I attempt to answer his question—are those of the soldiers who were shot. The files of the soldiers who were reprieved were burnt during an incendiary attack in 1941 on the Arnside Street repository.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Viscount say how many files there are and what would be

1159
involved in going through them all? Does he agree that at that time and by our standards, terrible mistakes were made and terrible sentences passed? That was more than 70 years ago. Does the Minister further agree that it is too late to go through all those files and that we should let the matter rest?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. As I said, the majority of the files of the cases concerned were destroyed. The 300-odd files—there is a dispute about the ultimate number of files, even among those who are requesting what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has requested—which survive are those of the people who were shot.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he has read the files—
Viscount Cranborne: Some of them.
Lord Richard: He has had that opportunity which has been denied the rest of us. Will he make the files available to the rest of us so that we can judge, too?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, a number of books have been written on this subject. One in particular was written by Judge Babington, who had the advantage of looking at a number of the files. So they have been available.

Israel-Syria Relations
3.22 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in extending to Syria the recent peace agreement between Israel and the PLO.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, during his recent visit to Syria on 22nd-24th October my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised to President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara'a the importance we attach to early progress in the negotiations between Israel and Syria if there is to be comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I take the opportunity too to thank the Foreign Secretary for his very commendable endeavours. Does the Minister agree that unless Israel and the Syrians can agree on the Golan Heights, the tremendous endeavours of Israel and the PLO and their initiative will not by itself achieve peace in the Middle East? Therefore, does she agree that it is vital that the British Foreign Secretary's suggestions should be followed up and supported by the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. The original agreement between Israel and the PLO is now being followed up by an Israeli-Jordanian agreement on an
1160
agenda for talks. We hope that these agreements will act as a catalyst for negotiations with Syria and the Lebanon.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in view of the clear statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place earlier this week that there will not be a comprehensive peace until there are agreements between Israel and Syria, Israel and Jordan and Israel and the Lebanon, and in view of the United Kingdom Government's wish to do their utmost to keep the peace process on the move, can the Minister tell the House what practical steps the Government will be taking to achieve that aim?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we shall continue to do all that we can, quietly in the background, pushing and pressing as appropriate, to ensure that a lasting and comprehensive settlement is achieved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said on the last occasion we discussed this subject, much of the discussion is best done in private. In that way we have succeeded with Israel and the PLO.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister. Does her last remark mean that she disagrees with her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary who said in another place earlier this week that the Government wished to take a more visible role in the matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords, I do not disagree with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, but I do disagree with some of the noble Baroness's questioning. On these very delicate matters it is not always conducive to progress to say at each stage what is going on. We shall make progress where we can, and where we can help—such as our £6 million worth of bilateral aid and our further £6 million through the EC—we shall certainly make that help visible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, no doubt the noble Baroness is aware of the real danger being created by Syrian fundamentalists in trying to delay progress. Does she agree that it might help if we can encourage a meeting between Mr. Rabin and Mr. Assad? Would not that kind of summit help to follow up what the Israelis and the PLO have already begun in trying to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that by having discussions not only with President Assad but with all others in the region, we shall have a better chance of making progress. We shall do all we can to that end both visibly and behind the scenes.

The British Film Industry
3.26 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional assistance they propose to give to the British film industry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, earlier this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, held a round of meetings with the different sectors of the film industry to discuss the state of the industry and possible measures to help it. He is considering what might be done in the light of those discussions and will announce his conclusions in due course.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I look forward to those conclusions. Is the Minister aware that investment in feature film production in the United Kingdom has gone from £425 million in 1984 to £185 million in 1992? Is she further aware that, while cinema admissions are increasing—that has been happening for some seven or eight years—most of the films are American productions and British films are not being given an equal opportunity to compete in this expanding market? Will the Government give urgent consideration to two matters which would be of great importance to the British film industry? The first is to provide fiscal incentives, particularly the 100 per cent. first-year capital write-offs, and, secondly, the removal of the withholding tax on foreign actors?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answering the first part of the noble Lord's question, the Government do not believe that the British film industry needs high levels of subsidy. We look to the private sector for investment in production. However, the noble Lord is right in saying that since 1985 the UK production base 0, and those films having to be made, on average, with a smaller budget. We are exploring the reasons why the money has dried up and what can be done to provide additional measures for investment in films.
My next point has nothing to do with the question asked by the noble Lord. I believe that, despite the low level of investment, the record of success of British film producers has been truly spectacular. I believe that the House would want to acknowledge that. As regards the other part of the noble Lord's question, that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure the noble Lord would not expect me to answer that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the tone of her Answer should give hope to the industry, but will she remember that, although representatives of the industry visited No. 10 four years ago when hopes were again built up, nothing tangible seems to have flown from that so far?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend. Much progress has been achieved. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced changes in the tax regime for films following discussions with the industry at that
1162
meeting. We have established the British Film Commission and the European Co-production Fund and we have joined EURIMAGES.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, may I first declare an interest as chairman of British Screen Finance, which is a commercially owned, privately financed company receiving some modest help in grant from the Government for which we are grateful? When it comes to the question of the lottery allocation, in due course, will the Minister give consideration to allocating the funds which might be available from the lottery to British Screen Finance for it to manage, given that it is conducted and managed by professionals in the industry, rather than to the Arts Council, which wilt have no experience in that field?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will agree that the £2 million grant which has been given to British Screen Finance is worth having. With regard to the rest of his question, I know that my right honourable friend is cogitating and, for all I know, inwardly digesting the meat of the various advice that is put to him. As I have said, his conclusions will be forthcoming as soon as possible.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Government will know about the recent French campaign to erect some kind of cultural protection against American invasion in the world of films and about the apparently forthcoming move to try to get the whole European Community to do that. What is the Government's opinion of that initiative?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think that I have anything more to say. As I have said, my right honourable friend has had various consultations with every kind of body connected with the film industry. He will be making his conclusions known as soon as he can.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the basic facts are that cinema-going is the most popular art form in Britain, as was shown by a recent Arts Council survey, and that attendances have doubled in the past 10 years? Despite that, however, the British film industry is actually disappearing before our eyes. Productions fell by 20 per cent. last year to a miserable low of 47 productions, primarily financed either by foreigners or bound for television. Will the Minister please tell her right honourable friend that it is absolutely crucial that he comes forward with proposals for financial incentives, such as all other governments give, to rescue the British film industry and to rescue Britain from swamping by American film culture? Will she also point out that in the GATT negotiations it is important to pursue the question of sustaining cultural industries?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should be delighted to pass on those remarks to my right honourable friend.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is yet another Motion in a series which I have to move at this time of the parliamentary year in relation to Private Bills to enable the promoters of the Bill to carry the Bill over into the next Session. The Message from another place only reached us yesterday for reasons which are unclear. I regret having to trouble the House with this further Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Message of yesterday be now considered; and that the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Railways Bill
3.33 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reason be considered forthwith.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways Bill
  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS TO A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT
  [Page and line references are to Bill 107 as first printed for the Lords]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT
  1Clause 22, page 24, line 40, at end insert:
  "(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (1) above shall not prevent—
  1164

