Sitting of 25 October 1993

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

    Tourism
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what briefing he has received from the English tourist board on the regulations which might be removed from tourist businesses.
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from the English tourist board on the regulations which could suitably be removed from tourism businesses.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The English tourist board has contributed information suggestions to my inquiry into the effects of regulation on tourism and to the retail tourism and other services task force established by the Department of Trade and Industry. In addition, I have had many representations from trade associations and individuals in the tourism and leisure sectors. I am taking up with ministerial colleagues a number of the concerns that they have raised.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on that response and remind him that he was chairman of a committee of Conservative Back-Bench Members who considered matters of deregulation? The tourist industry is the biggest foreign exchange earner in the country and therefore looks to him to make its job easier. Will he undertake to pursue that task with all vigour?
    Mr. Sproat: Certainly, I will pursue it with all vigour. My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are about 18 million foreign visitors to Britain every year who spend £7.8 billion. That is a vast industry, which in the past has been severely underrated.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that in one noisy disco in Birmingham an environmental health officer instructed the barman to wear ear muffs? Is he further aware that when it was pointed out that the barman would not be able to hear customers, the officer said that it was not his problem? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for regulations that produce such daft decisions to go and does he further agree that all environmental officers should be well trained in the understanding of the bottom line in business?
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on how well informed she is on those matters.
    560
    One of the main problems with all regulations is that they are not applied in the same way in different parts of the country. It is often extremely difficult for people running tourism-related businesses to know how environmental and fire regulations officers and others will apply regulations. That is one of the problems that we are seeking to address in the current campaign.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the tourist attractions in the mining areas are the miners' brass bands and that where Government decisions have closed pits, many brass bands are placed in jeopardy, which affects the tourism trade in places such as Bolsover and elsewhere? If privatisation of the coal industry takes place, will he, as he suggested to me previously, consider the position of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation to ensure that those who have the capacity to finance the brass bands in the pit areas will be able to do so and function as before?
    Mr. Sproat: I take extremely seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I remember that he also raised it on the announcement of the abolition of the United Kingdom Sports Commission. I hope that when the national lottery is up and running and the Sports Council is attributing funds, such areas as the old sports grounds run by the miners' welfare associations will be eligible for help. I shall gladly discuss that further with him. The brass bands are an extremely important part of our artistic and cultural heritage and I will do everything that I can to see that they, too, are supported.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that he has a reputation in the tourist industry as someone who wishes to deregulate anything and everything? Will he recognise that some regulations, especially in the areas of health and safety, are necessary in the industry? Therefore, before rushing headlong into a spate of deregulation measures, will he take time to differentiate the good from the bad? The package travel directive certainly comes in the latter category. As the Minister hinted earlier, the industry needs clarification of existing regulations and consistency in their implementation.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Some regulations are unnecessary and over-bureaucratic; some are extremely important. We seek to distinguish between the two.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the package travel directive. That is a good example of the original directive not being directed at so many of the people whom it catches. I am currently in discussion on that matter with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I had a meeting with them last week and we shall raise the matter with our European colleagues to try to cut it off at source.
    Mr. Waterson: Did my hon. Friend benefit from his recent meeting with the Eastbourne Hotels Association? Will he do everything that he can to try to remove unnecessary burdens from hoteliers and guest house owners, especially on matters such as electricity at work, and the regulations relating to the preparation of food and to the disposal of waste?
    Mr. Sproat: I well remember my meeting with the Eastbourne group and an especially valuable meeting it was. I give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks.

    Rugby Football
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the assistance given by his Department to the sport of rugby football.
    Mr. Sproat: Most Government funds for sport are distributed through the Sports Councils, which allocate them according to their own policies and priorities. In 1992–93, the Sports Council of Great Britain provided grants of £20,000 to the Rugby Football Union, £2,250 to the Rugby Football Schools Union, £160,000 to the British Amateur Rugby League Association and £7,500 to the English Schools Rugby League.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Many of those involved in rugby league and in rugby union welcome the Minister's personal interest in improving the relationship between the two codes and wish him well in his forthcoming visit to what might be regarded as the Jurassic Park of British sport, the Rugby Football Union at Twickenham. Will he impress on the Rugby Football Union the great anger about its continued discrimination against rugby league players? Will he make it clear that the anger relates to the fact that the RFU's amateurism principle resembles the emperor's new clothes? Can the Minister give any assurance that the Rugby Football Union will be dragged towards the 20th century before it is too late, bearing in mind that the split between the two codes occurred almost 100 years ago?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for arranging my extremely enjoyable and educative visit to Wakefield on Friday night. I enjoyed it very much indeed. I take extremely seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the division between the two codes. I do not like that division. Both are marvellous games and it seems idiotic that, after 100 years, such things should still prevail. As it happens, this very morning my officials have been in touch with the office of Mr. Dudley Wood at the Rugby Football Union to set up a discussion at which, among other matters relating to the Rugby Football Union, I want to discuss the relationship between rugby league and rugby union.
    Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the high standards of crowd behaviour at rugby league grounds, including Cougar park in Keighley where crowds have quadrupled in the past couple of years, with many families being attracted? Will he note that any requirement to bring standards up to those that apply in association football grounds, because of crowd problems there, would impose great burdens on rugby league clubs?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. When I was at Wembley a week last Saturday, I was very struck by the fact that, although there were huge crowds there, there was not one spot of trouble among 35,000 people, and very impressive that was too. I understand that rugby league grounds have considerable problems in finding the finance to meet the requirements of the outspill of the Taylor report and other findings. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I have said to Mr. Rodney Walker, the chairman of the Rugby Football League, and to Mr. Maurice Lindsay, the chief executive, that I hope that we can have a meeting to discuss ways in which we can find the funds to ensure that the grounds come up to standard.
    Mr. McCartney: May I congratulate the Minister on wearing a Wakefield rugby league tie—although, given the way Wakefield are playing at the moment, perhaps they might offer him a contract rather than a tie. In the summer, the parliamentary rugby league group sent him a dossier about discrimination against the sport by senior officers of the Ministry of Defence. Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to make a statement to the House about the discussions that have taken place and about whether the Ministry of Defence has taken action to stop the discrimination?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Member for sending me that extremely interesting file about what goes on in the armed services and rugby league. I have read the file and I have asked that a meeting be set up as soon as possible between myself and the relevant Minister at the Ministry of Defence. That meeting will take place in the next few weeks.