  (a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"), or

  (b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, from being a franchisee.

  (4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, whenever the Franchising Director proposes to issue invitations to tender under section 23 below in respect of any particular services for the carriage of passengers by railway, he may, after consultation with the Board and the Regulator, determine that neither the Board nor any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board shall be eligible for inclusion among the persons to whom the invitations are to be issued or who may be selected as the franchisee.
  (5) The Franchising Director shall not make a determination under subsection (4) above unless he considers that it is desirable to do so—

  (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

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

  (6) The Franchising Director shall—

  (a) give notice of any determination under subsection (4) above to the Board; and

  (b) publish notice of the determination in such manner as he thinks fit.

  (7) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to affect the matters which the Franchising Director may take into account in determining the other persons whom he invites to tender for franchise agreements or whom he selects as franchisees.
  (8) No objectives, instructions or guidance shall be given under section 5 above by the Secretary of State to the Franchising Director with respect to the exercise of his functions under this section.
  (9) In this section—
  "competition for franchises" means competition to become franchisees under franchise agreements;
  "encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry" means encouraging private sector operators who do not currently provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway to commence doing so;
  "qualifying railway employees", in the case of any franchise agreement, means persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement relates at a time before those services begin to be provided under that franchise agreement. ".

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  2Subsection (4), line 2, leave out from first ("to") to ("in") and insert ("award a franchise under this Part")
  LORDS AMENDMENT
  3Subsection (4), line 6, leave out from ("for") to end of subsection and insert ("selection as the franchisee. ")

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Subsection (5), line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of paragraph (a) and insert ("only make a determination under subsection (4) if a transfer of services to the private sector would not significantly increase the cost to the Franchising Director of providing the service and if he considers that it is necessary to make such a determination to facilitate such a transfer and—").
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendments for the following reason:
  Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for a determination of the kind in question to be made later than the time at which the Franchising Director issues invitations to tender in respect of the services to which the determination relates.

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
  Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5, but the House do insist on their Amendment No. 4.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention to rake over the embers of last night's curious experiences although I suspect that, sadly, they will continue to glow for some time to come. Let us return to the central issue of the three amendments which we debated in your Lordships' House yesterday and agreed. They were amendments about allowing British Rail to bid for franchises.
  Although I personally disagree with the Commons in their rejection of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, as they are numbered on today' s Marshalled List, the other place has offered its reasons. Those reasons put forward a valid point of view whether we agree with them or not. Only time will tell whether we are correct or whether another place is correct. I fear—for the sake of British Rail and for the rail network in this country—that we are right and that the other place is wrong. However, I do not believe that at this stage anything is to be gained by pressing the amendments further.
  However, Amendment No. 4 is rather a different matter. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that British Rail could not be excluded if it offered a service which was significantly cheaper than that offered by anyone else. I have to suggest that that is ignored in the reasons given by another place. It seems to me that the reasons apply only to the first two amendments and have no bearing on the third amendment even though the other place seemed to sit up rather late last night deciding on those reasons. It is not for us to discuss the ways in which they were achieved. Nevertheless, it took another place until 2 o'clock and, for some reason, the Commons seem to have failed to produce any reason for rejecting Amendment No. 4.
  Perhaps the Commons did not realise that Amendment No. 4 can be freestanding. When it was discussed in your Lordships' House yesterday, it was associated with the other two amendments even though the Government insisted on having a separate vote on each of the three amendments. The amendments could be, and were, associated. However, Amendment No. 4 is a freestanding amendment and instead of being operated as it would have been under our suggestions against
  1166
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, it will equally well operate against the benchmark of the shadow franchise which is already in the Bill and which the franchise director will have to take into account.
  It may be that once again we shall have constitutional qualms. I hope not. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, set those qualms aside yesterday in your Lordships' House. I would merely add that this is not a repeat of what we did yesterday. This is the first time that it has been suggested that we send one of the amendments back to the Commons when the Commons have rejected it. Yesterday we were merely amending government amendments.
  So the reason for insisting on this amendment is first to find out whether there is a reason for the objection to it. Much more importantly, however, and much more simply, it is to save the taxpayer the possibility of wasteful expenditure. I believe that on that ground alone we have, first, the right to expect an explanation from the Government as to why they see extra expenditure being possible under the Bill as it now stands arid then, if we are not satisfied with that, to send the provisions back to another place and invite it to have another look at the matter. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5, but the House do insist on their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Tordoff.)
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to make a few observations at this stage. Yesterday, we had sight for the first time of the Commons amendment to the one that I moved in your Lordships' House and which your Lordships accepted. I took the view, as did others of your Lordships, that the amendment from another place ate away at the heart of what we had suggested. Despite the fact that I was in some disagreement with a number of my noble friends, whose views I respect, I believe that we had every right to criticise that amendment; to point out what we thought were its shortcomings, and to seek to amend it, as indeed we did.
  Another place has now made very clear its views about our amendments. It has stuck to its own views. In my opinion, for what it is worth, if we were now to press our view, we would be moving the argument to an altogether different level. Instead of merely talking about what was likely to be good or bad for our railway system, we should be talking about other matters, and we might be embarking upon a discussion and a process to which we would not find it easy to put a full stop. So, in my view, having had some part in those arguments, and not, I think having any reason to regret anything I have said, or withdraw it, I still feel that at this stage it would be unwise to press the matter further. My view of the measure remains the same, but I believe that we should be unwise to press the amendments which yesterday we carried in the face of the flat rejection of them by the other place.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, although whether we press it any further is another matter. It seems to me that no reply has been given to Amendment

  1167
  No. 4. Amendment No. 4 is, of course, the major amendment, because it was that amendment which was phrased in a way that would make it clear that we were intent upon saving the taxpayer's money. Surely that is an important issue. That point is not addressed at all in the reply that we have received from the other place. It has replied, as I see it, to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, but a reply to Amendment No. 4 does not exist. In those circumstances, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has a point. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response. We must judge what we do in the light of that response.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may say one or two words in disagreement, unfortunately, with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I say "unfortunately" because I believe that we all agree that his performance and the care that he has taken with the Bill have been exceptional under the circumstances. The House and the railway industry—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, and the community.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, and the community indeed. They have every cause to be grateful to the noble Lord and other noble Lords for the efforts that they have made to try to get the Bill right. Clearly, the House of Lords, having first passed an amendment in Committee, believed that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Bill. When the other place amended that amendment, this House continued to believe that it was right and that the other place was wrong. There is therefore a matter of principle involved. If this House believes that what it is doing is right, then it should continue to say so, and to confirm the view that it has taken on the Bill so far.
  The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that we might endanger our own institution; that we might endanger the House of Lords; that it would be unwise to have a further confrontation with the other place. However, the constitution allows this House to have its final say. There is provision in the Parliament Act for what happens if this House insists upon its amendment. There is provision for the Bill to be represented to the other place, and to pass into law within 28 days of its being given its Second Reading in the other place. In this case, we should be bringing about a delay, since the Bill would be reintroduced immediately in the next Session, of only weeks. But those weeks would give the other place and, in particular, the Minister an opportunity to have third thoughts about this issue, and, because it is so important, it is correct surely that the House, as a whole, and the Government get it right.
  I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that that would be a minor confrontation—if we call it a confrontation—because in 1991 we had a much more serious confrontation with the other place: we refused to give further consideration to the War Crimes Bill which it had passed with a large majority with the support of the Government and the Prime Minister. But on that occasion, this House said, "No", even to considering the
  1168
  Bill any further. That was a much more serious matter. Here we are merely saying to the other place, "We think that you have got it wrong. We have had long discussions about this. We have had learned arguments. We have had expert arguments from noble Lords who are specialists in this matter". It is our duty to say to the other place, "We understand your position, but you must understand ours. On a matter of principle, and on a number of occasions, we have decided that there is something fundamentally wrong with this Bill, and in those circumstances we cannot agree that you should put down our amendments". Therefore we should insist upon the amendment.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords,—
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister. I did not intend to intervene, but I am prompted to do so by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I do not agree entirely that this is now a purely constitutional issue, because I believe that sufficient has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to show that there is still some policy content involved. However, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that, in a sense, we are moving into a new dimension, because the issue now would clearly be constitutional. We should face that fact. I suggested yesterday that, in effect, we were being asked to assent to the substitution of a one-Chamber Parliament for a two-Chamber Parliament, whenever the Government wish it. That is a Chamber where the Government have disciplined powers over their majority by the powers of the Whip and where they can impose a guillotine. Both measures have occurred in respect of this Bill; Whips were applied and a guillotine was imposed. Therefore, the question is how far your Lordships acquiesce in what is a move to a one-Chamber Parliament.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, your Lordships' powers are limited by the Parliament Act. But, in addition, we have a self-imposed limitation by what is known generally as the "Salisbury doctrine". We do not oppose a measure from the House of Commons which was clearly put before the electorate in an election manifesto in this sense: that we do not oppose the Second Reading where there is a clear policy commitment, and it follows that we do not countenance wrecking amendments. That follows from the Second Reading adoption. In addition to the doctrine of the mandate, which hardly stands up to examination because it treats the manifesto as though it were a referendum, there are undoubtedly the effects of the manifesto as a commitment.
  Understandably, the Government have been accused of pursuing this Bill purely out of ideological prejudice carried to an absurd degree. Obviously, there is an ideological element behind it but one must be fair to the Government. They undertook a commitment in their manifesto to introduce a Bill to privatise the railway industry. Having given that commitment, they were morally bound to do so. However, that does not mean that your Lordships are bound to agree to every detail. For example, it would be quite absurd to say that that