    Tourism
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the proposed grant in aid to the English tourist board for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.
    Mr. SproatGrant in aid to the English tourist board totals £13.9 million in the current year. The planned figures for the next two financial years are £10.8 million and £9 million respectively.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the reduction in funding to the ETB that he has just announced, following the withdrawal of section 4 development grants in England, has had a demoralising effect on the English tourist industry, not least in the unassisted areas such as my own? What encouragement can he provide for coastal resorts to resist decline and to compete more effectively against continental rivals with better climates than ours?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about coastal towns. Some of them have recently received assisted area status. I understand that the tourist industry does not like the fact that the grant to the English tourist board will be cut, but the grant to the British Tourist Authority—which tries to suck foreigners into this country so that they can then be dispersed around the United Kingdom—has remained at about £30 million and will increase in cash terms during the next three years. Although I take my hon. Friend's point, he can be assured that the BTA money is secure.
    Mr. Olner: The figures that the Minister has just given are to be regretted. Has he made representations to the Treasury to look at VAT on holidays? Some of my constituents are alarmed that VAT is charged on holidays in this country at a different rate from that charged in continental Europe and that we are not working on a level playing field. With the reduction in grants, will the Minister make representations to ensure that the VAT level is equal?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member makes an important point. Since I last spoke in the House on the subject, I have visited all the regional tourist boards in England and that argument was very forcefully, and rightly, made at every one. I have as forcefully communicated that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    BBC
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish his proposals for the future of the BBC; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future of the BBC.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I hope to publish a White Paper early in the new year which will set out the Government's proposals for the future of the BBC.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I congratulate John Birt and his team on the progress that has already been made in reducing overheads and bureaucracy in the BBC, but does the Minister agree that there is still considerable scope for making savings to increase efficiency, and that the best way to achieve those is to maintain pressure through the licence fee?
    Mr. Brooke: In line with the arrangements that were announced by my predecessor, I invited Touche Ross to examine the progress that the BBC had made in relation to the recommendations that Price Waterhouse made in 1990. Touche Ross reported that the BBC is ahead of the progress that Price Waterhouse was urging. I, too, congratulate the BBC on that progress. The powerful incentive that the BBC has for making those improvements in efficiency is the ability to reinvest in programmes.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC, which has an enormous amount of talent and ability in its ranks, is fully able to take its place in the commercial world where the competition would bring about the economic advantages that were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale)? Does he also agree that it is wrong these days that elderly people should pay a charge of £80 —which could easily be eliminated—to watch television, and that the whole structure that leads to quasi-police vans driving round the streets hunting down people who do not have a licence is out of date and inappropriate in our type of society?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has always been a doughty opponent of the licence fee principle. There are, however, more people than myself who think that there would not be sufficient funds in the commercial world to finance the BBC as well as everything else.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that public service broadcasting is one of the few real jewels left in the cultural crown of this country and that any attempt to destroy it would have a very deleterious effect? Is he aware that there is already clear evidence that the pressure on producers within the BBC is leading to a direct loss of original material and of children's broadcasting? Is he proud of that?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the testimony and tribute that she has paid to the BBC, but she is underestimating the number of things that this country still does remarkably well. On the second half of her question, the Government made it clear in the Green Paper
    564
    published last year that they foresaw a continuing need for public service broadcasting, which would probably, but not certainly, be financed by the licence fee.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has the Minister noticed the warning that Mr. John Birt gave in his speech to the Royal Television Society that although the BBC is making welcome economies and expects to make considerable further economies next year-13 per cent. of central overhead expenditure and 7 per cent. of unit costs—it would be damaging for its productive output and programme making if those savings were to be reflected in any further pressure on the licence fee? He has asked explicitly that the fee be retained and linked to the retail prices index until a further settlement is considered in the charter review. Will the Minister give that undertaking today?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the public statements made by Mr. Birt at the Royal Television Society convention have also been made privately in communication and correspondence with myself. I shall make an announcement about the licence fee shortly.
    Mr. Jessel: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the Select Committee on National Heritage will shortly produce a report on the future of the BBC—a report which may well include some interesting and challenging findings? Could he await that report before his ideas crystallise too much for the White Paper?
    Mr. Brooke: The whole House is in the debt of the National Heritage Select Committee for conducting that examination and inquiry. I look forward to hearing what it has to say and assure my hon. Friend that we shall not publish a White Paper until we have heard from him and the rest of the Committee.
    Ms Mowlam: Regardless of the job that I do, I have an on-going interest in the need for more open government and for making greater information available to the public. I shall, therefore, be interested if the Secretary of State will tell the House why he will not publish the Touche Ross report that he mentioned in an earlier answer, keeping confidential those pieces that are commercially confiden-tial. Surely it would increase the open and frank debate on the future of broadcasting if he allowed the rest of us to have the information that he has.
    Mr. Brooke: I know that the whole House would wish me to welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box in the capacity in which she comes today. We shall treat her with the courtesy that anyone who has been shadowing the citizens charter would expect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is so relieved that she will no longer be opposing him at the Dispatch Box that he has come to the House to make sure that it is really true that she has left him.
    On the Touche Ross report, any publication would be premature before I have made an announcement about the license fee.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to the BBC that it should cede the Greater London Radio, GLR, frequency to which very few people listen, and give it to the London Broadcasting Company, LBC, which is a much more popular station in London?
    Mr. Brooke: There may be some minor complications in my hon. Friend's suggestion. Decisions about frequencies are made by the Radio Authority, rather than by channels taking the decision between them.

    Arts Provision
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has undertaken on the impact of the spending plans for his Department in 1994–95 on the structure of future arts provision.
    Mr. Brooke: This question could be interpreted in a number of ways. I have interpreted it as referring to the effects of decisions taken by the Department in respect of allocations of funds to the arts. I confirm that the indicative planning figure given to the Arts Council for its grant in aid in 1994–95 is £220.9 million—a reduction of £4.7 million or 2 per cent.
    Mr. Hain: All that waffle means that the Secretary of State is not answering my question. Will he confirm that the Treasury's philistine axe will savage the right hon. Gentleman's budget by as much as £5 million? That will be a double body blow, coming on top of millions of pounds of cuts forced on local authority budgets. It will mean, in particular, that discretionary awards to students of dance and drama, which are virtually impossible to obtain at present, will become even more difficult to make. Does not the Secretary of State realise that Britain's high reputation for arts and culture will be destroyed by the undermining of the ability of our young people to contribute to them?
    Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Gentleman will put down clear questions to me, I shall be delighted to give him clear answers. He referred in the latter part of his question to local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, into whose budget the provision for discretionary awards flows through local authority spending, has confirmed that appropriate resources have been available for those awards to be made up. Discretionary awards are, by their very nature, for local authorities to decide.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Arts Council about the apparent mismanagement of its property portfolio?
    Mr. Brooke: I believe that my hon. Friend refers to the lease that the Arts Council took at the height of the property boom on premises in Yarmouth place, to provide overflow space behind its headquarters at 105 Piccadilly. After the council's move to Great Peter street, it was unable to find a tenant to take over the lease. It has now found a buyer for the property and has divested itself of the lease at a cost considerably less than continuing to pay rent until the end of the lease. That will mean more money for the arts in future years.

    BBC
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to change the structure of the board of governors of the BBC.
    Mr. Brooke: None at present, but the role of the governors is one aspect of our consideration of the BBC's future after 1996.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Secretary of State share my alarm at the part of the Thatcher memoirs that describes the appointment in 1986 of Marmaduke Hussey as BBC chairman as an "improvement in every respect"? Does he agree that that view is not widely held? Since 1986, there has been a progressive and serious decline in morale at the BBC as budgets have been cut, programmes threatened and staff lost. The BBC needs not mad Thatcherite economics but a commitment to programme makers, viewers and the values of public service broadcasting.
    Mr. Brooke: I have not even taken the first step that many politicians have made, of looking up my own name in the index to the Thatcher memoirs. Therefore, I certainly have not reached the stage of reading any other part of them. Happily, the gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman made reference is still the BBC's chairman, and I much enjoy working with him. I repeat the answer that I gave to an earlier question. The admirable feature of the efficiency gains that the BBC has been securing—to which the hon. Gentleman may have been referring adversely and obliquely—will go into programme improvements.
    Mr. Corbett: When the renewal of the BBC charter is considered, the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to make some important changes to the way in which the BBC is governed. Will he consider replacing the present BBC governors with an independent board of trustees, which would monitor performance promise on behalf of viewers and listeners? Would it not make the BBC more openly accountable if representative organisations nominated potential trustees, who would be examined by a Select Committee and then appointed by a broadcasting appointments commission? That would end the situation in which the Government are seen as appointing their cronies as governors.
    Mr. Brooke: Some of what lay behind the early part of the hon. Gentleman's question, about the role of the board of governors and how it should work in the future, is reflected in the Green Paper. As to how the board of governors should be appointed, if one of the preoccupations is to ensure total political insulation, I am not wholly confident that that would come about if the House were involved in nominating.