  1169
  manifesto commitment—I use the word commitment and not the word "mandate" extended its umbrella effect to details such as pensions, which were introduced in a late schedule to the Bill, or to the franchising system, which I do not believe that the Government had thought of at the time of the general election.
  Therefore, it seems to me that in respect of a detail such as this—an important detail, as has been pointed out—noble Lords are entitled to vindicate their view and, moreover, to vindicate their view that in reality Parliament still consists of two Chambers, of which this Chamber is a most important one. Your Lordships command an unexampled and unparalleled wealth of experience and knowledge on this and on almost every subject that might be raised in this Chamber.
  The Bill does not stand alone. Habitually government legislation has been forced through your Lordships' House at very late hours and at very early hours. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the Education Bill, which remains painfully in our minds. Habitually we were kept sitting after 11 p.m. and often after midnight. On one occasion we were kept until three o'clock in the morning.
  In respect of the Child Support Bill, again your Lordships were not given sufficient time to discuss the measure. In the end there was no debate on the Motion that the Bill do now pass because your Lordships were told that the next day's business would be lost. That measure was the most bureaucratic that has appeared on the statute book. We are now learning the lesson of the widespread objection to the child support officers applying a formula in a schedule which no one claims to understand, except perhaps the person in the department who devised it. Certainly the Minister did not claim to understand it, no child support officer can understand it and still less can the unfortunate wives and husbands whom the Bill concerns understand it. That measure has now come home to roost.
  Then there was the Children Act. That was debated at length and there were numerous government amendments at every stage in your Lordships' House. But when it came back from the other place the government amendments ran to more pages than did the Bill as sent to the other place. That was by no means the end because further tinkering had to take place. Subsequently the Courts and Legal Services Bill included a long schedule running to four pages which made more amendments to the Children Act.
  Nor was that the end. We have suddenly woken up to find that, hardly had the words "family values" left our mouths when, due to the pressure of business, we had provided under that Act that a child could divorce a parent. That is one example of the Government treating your Lordships' House as though it were of no consequence.
  Even more serious was the War Crimes Act mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The substantial majority in your Lordships' House was simply disregarded and the Bill was re-presented under the Parliament Act. I have yet to hear any constitutional lawyer say that he thought that was a proper use of the Parliament Act, whether or not he approves of that Act.
  1170
  Therefore, it seems to me that the time has come when your Lordships must make up your minds: are we supinely to allow your Lordships' House to be marginalised and sidelined in the constitution, or shall your Lordships take the perfectly feasible course of supporting the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for whom I have the greatest respect, has addressed the wrong question. He put the issue to your Lordships as though it is a great matter of constitutional import. He did so with great and seductive skill. He appealed first to your Lordships' sense of flattery, saying that the House was an unexampled resource of all the wisdom in the world. Although I agree that among us there are a large variety of skills, it must be said that the skills and experience of privatisation lie largely at the other end of the corridor and not at this. We have had many years' experience and have profited from them.
  The noble and learned Lord went on to appeal to your Lordships' sense of fatigue which is always a very lively sentiment at this stage of the proceedings. He moved from that to the irritation which any assembly such as ours must feel towards those who manage its affairs. He suggested that it would have been possible to conduct the business of your Lordships' House while going to bed at a reasonable hour and having our dinners undisturbed. That has never been achieved in the past since the reign of Queen Victoria and it is not reasonable to suppose that any decision this evening will change that.
  The constitutional question is a question not of whether we have the undoubted right—because we do—to continue to insist until the Parliament Act is invoked, but whether this is an appropriate occasion on which to invoke it and, if we do that, whether the consequences will be more acceptable to us than the consequences if we do not. Nobody has addressed the question, although I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do so, of what will fall together with this amendment if the Parliament Act is invoked. Nobody has considered the question of whether there are degrees of opposition appropriate to different occasions. The most recent occasion—and one of the very few occasions on which the Parliament Act was invoked—was a matter on which many of your Lordships held very strong philosophical and even moral feelings: it was the question of the War Crimes Bill. I believe that the attitude which the House then struck was exactly right and suited not only to the occasion but also to the variety of skills and experience present in your Lordships' House and perhaps not present in another place.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord not accept that the Parliament Act is not the only alternative? An alternative is for the Government, who are mainly and crucially concerned, to accept your Lordships' view.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the point that I make is that it has been suggested elsewhere that this is an appropriate time to court the use of the Parliament Act.

  1171
  I suggest to your Lordships that it would be wholly inappropriate. This amendment goes to the heart of the purpose of the Bill. It was clear at the time at which the statement was put into the manifesto that the Bill would be brought to your Lordships although the detailed method was not made clear. The amendment seeks to preserve an element of the present system which the Bill was designed to remove.
  For all those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will not fall into the trap of giving such credit to the enormous experience and wisdom of the noble and learned Lord. I do not use those terms in any sense in flattery because I have been a coadjutor with him on other matters and I have seen the depth of his skills and the clarity of his vision. But on this matter, I believe that he is wrong and I hope that in addressing the amendment, my noble friend will encourage your Lordships to resist it.
  4 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is perhaps a little premature in referring to the Parliament Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, remarked last night, we have a provisional day set aside for business on Monday. We have Starred Questions on the Order Paper. It is quite a time before we need to think of the Parliament Act.
  The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, to whom I always listen with the greatest attention, suggested that perhaps we owed a respect to another place. That is rather more consideration than another place showed us last night. Nevertheless, if we were insisting again—
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Earl cannot have listened to me with all that close attention. Whatever I felt towards the other place, I did not this afternoon express respect for it.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that correction. I hope that he will forgive me for the occasional use of euphemism. It is a necessary part of the political vocabulary.
  He suggested that perhaps it is time to give way. If this had been the same combination of amendments again, he might perhaps have had a case. I make no judgment on that. But in combination with the Bill as it now stands, as my noble friend Lord Tordoff pointed out, this is something at which we are asking another place to look for the first time. We are entitled to find out what may be its opinion. When we find it out, we shall no doubt take account of it in whatever way then seems appropriate.
  The noble Lord also raises a question of the future of this House. That is a delicate question. I admit that there are times when caution is needed. In dealing with another place, which we must challenge but from which we derive our power, we must walk on a tightrope. But the point of a tightrope is that you can fall off one side of it or the other. We may show too little respect for another place, but if we show too much, we do not justify our existence. The first Earl of Shaftesbury, addressing this House in 1675 said:
  1172
  "My Lords, if you should grow useless, you will soon grow burdensome".
  I believe that that is advice to which we should listen today.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may make a very brief intervention. The problem is narrow and has nothing to do with the Parliament Act or the War Crimes Bill. The Reasons Committee in another place has not given a reason as regards Amendment No. 4. That is the narrow problem. It is not a great constitutional matter but it is a matter which seems to have been overlooked by your Lordships. I have nothing further to say.
  Lord Eatwell: My Lords, perhaps I may bring the issue back to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In his reply, I urge the noble Earl to address himself directly and carefully to Amendment No. 4. I point out that it is designed purely to save the taxpayer money. Why are the Government opposed to saving the taxpayer money?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for not insisting on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. That means that a determination would have to be made before invitations to tender were issued.
  But Amendment No. 4 on which the noble Lord insists, would not allow the franchising director to make a determination unless he was satisfied that a transfer would not significantly increase the cost of providing the service. I believe that I was the only Member of your Lordships' House to address this amendment yesterday. I shall try to do so again now.
  At the point of inviting bids, the franchising director could only have a very hazy picture of the relative costs of the private sector versus BR operation of the service in question. Any judgment that he made would necessarily be speculative. I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested when he spoke first; namely, that this amendment is as free-standing as he would like to believe. It makes sense to consider the relative costs at the point of awarding the franchise but not at the point of inviting tenders. That is the difference.
  The noble Lord is right that the franchising director will have at that stage a view about BR's costs as he will have access to BR's historical record of the costs of providing the service as a shadow franchise. But he will not have a full picture of the cost of private sector operations with which to make a valid comparison.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, omitted to mention one important aspect of his amendment. It deletes from the government amendment the criterion of promotion of competition for franchises. I am sure that the whole House will agree that that is an important issue. Competition for franchises is an important objective and it should be taken into account when the franchising director decides whether to make a determination. By insisting, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wants us to do with Amendment No. 4, that that is excluded, that is to the detriment of the Bill.

  1173
  We have narrowed the differences between this House and another place to the details of the franchising director's power of determination. It is an important issue but a relatively narrow one.
  I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we have given the matter very serious consideration. I have spent a long time with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport, examining this issue alone. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made recommendations to another place. The other place has taken the view that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, should not be incorporated in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree that we should not press the matter further. The delayed 11 o'clock train from last night has now arrived at the station. I invite your Lordships to climb on board.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I think it would be better to say that the train now arriving in the station comes as a complete surprise to the Government. I still do not believe that we have received answers to the questions regarding the Commons reasons for rejecting the amendment, which I think are due to us. I heard what the Minister said in relation to the amendment, but it does not altogether seem to tie up with the words of his right honourable friend in another place last night who said:
  "[It] means that the franchising director would take into account the costs in any awards that he makes, not least because he will have as his benchmark the historic track record of the existing passenger franchise, the new shadow franchise, when he examines the bids".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/93; col. 421.]
  I thought that that was what I was indicating from the beginning. Therefore, I do not quite understand the Minister's response to it.
  Perhaps I may say immediately how gratified I am that., on a matter of transport which normally attracts very few people in your Lordships' House, we should have such a large gathering on both sides of the Chamber for such an important matter. Indeed, beyond the Bar of the House, there seems to be an unusual interest in the matter. I cannot think why. I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the short debate. As always, one is grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for taking us through the constitutional issues. However, on this occasion one is also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for following up with a synopsis of what the noble and learned Lord said.
  It was probably as well said on 11th November 1975 (at col.1742 of Hansard) when it was said:
  "If now we decide to use that very limited power, we are not thwarting the will of the people for, in so far as it is represented by the House of Commons, it will and must prevail in a comparatively short time. We shall be using those powers for the purpose for which they were given to us".
  Those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who was Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House at that time. Therefore, I fear that the tune does change, depending on which side of the House one is sitting.
  Our proposal was not meant to be a wrecking amendment and it is not a constitutional monstrosity; indeed, it is a very simple amendment designed to elicit
  1174
  why on earth the Government want to expose themselves to the risk of the taxpayer having to pay more than he should. The amendment was designed for the benefit of the taxpayer and for the benefit of rail users.
  At an earlier stage, I said that the Bill was unamendable. We have tried to amend it on a number of occasions in order to improve it. But the fact is that, however many amendments we table to the Bill, we shall not improve it. It is a ghastly Bill. It will bring anguish in its train. I have come to a conclusion that a further minor and specific amendment will not improve the Bill all that much. In those circumstances, after a good discussion this afternoon, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to Commons Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason numbered 5.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to Commons Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason numbered 5.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to respond to the Message from the other place in the absence of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis who has a long-standing appointment abroad and also of my noble friend Lord Carmichael who, I regret to say, currently has flu.
  It is a matter of great regret that the other place has seen fit to reject our amendments. That is especially so in respect of Amendment No. 4 which we have just discussed and which would have saved the taxpayer money. I share the view already expressed by noble Lords in the House that we have received no adequate reason from the other place as to its rejection of Amendment No. 4.
  I should like to say most emphatically from this Dispatch Box today that none of the amendments we have supported on this side of the House has been intended to derail privatisation, as has been alleged. Many of us may not like privatisation, including myself, but I think that there has been a genuine understanding on all sides of the House that the Government made privatisation a part of the manifesto on which they were elected. Therefore, we have had to respect that fact.
  We have wanted to achieve improvements in the Bill. In particular, as has already been said, we wanted to retain the expertise of BR and to save public money. Many newspapers this morning, including the Evening Standard which normally supports the Government, have said that the Peyton-Marsh amendments were sensible. Nevertheless, they have been rejected. As a non-elected revising Chamber, we shall have to accept that, although I deeply regret it. In my view, the other place has been ill-advised to reject our amendments.
  The procedures by which we have reached the current stage have, I think, been quite farcical. We were left waiting around for a long time last night for a Message