    Sports Coaching
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase the amount of public funds allocated to sports coaching; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: The National Coaching Foundation is the lead body providing coaching support for sports organisations. In 1993–94, the foundation will receive a grant of £1,340,000 from the Sports Council, an increase of 40 per cent. over the previous year. This reflects the importance which the council attaches to this area of work.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. If he compares the amount of sport played by children out of school time nowadays with when he was at school, he will see that much less sport is played. Is that not a tragedy? Does it not mean that financial assistance must be given to clubs, at all levels, in all sports, to enable them to welcome and coach children? That would overcome this difficulty and give our children a chance.
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to my schooldays. He engages in a wide variety of sports, and that does him tremendous credit. There is a common feeling in the House, among those interested in those matters, that we have to find new ways in which the young can become involved in sport. It is a preoccupation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and myself and I am encouraged by the fact that my hon. Friend takes an interest in the subject. In so far as it relates to the national curriculum, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
    Mr. Maxton: When allocating public funds to sports, will the Secretary of State have regard to whether their governing bodies or members are discriminatory, particularly on sex grounds? Golf clubs in particular discriminate against women, either by not allowing female members or by discriminating against women who are members.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman well knows—this applies north as well as south of the border—that the decisions about the allocation of central Government money for sport are made through the Sports Council. I am certain that the Sports Council will read the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend is justifiably proud of the increased funding available for coaching, but he should not forget that thousands, if not millions, of volunteers, parents and teachers give up their Saturday mornings to coach our youngsters. On a similar basis, will he encourage some of our famous sportsmen and sportswomen who, through their sports, have become personalities and millionaires, to give voluntarily of their time so that the excellence that we all seek may be passed on to our youngsters?
    Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those who give up their free time so gladly to assist with the coaching of the young and to share the enjoyment that they experienced earlier in their careers. I also pay tribute to the sports personalities who provide such heroic role models for those returning to the field. The more of that, the better. I commend my hon. Friend for his interest in the subject.

    Tourism
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of state for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the signposting of tourism sights.
    Mr. Sproat: I have received numerous representations detailing wide-ranging concerns about regulations restricting the use of tourism signposts. I am discussing these complex issues with ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Rowe: I am delighted to learn that my hon. Friend is engaging in such discussions. Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet about who chooses the tourist sights to be signposted and considerable dissatisfaction about the fact that some sights do not appear to be allowed to advertise their existence? Will he also bear in mind that, in my part of Kent, people could not see a tourism signpost if they tried, because of the bollards on the M20?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important matter. The problems of securing proper
    568
    signposting for tourist attractions have been with us for a very long time. As I have said, I am now engaged in discussions with the Department of Transport. which is responsible for such matters in Whitehall, but I must point out that county councils can be extremely difficult in this regard. If my hon. Friend cannot see too many tourist-attraction signs in Kent, perhaps he should have a word with his county council as well. He may wish to discuss the matter with me, however: I should like to obtain as much evidence as possible, to sort out this important matter once and for all.

    Television Licences
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of viewers have a valid television licence in the United Kingdom (a) as a whole, (b) in Scotland, (c) in Northern Ireland, (d) in Wales and (e) in England.
    Mr. Sproat: I understand from the BBC that the percentage of viewers with a valid television licence, as at 31 March this year, is estimated to be, for the United Kingdom as a whole, 92.3 per cent.; for Scotland, 92 per cent.; for Northern Ireland, 69.7 per cent.; for Wales, 92.7 per cent.; and for England, 92.9 per cent.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for those figures. I am sure that he appreciates that many of my constituents would be horrified if there were any thought of BBC programmes being interrupted by advertisements; at the same time, however, many of them—particularly pensioners—feel considerable resentment about the present licence fee system.
    Will the Minister ensure that further investigations are carried out into new ways of financing the BBC? The figures suggest that some people in some parts of the United Kingdom are not paying the licence fee—indeed, that that is widespread—and that, in many cities elsewhere, individuals are cheating on the system. That is not fair on the pensioners who must pay the full amount.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It has been estimated that £173 million a year is lost through evasion of the fee. That is a substantial sum, and reinforces the hon. Gentleman's point. I certainly undertake to examine the matter again, although I cannot undertake to say that we will cut the licence fee for pensioners.
    Mr. Fabricant: If my hon. Friend is considering alternatives to the licence fee, will he note that, when Michael Grade gave evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage only last week, he said that allowing advertising on the BBC would mean the end of Channel 4? Will he also note that, when Nigel Walmsley came along —he is the managing director of Carlton and the former managing director of Capital Radio—he said that it would also mean the end of ITV and independent radio? There is not the advertising money to go round.
    Mr. Sproat: As my right hon. Friend said in answer to a previous question, we are aware of those beliefs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the details, and I assure him that they will be taken into account.
    Mr. Trimble: I have been advised to preface my question by saying that I have paid my licence fee.