  1175
  which never came. I do not think that that did the image of Parliament any good. It was all unnecessary. It would have been so much more dignified last night if we had all accepted the proposition of my noble friend Lord Richard and gone home to resume, as we have done, this afternoon. It has not been our fault.
  We have fought long and hard on the Bill. I believe that we have been right. The amendments tabled on this side of the House have, as I have said before, not been an attempt to oppose privatisation; nor have we been briefed by BR, as has been said in some quarters. However, we have been briefed—and I do not deny it—by organisations representing pensioners. I do not see why we should not have accepted advice from them, or from trade unions on the issue of employee rights. We have done what we thought was right to try to protect passengers, future rail users, taxpayers, employees and pensioners. We have not entirely succeeded, but we did our best. The shambles that the Government have found themselves in because of the Bill has not been the fault of the Opposition.
  My Lords, as I said, we have done our best. Indeed, how can the Government expect anything else when such substantial amendments were introduced at a very late stage of the Bill's proceedings? We had all too little time—and I say this especially to the Minister—to get advice on them and consider them in the depth that we should have liked.
  However, despite all those problems, we have done what we can. Time alone will show whether we were right. But I am convinced that we were right and that, eventually, the electorate will give its verdict on this misguided, misbegotten piece of legislation.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should like to thank all speakers who have taken part in the proceedings of the Bill, not only up to and including Third Reading but also subsequently at all hours of the day and night. I believe that it is worth bearing in mind the fact that we passed about 470 amendments to another place, most of which were intended to improve the Bill. Moreover, we have had over 50 hours of debate in the Chamber. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wishes to intervene. I give way.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. He just raised the point about the number of amendments passed to another place. I wonder whether he can tell his right honourable friend that it is most unfortunate that he apparently seeks to blame last night's problems on the huge number of amendments coming from your Lordships' House as if it were our fault. The vast majority of those were government amendments and for the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State to blame us for the number of amendments that the Commons had to deal with is a little unfair.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly have not heard my right honourable friend blaming the House. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport have gone out of their way to meet the
  1176
  concerns of your Lordships' House. It is interesting to note that during the 50 hours or so of debate that we have had on the Railways Bill in this House only about 10 hours were spent on government amendments. I believe that shows we have fulfilled our function well. The government amendments were mostly technical and revising amendments, as I had predicted. I extend a "thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his courtesy today and to the noble Baroness for her kind words. I thank all your Lordships. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the Commons Amendment No. 1 with which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prorogation
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that it is now expected that the House will be prorogued by Royal Commission at 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning until Thursday 18th November.

European Economic Area Bill [H.L.]
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT [The page and line refer to Bill [91] as first printed by the Commons]
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after 'Act,' insert 'in the list'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Amendment No. 1 is simply a drafting correction and Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 take account of the protocol that excludes Switzerland from the EEA agreement and allows for late membership by Liechtenstein. Amendment No. 5 deals with a privilege amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert 'together with the Protocol adjusting that Agreement signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993'.
3Clause 6, page 3, line 46, at end insert 'as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.'.
4Page 4, line 3, at end insert—

1177
'(2) References in this Act to the date on which the Agreement comes into force are references to the date on which (in accordance with the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993) it comes into force otherwise than as regards Liechtenstein.'.
5Clause 7, page 4. line 6, leave out subsection (2)
6In the Title, at end insert 'as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.'
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en block.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
4.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th October be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order is long and complex but it is none the less largely non-contentious. The length of the order is a consequence of it consolidating as well as amending existing law relating to roads in Northern Ireland. The modification and clarification of roads law introduced in the order is necessary to take account of changing needs and circumstances, deficiencies identified through operational experience and the desirability of further harmony with highway law in England and Wales. The order should, as a result, better serve the operational needs of the Department of the Environment as road authority and hence the interests of road users.
Turning to the content of the order, I will confine my remarks to the most significant of the new and amended provisions. Part III introduces a procedure for authorising the private sector to provide and maintain special roads in exchange for the facility to charge tolls. This will correspond closely with the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Although there are no toll roads operating in Northern Ireland and no current proposals for the introduction of such facilities, it is considered prudent to provide for the possible eventuality.
Part IV contains new and amended provisions relating to the improvement and safety of roads, which in particular, modify the Department of the Environment's power to provide street lighting to take account of street lighting in private streets becoming the responsibility of the developer; to clarify its road drainage responsibilities; and to give it improved powers to introduce traffic calming measures and to deal with sources of potential danger or nuisance to road users.
Part VIII replaces the anachronistic local provision, the Down County Council (Strangford Lough Ferry) Act 1967, under which the Department of the Environment has operated the Strangford ferry service since the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland in 1973. Article 122, which
1178
corresponds to Section 23 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, gives the Department of the Environment for the first time a specific power to enter into agreements whereby works carried out by the department under the order will be paid for by a developer, either wholly or in part.
The order makes a number of other relatively minor or technical changes in roads law, chiefly reflecting operational experience. However, I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the legislation. I commend the order to your Lordships' House and I hope it will be welcomed as a convenient, comprehensive and clear statement of the law on public roads in Northern Ireland.'
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th October be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the synopsis of the Bill which he gave us with his usual skill and speed, especially in view of the fact that this is rather a long order. I am also grateful to him for elucidating the new elements which the order introduces and for signalling them so clearly. We on these Benches are concerned by a number of aspects of this order which we believe reflects, in general terms, the Government's failure to adopt an integrated transport policy for Northern Ireland, and indeed for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which we have urged on them for a long time.
It is to be hoped that in this case the matter can he debated more fully in another place when it considers the order. The whole order is based on the necessity, announced right at the beginning of it, to facilitate road traffic. This seems to us to be a shaky basis for policy. The Government should, especially if they are serious about the Rio Summit, be seeking instead to reduce rather than accommodate traffic growth. We need to provide full environmental assessment of all transport options before opting for a road as opposed to a different option.
I hope that the noble Earl will give me a little assistance and elucidation on one part of the order. Perhaps he can throw light on Part V of the order which deals specifically with environmental assessment. Article 67(1) states that,
"where the Department has under consideration the construction of a new road … it shall determine before the date of publication of details of the project whether or not it falls within Annex I or Annex II to Council Directive No. 85/337/EEC".
The article continues:
"Where it appears to the Department that it falls within Annex I, or that it falls within Annex II … that it should be made subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with the Directive, the Department shall prepare an environmental statement".
Headings (a) and (b) of Article 67(2) contain reservations about the nature of the assessment. Why are these reservations especially necessary in this case? What will be the effect of the statement on the eventual assessment? Who precisely will make the environmental assessment? The department will make the statement, but who will make the assessment? Am I correct in assuming that, regardless of what any

1179
assessment may say, the department will still retain the power to proceed with the project whatever environmental dangers are signalled?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for his clear introduction to this order. As he said, it is a long order but he is right to describe it as non-contentious on the whole. I wish to ask the noble Earl three questions on Part III which deals on the whole with toll roads and the question of concessionaires and private firms running those roads. Is the noble Earl aware—I am sure the Government are aware—that toll roads in the United States have always had an attraction for racketeers as they generate large sums of cash? They involve an enormous cash flow. Is the Minister satisfied, in the context of Northern Ireland, that the cash that is necessary for the operation of a toll system does not present tempting opportunities to those in the terrorist organisations who are increasingly looking to racketeering as a source of finance now that other sources of finance, thank goodness, are increasingly closed to them?
My second point is why toll roads are presented as a means of raising money by concessionaires and do not appear to be considered, as I believe they should be, as a factor for pushing traffic from the roads to more efficient and environmentally benign forms of transport, including rail—which we debated so recently in your Lordships' House, in a rather more crowded Chamber than now.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Earl what may seem a trivial question. It is mentioned in Article 35 that the police will be able to travel free on any private toll roads which are introduced, but there is no mention of the security forces. Are we to assume that the Army will have to stop and put money in the meter, or will they, too, have free travel on these roads?
Having made those three points, to which I should be grateful for a response, we on these Benches have no objections to the order.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am well aware that the present situation in Northern Ireland is one of extreme tension and that nothing should be done which would in any way make easier the commission of acts of terrorism and political violence. However, perhaps I may refer to the question of cross-border roads, a large number of which have been permanently closed or obstructed. I should like to put down a marker that the subject should not be completely forgotten but should be re-examined in the medium or long term.
I hope that such a re-examination would not be done en bloc as a matter of all or nothing. It would be far better if re-examination could be conducted on a case-by-case basis, road by road, looking first at those roads where closure causes the longest detours. I say no more. I do not expect the noble Earl even to refer to the subject today. However, I should not like it to be lost sight of completely.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, before dwelling on the points raised by noble Lords I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris,
1180
to the Opposition Bench as spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs. It may be appropriate if I pay tribute at the same time to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, although he is not in his seat at the moment. The noble Lord has spoken on Northern Ireland matters for the past eight years, during which time your Lordships will agree he has asked many searching, penetrating and discerning questions, always in a most courteous manner. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to be associated with that tribute, particularly former Ministers from my own Benches who were always aware of the noble Lord's affection and respect for the people and affairs of Northern Ireland.
I said at the beginning that the order is long and complex. Several noble Lords have asked some fairly searching questions. The order was subject to extensive consultation with the interested parties prior to its consideration in your Lordships' House. It is evident that it has broad support.
Perhaps I may take some of the points, not necessarily in the order in which they were raised. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, as regards Article 35, that I understand that the Army would be exempt from the payment of tolls.
In response to the question concerning environmental assessment put by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the environmental statement is made by the department. The department is also charged with the task of carrying out the assessment. The final decision is a matter for the Minister for the Environment in the light of the information gathered.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, about cash flows and the potential for racketeering by terrorists. That is a serious point, and he is quite right to raise it. Of course his views will be taken very strongly into account.
I take very seriously also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He is quite right. This is a very sensitive and difficult time in Northern Ireland. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at this very moment is seeking to talk to the political leaders in Northern Ireland in an endeavour to get talks going again. I also take the point that the noble Lord made concerning cross-border roads.
I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
4.36 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this second order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988. Matters concerning health and safety and environmental protection are relevant currently as new Environmental Information Regulations have recently been made in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to implement the EC Directive on Freedom of Access to Information on the