    569
    Does the Minister have any explanation for the remarkable discrepancy in the figures? In other parts of the United Kingdom, 92 per cent. of licence fees have been paid, while in Northern Ireland the figure drops to below 70 per cent. Does the Minister agree that the figures reinforce the general impression which already exists among the licence payers of Northern Ireland that certain republican areas are immune from any effort to enforce the licence?
    Mr. Sproat: The Northern Ireland figures are, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, shockingly different from those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and they may be a result of terrorist activity. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Citizens Charter
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he is having with members of the United States Government about the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): I met Vice-President Gore and key members of his staff on 18 October. We discussed the United States Administration's national performance review initiative. The Vice-President emphasised the similarities between the recently announced United States programme and our citizens charter. He was grateful for the help his team had already received from British civil servants and he wanted this dialogue to continue. Members of his staff will be attending the "Service for the Citizen" conference in London in December.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Vice-President Gore's national review includes setting standards, market testing and reducing unnecessary regulation? Does he agree that the United States Administration are following Britain's lead and adopting our principles and our citizens charter to improve their public services?
    Mr. Waldegrave: In this matter, the answer clearly is yes. Both Governments are faced with the same problems of rising expectations and the search for greater efficiency. Both Governments have come to similar conclusions, and I am happy to say that Britain is some two years ahead.
    Mr. Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of the United States on open government? If he has taken such advice, will he consider resigning in view of the fact that, in a previous post, he was affected—whether deliberately or not—by one of the greatest cover-ups of which we have heard recently?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman would be wise to wait for the end of the inquiry. It is not incumbent on members of a party which was not trusted enough by its leader at the time to be told about the Chevaline project to give us lectures on the subject.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does not the fact that Vice-President Gore's review has come to the same conclusions as my right hon. Friend show that my right hon. Friend's policies of market testing and compulsory competitive
    570
    tendering are the way forward for the delivery of public services? Is not that the right way to bring about a cultural change in the delivery of this country's public services so that an enormous amount of money can be saved, particularly in the delivery of local authority services?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The principles behind what both we and the Americans are doing lead to those conclusions. It is better for public services, and better for those who work in public services, to know that waste is being winkled out. They do not want to waste taxpayers' money, any more than taxpayers want that money to be wasted.
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made to date under the citizens charter.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): Excellent progress is being made. There are now 37 charters, and 411 organisations applied for this year's charter mark competition. We shall announce the winners on 27 October.
    Dr. Howells: Will the Minister comment on the progress of one of those 37 charters, the taxpayers charter, which is, as I am sure he will agree, an important one? How will the public's access to the mysteries of the payment and administration of taxes be helped by the wholesale closure of tax offices all over the country, including in my constituency?
    Mr. Davis: A new adjudicator has been appointed to work on the taxpayers charter, which was the first to be implemented. There has been a significant improvement in the service to individuals who are pursuing their tax concerns. We have received letters complimenting us on the effect of the taxpayers charter.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not the most natural thing in the world that it was the Conservative party which introduced the citizens charter in this country? Were we not the party which gave ordinary council tenants the right to buy, the party which gave parents their rights and also the party which gave trade union members on the shop floor their rights?
    Mr. Davis: As ever, my hon. Friend puts things in perfectly clear terms and is absolutely right. The citizens charter is now such a success that both Opposition parties are now claiming to have invented it.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has undermined progress both on the citizens charter and on open government by the way in which he has handled his own Department? Either his civil servants were not open with him and did not give him the relevant information on the arms to Iraq affair, in which case his incompetence to run a Department is proven, or they did give him the relevant information, in which case he has given neither Parliament nor the Scott inquiry the full truth. Is it not abundantly clear, either way, that on grounds of integrity and honesty he ought now to resign?
    Mr. Davis: It falls to me to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. Last time I exchanged words with him across the Floor of the House it was about the dock labour scheme, of which he was an avid supporter.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.
    Mr. Davis: I shall answer the question in a second. I had hoped that in the meantime the hon. Gentleman had perhaps gained rather more respect for good management and value for money. The hon. Gentleman, like all of us, will have to wait for the outcome of the Scott inquiry.
    Mr. Davis: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes his judgment half way through the case and shows just how much respect he has for judicial procedures. He should wait for the outcome of the Scott inquiry, when I suspect —in fact, I am certain—that all that he has to say will1 be proved wrong.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what has been the effect of the public relations campaign to broadcast the existence of the charter mark scheme? How many applications have been put in this year and how does that number compare with last year? Can my hon. Friend tell the House something about the quality of those applications?
    Mr. Davis: There have been 411 charter mark applications this year, all of very high quality. There has certainly been a net improvement in quality over the year. The scheme is proving to be an excellent incentive in the improvement of public service throughout Britain.
    Mr. Raynsford:. To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department has spent on publicity and public relations activity related to the citizens charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Charter Unit has no separate publicity budget. However, media, production and distribution costs for projects carried out by the Charter Unit was just over £1 million in each of the first two years and, in this financial year, just under £500,000 by the end of October.
    Mr. Raynsford: At a time when many public services are teetering on the brink of closure because of underfunding and when many others are facing the prospect of their budgets being savaged by the Chancellor next month, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a better use of that publicity material—of that publicity budget—to persuade the Chancellor that the delivery of proper and efficient public services depends on investment in those services? If the right hon. Gentleman had sat with me and many colleagues at lunchtime today listening to the appalling story of London Transport's betrayal by the Government, who promised funding but have now withdrawn it, he would surely recognise that it is nonsense to talk about improving public services without the requisite investment in them.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is a proper part of any public service that its users should be given proper information about how to use it and about their rights, and in connection with their expectations. One cannot expect to run a proper public service unless one does that, and to have a small central unit encouraging that is very worth while.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have followed the Scott
    572
    inquiry admire the open and frank way in which he responded to all the questions? In old-fashioned parlance, he behaved like a gentleman.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given the emphasis that the Government are now putting on tackling the problems of crime, in the context of the amounts being invested in publicity for his citizens charter, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster examine the amount of money that goes to victim support, and the action that he can take on victim support, as many of the groups that provide support are under enormous financial pressure and do not feel that they are getting from the Government the support that they need to help victims of crime?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That programme falls to the Lord Chancellor's Department. As a long-standing supporter of the Bristol victim support scheme, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It is not so much a matter of publicity; it is a matter of finding funds for a worthwhile service.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sums to which he referred as being spent on promoting the citizens charter pale into insignificance when compared with the amount that many Labour local authorities, particularly in London, are spending on promoting their propaganda and covering their incompetence?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of what Labour authorities get up to in neighbouring boroughs to that which he used to administer. It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that I answered the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) by saying that my Department's budget for publication was £1 million a year. Our public expenditure is £244,000 million a year. It does not seem like an incorrect balance to me.

    Market Testing
    Mr. French: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what factor the savings arising from his Department's market-testing programme exceeded its costs.
    Mr. David Davis: The savings arising from market testing by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Departments since 1 October 1992 exceed costs by a factor of more than four to one.
    Mr. French: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, as it underlines the importance of the market-testing programme. It is widely reported that £750 million-worth of business opportunities is available in information technology. What proportion is going to in-house bids and what proportion to external suppliers? Of the latter, what proportion goes to small businesses?
    Mr. Davis: I suspect that the £750 million to which my right hon. Friend referred applies to the whole programme, not just to the Department for which I am responsible. It is rather early at the moment to assess that. There is a huge amount of information coming in, which is being collated. To give my hon. Friend an idea of the order of magnitude,

    573
    my first impressions are that about half and half is going inside and outside the public sector, which I think is a good indicator.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the British civil service is still the least corrupt and even now the least politicised of any civil service in the world? Is not there a grave danger that, by market testing, contractorising and privatising the civil service, we shall end up with a civil service, such as those in many countries, run by Group 4 and Mega-greed plc? Is not it true that the savings made in the 1980s on civil service changes have come almost entirely by cutting the wages and conditions of low-paid staff?
    Mr. Davis: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I agree entirely. We have a superb civil service of enormous integrity. As to the second part, it is perhaps best answered by the fact that the First Division Association, which knows our civil service as well as anybody, has said quite clearly that it is not against market testing. It sees market testing—as do many impartial observers—as the best route forward for reducing costs and improving efficiency in our service.
    Mr. Paice: Without market testing, would not it be impossible to know whether the organisations that have traditionally provided those services were as efficient and up to date as it is possible to be? Is not it clear that not only does market testing sometimes bring in outside organisations, but time and again the traditional suppliers still win the bids, and improve their service and the quality of what they produce and give the taxpayer better value for money?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. The typical savings on market testing, irrespective of whether the service stays inside the public service or goes outside it, are 25 per cent. That is an enormous saving for the taxpayer and an enormous improvement in value for money. In addition, the whole process of market testing sets both standards and levels of quality and measures them in a way that has not been done before.

    Science and Engineering White Paper
    Mr. Whittingdale:To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received concerning the science and engineering White Paper.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I received more than 800 representations during the consultation period for the White Paper. Since its publication, there has been much interchange between my Department and scientists and others in relation to the programmes initiated by the White Paper.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to some recent articles, the proposed introduction of technology foresight has been given a warm welcome by individual companies, business organisations and all those who have a direct interest in the well-being of British science?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The New Scientist, for example, has argued that the technology foresight programme gives a real prospect of bringing academia and industry closer together. That is one of the principal objectives of the White Paper.
    Mr. Cohen: Has the right hon. Gentleman had representations on the science White Paper that concern chemical warfare and chemical weapons? Does he remember, when he was in the Foreign Office, meeting me, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and representatives from Kurdish organisations and from anti-chemical war bodies and telling them that he was concerned about Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds in Halabja? Was he not at that time approving arms to Iraq? Should he not be releasing into the public domain all the documents about that situation, and should he not resign?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Scott inquiry will deal with those matters and the hon. Gentleman will find that, in his enthusiasm to throw mud, he has got it almost exactly wrong in every respect.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, by the time a child has reached the age of 11, he has in many cases already decided whether his interests fall into the arts or science divisions? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he is looking seriously at promoting science and engineering in primary schools, where the impact will be the greater?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Last week, I met the Association for Science Education—an admirable organisation—which has, with the Gatsby organisation and others, done much good work in secondary schools. We talked about the importance of the subject that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Dr. Moonie: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to see the New Scientist article on technology foresight—clearly his civil servants are on the ball. Does he agree with the views expressed by Dr. Fiona Steele of the CBI, that concerns are being expressed about the future of the technology foresight exercise and how valuable it will be? Is he aware that what is at stake here is not the substance of the exercise itself but what is done with it thereafter? What further plans does he have for expanding and developing his ideas after technology foresight has taken place?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I met the CBI which, jointly with us, held a seminar on the subject after the article appeared. It made a public statement saying that it very much approved of the exercise as long as—we are thoroughly in agreement with it on this—it was market led. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party will support us on that.
    I am disappointed to see that the hon. Gentleman is still not in the shadow Cabinet. It is disappointing to the science community that the Labour party does not think it worth while to have a shadow Cabinet spokesman on science and technology. A number of people in the shadow Cabinet did not receive any votes, so I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should not be there as well.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend had any representations from the Atomic Energy Authority, or as it is now known AEA Technology, about the excellent work that it is doing to move Government-funded scientific research into the private sector and to develop the AEA Technology centre at Winfrith in my constituency? Can he tell the House what his Department is doing to encourage that excellent initiative?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I attended an excellent meeting, on the fringes of the Conservative party conference, sponsored by AEA Technology in which it put forward a

    575
    strong case for showing that it will thrive in the free market and carry through exactly the kind of technology transfer that the Government and the country want.

    Magistrates
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to meet the representatives of the magistrates in Bolton to discuss his criteria for appointing magistrates; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I visited Bolton on 30 March when I met members of the Bolton Forum. I last had discussions with Bolton magistrates during November last year. I hope to visit Bolton again next year.
    Mr. Thurnham: I hope that my right hon. Friend will soon find an opportunity to visit Bolton again. Will he find
    576
    an opportunity to turn his courts charter into a real charter against crime and incorporate as many as possible of the Home Secretary's 27 points against crime in that charter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Conservative party and the country as a whole are strongly behind my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. The courts charter has less ambitious but important objectives—to diminish delays in the courts, make the courts more accessible and to help witnesses and others who must attend court understand the processes of the law. The courts are now committed to those valuable objectives.
    Madam Speaker: Since the House reassembled following the summer recess, far too many Members who put questions on the Order Paper have absented themselves without withdrawing their question or giving me so much as an apology. I am sure that the House shares my view that good manners cost absolutely nothing and standards will have to improve.

Security (Northern Ireland)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, I will make a statement about Saturday's bombing by the Provisional IRA.
At around half-past 9 on Saturday morning, a house in north Belfast was taken over by two masked men, who said they were members of the Provisional IRA. The occupant of the house was forcibly detained in an upstairs room for some three and a half hours. His car was stolen.
Shortly after 1 pm, a similar car was seen parked on the Shankill road, close to Berlin street. Two men got out of the vehicle. One was carrying a box. Both walked from the car into Mr. John Frizzell's fish shop at 275 Shankill Road. At eleven minutes past one a bomb exploded inside the shop, which is on the ground floor of a three-storey building. This is a popular shopping area which, at the time, was especially crowded with people doing their weekend shopping. The building was completely demolished.
The police, fire and ambulance services were quickly there, and a major rescue operation ensued, with local people providing tremendous help. The injured were taken to a number of Belfast hospitals whose medical and other staff responded immediately. The work of all concerned, both at the scene and in the hospitals, was beyond praise. I am most grateful for the tributes so widely paid to them already, to which I gratefully add my own today.
Ten people died: two children; four women; and four men. They included a seven-year-old girl and her parents; the owner of the shop, Mr. Frizzell, and his daughter; a wife and her husband; a 38-year-old woman; and a 13-year-old girl on an errand for her mother. Fifty-seven people were injured, ranging from young children to elderly shoppers.
In a statement on Saturday afternoon the Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for this atrocious act. It subsequently said that some of those who carried it out were unaccounted for. The Chief Constable of the RUC took immediate steps to safeguard security. In particular, more police and military manpower has been deployed in Belfast and other areas. Two people have been arrested in connection with the explosion.
The whole House will condemn with revulsion Saturday's hideous attack. There can be no possible doubt about this: these people intended, in any event, to commit mass murder, and to commit it in a busy street full of Saturday shoppers and their children. Once again, the Provisional IRA has taken away the lives of children, along with those of ordinary men and women who, in two instances, were their parents.
The natural reaction of humane men and women to crimes of this enorminty is one of rage. The restraint and dignity shown by the people of the Shankill is therefore all the more to be admired. Horrible though the provocation is, I urge the whole community in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland to continue to show equal self-control in the days ahead. I share the Chief Constable's belief that it will do so.
Reason tells us that revenge merely multiplies the murder and injustice that it reacts against; and reason, not rage, must be our guide. Reason tells us that all violence, from whatever quarter, and certainly including recent
578
loyalist attacks—which have already resulted in another murder since Saturday—must be consistently and universally condemned. But reason also tells us that in this democracy those who commit these terrible crimes, those who commission them and those who justify them must not be bargained with.
To the innocent victims of this attack, and those near and dear to them, our heartfelt sympathies go out. I assure them, and the people of Northern Ireland, that the RUC, with the Government's full support, will spare no effort to track down the remainder of these criminals; and to protect the public from others like them. The RUC needs, and it deserves, the help of everyone.
To those who did this terrible thing, and to those who justify the use of violence, the message, and the only message, is this. In this democracy, no political purpose, whatever it may be, will be advanced by a single inch through the use or the threat of violence. No campaign, however horrible or protracted, will shift us from that determination.
Finally, this atrocity surely reinforces the challenge to all the participants, including the two Governments, who are currently involved as constitutional politicians in the urgent search for a solution to Northern Ireland's political problems. In this democracy, it is only through dialogue —dialogue between those who unequivocally reject the use or threat of violence—that the foundation will in the end be found for a fair and hence a lasting peace.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement? Like everyone else, I deeply regret the circumstances that have led us to appear before the House today.
Over the past 20 years of atrocities in Northern Ireland, including the spate of recent killings in Belfast, culminating in those of Saturday, we have exhausted the vocabulary of horror. I can do no better in these circumstances than to quote my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who said:
"This is a despicable act of violence perpetrated by depraved people. There will be no question of talking to any people or organisations who are capable of such vile cruelty to innocent people."
On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join the Secretary of State in extending our sympathy to the bereaved and to the families of the dead and our hopes of recovery for the injured. There must be no hiding place for the people who carried out and organised this terrible crime.
I also join the Secretary of State in expressing our admiration for the work of the support services and, in particular, for the role of the ordinary men and women of the Shankill on that Saturday afternoon and for the restraint that they have shown since.
Is the Chief Constable satisfied with the level of forces that he has at his disposal in what was already a period of high tension? Indeed, the RUC and the Army were already overstretched before this atrocity. Will the Army provide any additional troops that may be needed for an extension of this period? It is important that the security forces in Northern Ireland should not be too overstretched, despite the demands of Bosnia. An additional force presence can help to bring back to members of both communities a degree of confidence; that applies particularly to those who live in isolated communities.
Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that all people in these islands wish the constitutional parties in Ireland

579
again to sit down to try to work out together institutions that would have the support of their communities? It would be helpful if all the proposals from all the parties and party leaders were on the table so that judgments could be made and a process designed that will lead to an agreement for the divided people of Ireland that will supply a solid basis for peace and justice.
If they are unable to do so, the two Governments must work actively together for a solution. Therefore, the whole House and the country and all the people of these islands expect the two Governments to redouble their efforts to persuade the constitutional parties to come together on the basis of the original three strands. We must refuse to allow bombs and killings to determine the democratic agenda.
Finally, I refer again to the comment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
"There can be no question of talking to any people or organisations who are capable of such vile cruelty to innocent people."
The best gesture that the IRA or Provisional Sinn Fein can make is to end the killings of fellow Irish men, women and children. We hope that there will be no reprisals or attempted reprisals. There must be an end to violence, and then the possibilities of talks open. The finest indication of a blueprint for peace that the IRA could give is an end to violence now.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have said about those who commit violence.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Chief Constable is satisfied that he has the forces that are needed. The leaders of the security forces have been satisfied that the forces now available, the manpower, are sufficient for the tasks that are imposed on them in Northern Ireland. I spoke to the Chief Constable this morning, and I am certain that if he had felt there was a need for reinforcements he would have said so. Fortunately, as the House probably knows, following reinforcements at the turn of the year 1991–92, those force levels have not been reduced. It is important that those who serve in the Army in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should not come to the Province without the prior training in the special problems and difficulties of Northern Ireland that they receive when sufficient notice is given to them.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether I shared his view that continued dialogue between the constitutional politicians of Northern Ireland and the two Governments remained of cardinal importance. It is absolutely clear that that is my view; and, indeed, I ended my statement to the House with an assertion to that effect.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Now that the initial exchanges are finished, may I have brisk questions on the statement? I am sure that I shall get brisk replies from the Secretary of State.
Dr. Joe Hendron: I join the Secretary of State and hon. Members in expressing total and utter revulsion at the sectarian slaughter of so many innocent Protestant people on the Shankill road on Saturday afternoon. That slaughter was committed by the Provisional IRA, and I agree with the Secretary of State that it intended to kill many people. I saw some of the injured in the Mater hospital on Sunday afternoon. The people of the Shankill behaved with great dignity.
580
I know that the Secretary of State and the House will also agree with my expression of revulsion at the murder of so many innocent Catholic people, especially over the past few months, by the so-called loyalist paramilitaries —the UDA and the UVF. Does the Secretary of State accept that there must be urgent and unequivocal determination by the British and Irish Governments to bring peace to the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland, and that therefore no effort will be spared and, above all, that no opportunity, great or small, will be missed either at this time or in the immediate future to achieve that goal? I am very much aware that the British and Irish Prime Ministers are meeting on Friday.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The whole House will understand the fervour with which the hon. Gentleman, who has a courageous record in constitutional politics in west Belfast, has spoken. I assure him that no opportunity will be missed by either of the two Governments. There is no daylight—if I may put it that way—between us in our opposition to terrorism. No opportunity will be missed in the quest of which the hon. Gentleman spoke. However, the two Governments cannot do it alone—it is the people of Northern Ireland who will bring peace to their Province. We want to help, and we shall miss no opportunity to do so.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that I represent in another Parliament the area concerned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—the Opposition spokesman—and other hon. Members have spoken to me today. I want to convey to the House the fact that the people of the Shankill road acted with great patience, great courage, great decorum and great dignity on Saturday. I was there with them, and I did not hear any threats or blasphemies; all I saw was co-operation.
The people asked me, on every possible occasion, to thank the local police, some of whom could not be distinguished as police officers on Saturday because their uniforms were torn and they were covered with rubble and blood. They were using their hands to dig out the victims of the bombing. They were joined by ordinary young people from the district, who formed a human chain to lift the rubble off the many mangled, broken and scarred bodies.
I also pay tribute to the paramedics and the fire service. In particular, I must mention the man from the water service who, with his vehicle, was working round the corner. He immediately put himself at the disposal of the rescue services.
The best of the Ulster people came out on Saturday, and I was proud to be associated with the Protestants of the Shankill road.
The IRA Sinn Fein leader, Mr. Adams, has said that the British Government must make a favourable response to what has now become not a peace initiative but an ultimatum. He has made it clear that the response that he wants is for the Government to say that self-determination is no longer to be the right of the people of Northern Ireland alone, but must be given to the whole of the Irish people. I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make it clear today that that cannot happen.
For as long as people perceive that to be the intention of the so-called peace proposals, there will be fear and

581
reprisals in the community. No one wants reprisals and we have all appealed for there to be no such reprisals at this time. There certainly will not be any reprisals from the people who stood in the Shankill road on Saturday—that was not their attitude. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must go to the southern Government and deal with the territorial claim because until it is dealt with such incidents will arise again and again.
Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman see the editorial in The Times today, which said that the gist of the Government's policy has been one of concession to Dublin and the nationalist community? It said that that was not the route that should be taken at this time to achieve peace in Northern Ireland.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the courage and dignity of the people of the Shankill. I have already in this House tried to do justice to the tremendous efforts and selfless work of all the emergency services, as well as the police, on Saturday.
I greatly welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of there being no reprisals, and I attempted to put my own views about that to the House a few minutes ago. I also greatly welcome his warning against reprisals and his confidence that they will not take place.
As the hon. Gentleman's comments about self-determination, it must be all too bitterly apparent that the Provisional IRA granted no right of self-determination to the people whose lives they snuffed out on Saturday. I do not think that I want to enter—and I do not think that the people of Northern Ireland would wish the House to enter —into a discussion of the wider political aspects that the hon. Gentleman mentioned when bodies are still unburied. Let it be said that it has been made entirely clear for a long time, and never more trenchantly than recently and in the Prime Minister's speech in Blackpool, that only an act of self-determination by the people of Northern Ireland will ever change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. I reaffirm that, but I do not think it is appropriate to go further than that today.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. May I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) who is abroad due to a terminal illness in the family and was therefore not in Belfast on Saturday? I associate myself with the tribute paid to the people who were there.
Does the Secretary of State agree that news reporters who immediately spread information given by the IRA are acting as agents for the IRA and that, in so doing, they added calumny to the nefarious crime that they committed when they implied that Mr. Frizzell was one of the terrorist leaders, which was the thrust of the BBC report and the experienced reporter whom I challenged? He was a man whose Christian principles have been known in the Shankill road for many years and they were absolutely clear—he was a former boys' brigade member and a member of the congregation of which I later became the Minister. That is the type of person who was murdered on the Shankill road on Saturday.
I understand the Secretary of State's unwillingness to enter into a political debate at the moment, but I believe that his statement will give some assurance to the people of
582
Northern Ireland as we look for action, not words. I also put on record the fact that the people of Northern Ireland welcome the broadcast made by the Leader of the Opposition—he has been silent for so long—and are surprised that the Labour party continues to have someone who comes low down on the shadow Cabinet voting list to be responsible for Northern Ireland's affairs.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman felt able to respond as he has to what I said. I was present on Sunday when he took up in person with the BBC the matter with which he began his question. Although I have not heard what the BBC said, I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad that he has had this opportunity to vindicate the reputation of Mr. John Frizzell.
Sir James Kilfedder: When I visited the Shankill, I was overwhelmed by the feelings of grief, courage and anger. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it is right that the people of the Shankill and elsewhere should give oral expression to that anger, but may I also plead that there should be no retaliation against any Roman Catholic? I trust that there will be no tit-for-tat murders.
Did the Secretary of State note the very strong words of denunciation uttered by Cardinal Daly about this crime against humanity? Has he read the full-page editorial in the Irish News? Perhaps the terrorists would like Northern Ireland to degenerate into civil war, as has happened in Bosnia, but perhaps we, the people of Northern Ireland and elsewhere, can use this latest fiendish atrocity as a watershed so that all the decent people of Ulster, Protestant and Catholic, can work together for peace and progress.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. I have noticed what has been said so trenchantly by Cardinal Daly and the editorial to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I should like to add my endorsement of what Mr. Dick Spring said about Mr. Adams:
"If he is serious in what he has been saying in recent weeks, I believe he should acknowledge the horror of what happened, he should condemn it outright without reservation or without any conditions and he should call for and establish immediately a cessation of violence."
I endorse every word of that, as I am sure does the whole House. I warmly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said at the conclusion of his question.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I join other hon. Members in utterly condemning what was a remarkable atrocity even by Northern Ireland's standards. As one who lives in a constituency that has seen so many deaths at the hands of the Provisional IRA, I repeat what I have repeated so often: what it is doing will never succeed, and all it is doing is driving the people of Northern Ireland into further suffering and bitterness.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, when the emotions of today fade into the realities of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, it will take enormous courage, integrity and strength to deal with these problems? Does he agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has shown that courage, honesty and integrity by trying to take on a problem from which both Governments have recoiled in the past 22 years? He should be commended for that. The Secretary of State must ensure that, after almost a quarter of a century, the full political

583
weight of both Governments is thrown behind the solution to this problem so that the political process in its totality can start to deal with what it should be doing—solving a problem that is a cancer within all sections of society.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said, and in particular I endorse his message to the Provisional IRA that what it is doing will never succeed. That is absolutely correct.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Foyle, whose courage in attempting to achieve a breakthrough I salute. I agree that it will call for qualities of the highest order if we are to assist the people of Northern Ireland to achieve a less antagonistic way of living together, but it must be understood that there will never be any bargaining with those who in this democracy reinforce their arguments with bombs and bullets or the threat of violence.
I do not accept that Governments have recoiled from this problem. Successive Governments, in various ways, have given their best endeavours to resolving it, but I warmly agree that the political process must be reinvigorated because it is only through political dialogue between constitutional politicians that we shall achieve a political solution to political problems.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that, the day after the murderous outrage in Belfast, the IRA brought its campaign of violence to Basingstoke. My constituents will now look in a different light on the nightmare that the people of Northern Ireland have endured for too long. I believe that they would wish me to put to the Secretary of State the point that the events of the weekend have shown once and for all the sham and fraud of Sinn Fein/IRA talk about peace, and there must be nothing to do with it.
Secondly, my constituents urge my right hon. and learned Friend to redouble his efforts to promote dialogue within the constitutional parties in the Province.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The whole House is aware of the attack, fortunately frustrated, in my hon. Friend's constituency and of the one at Reading. We are grateful that those attacks were frustrated. Of course, this is the kind of thing from which the people of Northern Ireland have been suffering for 20 years, and more. I believe that we are directing all our endeavours to the search for the defeat and elimination of terrorism and for that political accommodation which will lead to a less antagonistic way of life in Northern Ireland.
I cannot therefore claim that we will redouble our efforts because I do not know how to redouble efforts which are exercising all our intellect and certainly all our determination. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) means that we must never give up, and we shall not.
Mr. David Alton: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the condolences which the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) have extended to the relatives of those who were so cruelly murdered and maimed in Belfast at the weekend? May I also join the outright and unequivocal condemnation of the use of violence as a way of achieving political objectives?
Does the Secretary of State agree that perhaps the most devastatingly revealing comment to come from all this is
584
the remark of Gerry Adams that, given certain circumstances, he could call off the IRA killers tomorrow? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if he truly wants to see political progress and the opportunity for reconciliation and harmony in Northern Ireland, the prerequisite must be the ending of violence without any conditions attached?
Does the Secretary of State also agree with Colin Parry, who saw his own son so cruelly murdered in Warrington, who said at lunchtime today that there should be no revenge or tit-for-tat killings? Does not that prove the truth of the old saying that, when a man simply continues to take an eye for an eye, the entire world ends up going blind?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Next to the sickening quality of what was done to people in the Shankill on Saturday has been the sickening quality of the hyprocrisy of Mr. Adams. I think that that has been recognised and commented upon on a wider scale than I have ever known before. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) about the point made by Mr. Parry. No one is better able to make the point—I met that wonderful man only a week or two ago in Warrington—that there must be no reprisals. Fortunately, I believe that the sense, dignity, courage and restraint of the people of Belfast make that warning unnecessary.
Mr. Peter Robinson: May I join in the expression of outrage at the carnage on the Shankill road on Saturday and join in the sympathy expressed throughout the House to the bereaved and those who were injured? Did the Secretary of State see the comment in the Irish News that evil compounds evil, it does not overcome it? I trust that the Secretary of State will recognise that as a fact, and that he will recognise that evil must be overcome and that many people listening to his statement today will be aware that it was bereft of any security initiative capable of overcoming the evil men.
I urge the Secretary of State to present to the House a security package capable of defeating terrorism. I believe that the House would endorse such proposals which are necessary in Northern Ireland to stop the killing. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and of Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, will the Secretary of State indicate whether he should respond quickly to a document or to ideas which they have put to him and say whether he is presently considering any ideas which have the fingerprint of the IRA upon them?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Chief Constable has operational independence in Northern Ireland and, under my responsibility for overall policy, is responsible for the security of Northern Ireland and for the conduct of the security forces there. My statement was not bereft of any reference to security. I said that the RUC would continue to have the fullest support in its task of protecting the people of the Province from others like those responsible for this offence. If the hon. Gentleman has specific proposals rather than a general request, the Chief Constable would be very interested to have them, and so would I.
It must be recognised that, in all the emotional dislike —the detestation—of what has happened and the absolutely natural and proper fury that has been

585
engendered, the security forces themselves must always continue to act within the law. That they recognise, and they would have it no other way.
Mr. David Trimble: May I begin by underlining hon. Members' appeals that there should be no reprisal following the atrocity on Saturday? I am quite sure that one of the IRA's objects in placing the bomb was to provoke reprisals. I am also glad that reference has been made to the bombs at Basingstoke and Reading, particularly the latter, for if the Provos' plans had come to fruition, there would have been a death toll there as great as, if not greater than, that in Belfast.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the Shankill bomb, the Reading bomb and the offer this morning by Mr. Adams to ensure that there would be a ceasefire by the IRA are all linked, and that they are all part and parcel of the republican plan and the republican initiative which they are trying to advance and to which, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has allowed himself to be, wittingly or unwittingly, a party?
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the best way of answering that initiative is to end the uncertainty by making it clear that the Government will not entertain or advance that initiative in any way whatsoever, and that the Government's response to the IRA Sinn Fein will be similar to that which this country gave to Nazi Germany during the war—that we are interested only in its unconditional surrender?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is only one message that I wish to hear from the Provisional IRA or from anybody else who resorts to terrorism or the justification of terrorism to obtain a political end, and that is that they have finished with it, without condition and for ever. That is what I want to hear. I am interested in no other message. If that message were to be yielded by the process in which the hon. Member for Foyle has been engaged, the whole House would be very pleased, I trust.
That is what we are about, and there is no uncertainty about the British Government's position on it. There will be no bargaining—there can be no bargaining—in this democracy with those who use force for a political purpose. Reason tells us that to do that would be only to undermine those constitutional politicians who have such a record to be proud of in Northern Ireland. Reason tells us that if we were to do that it would simply feed the appetite of the terrorists.
Mr. David Howell: I fully share the feeling that was so well expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend, by Opposition Members and by hon. Members from Northern Ireland about the latest atrocity—the latest wound—against poor Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the countries which have been most successful in beating or weakening terrorism are those which have succeeded in capturing and convicting the terrorist leadership and the organising brains behind the atrocities in question? Given that some of those people are known to reside in the Republic, what proposals does my right hon. and learned Friend hope to hear or has he recently heard from the Dublin Government about ways in which these evil people can be more effectively and swiftly brought to account?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question. I re-emphasise that co-operation between the Republic and ourselves and between the two police forces has never been higher, and it is very effective indeed. It is, of course, right that, if we can take out the leaders of that quite small and tightly knit band—I speak of the Provisional IRA in particular—we are a long way towards defeating and eliminating all that they perpetrate and what they stand for.
There is a substantial gap between knowing what people are in that category and being able to bring before a court of law the evidence necessary to secure their conviction. Very substantial successes are being achieved not only by the RUC but by the Garda in terms of finding weapons, armaments and munitions and also making arrests. We are persevering with that. Increasing success is being achieved and, slowly, progress is being made towards the elimination of those people. That is the overriding difficulty in circumstances of intimidation in bringing evidence before a court that is capable of securing the necessary convictions.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Government cannot talk to paramilitaries or those who excuse acts of violence, but they have difficulty in getting the talks with constitutional politicians going again. We hope that the talks will be developed. Should not the talks also be a continuation of the work that was done by the Opsahl commission, which started to talk to ordinary people in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State said that those people will have to make the decisions about their future in the end.
The Government should talk to people in voluntary organisations and those who entirely reject violence within Northern Ireland but who are open to other ideas. The credentials of the Opsahl commission cannot be doubted. I am sorry that, during Friday's debate, the Secretary of State did not give more support to the recommendations as at least worthy of consideration.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recognise and welcome what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning. He will recall —I mentioned this in Friday's debate—that the Opsahl commission recommended that discussions with Sinn Fein should be entered into if the talks process were to fail. The talks process has not failed, and I trust that it will not fail.
I warmly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about talking to the "ordinary people", as he described them, and encouraging them, as I never fail to do, to talk to their political leaders. I have no doubt whatever that the vast majority of people across the community in Northern Ireland insist that their politicians talk.
There is one other thing that I encourage people to do, and I hope that the House will endorse it. Whatever the fear of intimidation, and whatever the strength of traditions about not talking to the RUC if they come from a specific part of the community, they must do all they can to help the RUC with any information that they have about these evil people.
Lady Olga Maitland: I share totally the horror of the House about the appalling atrocities over the weekend. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not only the security forces but the local communities that we rely on in such circumstances? The terrorists have friends and relations in the community whom they live among and who know what

587
they are about to do. Surely we must put much more pressure on their responsibility to tell the security forces to save lives.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said; she takes a close interest in Northern Ireland. We have published and continue to show three television advertisements, for want of a better name. The purpose of the short programmes is to show people the evil quality of the things that terrorists do from whatever quarter, and to encouage people—this is my hon. Friend's point—to use the entirely confidential telephone to tell the RUC what they suspect and what relevant information they may have. Much success has come from that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that all of us share his view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull (Mr. McNamara) about the atrocity last weekend? Coming from a background where people have to scramble about in rubble to save people who have been killed and injured in the mines, I fully understand what they went through. But for the life of me I cannot understand why the Government, after more than 20 years, cannot find some method of getting involved in talks between the two contending sides with a view to finding a settlement when they are prepared to accept that Arafat has every right to negotiate with Rabin, Mandela and de Klerk can get their act together and the Government can negotiate with the Chinese Government, who were responsible for the Tianan men square massacre a few years ago. Why cannot the Government go a stage further than they have in all those gloom-laden years to find some method of starting a new political initiative with a view to resolving this problem, as they have had to do in many parts of the world?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: With those who share the political ambitions and objectives of the Provisional IRA for a united Ireland, of course the Government have been participating in a process of dialogue. That was begun through the endless patience and perception of my right hon. Friend Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who is in his place on the Front Bench. That process must be continued.
The difference between the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave and that with which we must grapple is that Northern Ireland is part of a democracy in which anybody is entitled to put forward any political objective and everybody can vote. It is only those who know that they cannot succeed democratically who are resorting to violence.
As I endeavoured to explain a minute ago, if, in those circumstances, the British Government negotiate with such people before there is any disavowal of violence or of the justification for violence, one serves fatally to undermine those who are courageously—some are in front of me as I speak—pursuing the constitutional path of politics while sharing exactly the same nationalist ambition in the end.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the complete condemnation of violence and murder from wherever it may come by all members of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body, whether those members be British or Irish? Will he, in these difficult times, press on undaunted with the peace
588
process on the basis that it proposes for the future, as it has in the past, the best way of isolating the IRA and other men of violence?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right on the latter point. It is right that dialogue is not just the best way but the only way in which we can achieve a less antagonistic environment in which the people of Northern Ireland can live together. If that were to be achieved, it would serve to withdraw a great deal of the toleration for violence—there is very little support for it —that still exists in a number of areas of the Province.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it not be appropriate if both the British and Irish Governments seriously considered publicising extensively the atrocity which occurred on Saturday—as well as the other killings that have occurred on both sides—especially in various European countries and the United States, so that people can see what is involved?
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is important to emphasise that, when the Provisional IRA has stood in elections in the Republic, it has received less than 2 per cent. of the vote? Although it will claim that all the killings and injuries over the past 24 years have been in the name of the Irish people and in the name of 1798 and 1916, when it comes to the vote, the Irish people in the Republic have demonstrated that they want nothing to do with the Provisional IRA and that they totally reject the campaign of murders and atrocities. The IRA does not speak for the Irish people, and it knows that well enough.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can add nothing to what the hon. Gentleman has eloquently expressed, save to say that, when I was in the United States in May talking to American-Irish bodies in Washington, Boston and New York, I found exactly the reaction that he describes when I told them of events. Our diplomatic posts have been doing excellent work there in that area, and we shall certainly take the advice of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the Secretary of State think that it is possible that the politicians are overlooking one important element? If the members of the Provisional IRA are rebels without a cause, is it possible that they can turn into rebels without any money? If it is a money-making exercise in which they attract funds from expatriate Irish all over the world, the IRA could not justify claiming money to pay for bombs and armaments if it did not continue to explode bombs. There must be a lot of members of the IRA who are unemployed but earn a good living out of attracting money from all over the world—they probably even get protection money from wealthy Irish people who live somewhere near the border who are not called on. Are not we overlooking the fact that Gerry Adams could never deliver peace because, to justify the income of funds, the IRA would have to keep exploding bombs?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: We certainly have not overlooked the fact that terrorism needs money as well as the oxygen of publicity and other things. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that we have taken powers—Parliament has given them—to get into the fund-raising activities of those who support the IRA with money. We have made substantial changes, which are justified, to give greater power to those who seek to enforce the law and to cut off the supplies of money.

589
In America, for example, there is no doubt that the approach to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred has secured a substantial reduction in the moneys coming from people who previously, perfectly genuinely, believed that they were supporting a patriotic organisation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the thrust of his question.
Mr. Peter Hain: In welcoming the statement by the Secretary of State, and his strong but sensitive responses to the questions, I especially applaud his statement that reason and not rage should inform our response to this evil atrocity. In that spirit, I salute the courage of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and I urge the Government to give the Hume-Adams talks a fair wind because, ultimately, if we are not continually to be involved in what are almost tragically ritual condemnations of terrorist outbreaks, we must pursue a political settlement and reach the constitutional settlement to which the Secretary of State has aspired. That requires courage on all sides and a determination to back those who are willing to put their lives on the line to achieve that settlement.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about my approach to the initiative by the hon. Member for Foyle. I do not think that it was at all uncongenial and I do not wish to add to it, save simply to say that the hon. Member for Foyle has said that he has been acting on his own initiative and not as the emissary of anyone. I have told the House of my reaction if that process produced the only message in which I have an interest—that the violence and the justification for violence were finished and finished for good.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I have been into Irish pubs in New York and into Irish clubs in California, so I am delighted to hear that the money has dried up to some extent, although it is still coming in. If there is one clear message from the atrocities over the weekend in Northern Ireland, is it not a message to Irish-Americans that, if they wish to see an end to the violence and to the atrocities, they can play their part by stopping giving money to IRA groups and sympathisers in America?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course that is right. I endorse what the hon. Member for Foyle said some time ago, which was referred to in our debate last Friday—that the IRA has killed more Catholics than anyone else has. Since that has come as news to many people who sympathise with the objectives of militant nationalism in Northern Ireland, it needs to be publicised even more widely. My hon. Friend is right: we shall do what we can to act on that.
Mr. Tony Benn: As I was a member of the Cabinet that sent in the troops in 1969, and as I note that more than 33,000 people have been killed and injured since, may I thank the Secretary of State for his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for the courage and integrity of his initiative? Will