1181
Environment. Those regulations complement the provisions of this order and it is opportune therefore that the order should be introduced at this time.
I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions. The main purpose of the order is to require the authorities responsible for the enforcement of specified health, safety and environmental legislation to keep registers containing details of enforcement notices issued under the legislation which affect members of the public. Such notices are concerned with protecting the public from safety or environmental hazards.
The Government are keen to promote the order on two counts. First, it will make a useful contribution towards public safety and environmental protection by making companies on whom notices are served more directly accountable to the public. Companies will be encouraged to take adequate and timely precautions to protect the public from any potential dangers arising
1182
from their operations, in the knowledge that if they fail to do so information about any enforcement notices served on them will be made publicly available.
Secondly, the order encourages greater openness by the public authorities concerned. The public will be able to be informed about enforcement action which has been taken in relation to matters affecting public safety which is fully consistent with the openness principle enshrined in the Citizen's Charter.
This is a short and straightforward order which will provide the public with useful information concerning its own safety. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved—(The Earl of Arran).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before five o'clock.

  LIFE IMPRISONMENT: TARIFF DISCLOSURE
  LIFE IMPRISONMENT: TARIFF DISCLOSURE
  SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893, SECTION 26: EFFECT
  SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893, SECTION 26: EFFECT
  MAASTRICHT TREATY AND THE CORONATION OATH
  MAASTRICHT TREATY AND THE CORONATION OATH
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: AID PLANS FOR FORTHCOMING WINTER
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: AID PLANS FOR FORTHCOMING WINTER
  KENYA: SECURITY SITUATION
  KENYA: SECURITY SITUATION
  OVERSEAS AID ALLOCATION
  OVERSEAS AID ALLOCATION
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
  MEPs AND COUNCIL OF EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ALLOWANCES
  MEPs AND COUNCIL OF EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ALLOWANCES
  NATO ROLE IN PEACE PARTNERSHIP PROPOSALS
  NATO ROLE IN PEACE PARTNERSHIP PROPOSALS
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 4th–5th OCTOBER: STATEMENT ON RUSSIA
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 4th–5th OCTOBER: STATEMENT ON RUSSIA
  RUSSIA: PRINCESS OF WALES'S VISIT
  RUSSIA: PRINCESS OF WALES'S VISIT
  RUSSIA: DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT AND SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
  RUSSIA: DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT AND SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
  RUSSIA: CONDITION OF UK SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT YELTSIN
  RUSSIA: CONDITION OF UK SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT YELTSIN
  RUSSIA: PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING FUND
  RUSSIA: PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING FUND
  RUSSIA: ELECTION OBSERVATION ARRANGEMENTS
  RUSSIA: ELECTION OBSERVATION ARRANGEMENTS
  ARTS COUNCIL GRANT
  ARTS COUNCIL GRANT
  CROSSRAIL: PLANNING GAIN
  CROSSRAIL: PLANNING GAIN
  HIGHWAYS AGENCY: POLICY
  HIGHWAYS AGENCY: POLICY
  ROAD SCHEMES: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES
  ROAD SCHEMES: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES
  ROADS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT: BALANCE OF FUNDING
  ROADS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT: BALANCE OF FUNDING
  HEROIN AND COCAINE SEIZURES
  HEROIN AND COCAINE SEIZURES
  TWH MANAGEMENT LTD: DISSEMINATION OF LICENSED DEALERS TRIBUNAL REPORT
  TWH MANAGEMENT LTD: DISSEMINATION OF LICENSED DEALERS TRIBUNAL REPORT
  BRITISH FORCES EQUIPMENT EXHIBITIONS: INVITATIONS
  BRITISH FORCES EQUIPMENT EXHIBITIONS: INVITATIONS
  SINGLE PEOPLE: INCOME SUPPORT AND HOUSING BENEFIT COSTS
  SINGLE PEOPLE: INCOME SUPPORT AND HOUSING BENEFIT COSTS
  ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS EXPOSURE: BENEFIT CRITERIA
  ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS EXPOSURE: BENEFIT CRITERIA
  REDHILL AERODROME: PLANNING APPLICATION
  REDHILL AERODROME: PLANNING APPLICATION
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  HOUSING ACTION TRUST, BRENT, PROPOSAL
  HOUSING ACTION TRUST, BRENT, PROPOSAL
  GENERAL MEDICAL PRACTICES: VALUE OF CERTIFICATION
  GENERAL MEDICAL PRACTICES: VALUE OF CERTIFICATION
  CONTINENCE WEEK
  CONTINENCE WEEK
  PESTICIDE POISONING: GUIDANCE PUBLICATIONS
  PESTICIDE POISONING: GUIDANCE PUBLICATIONS
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND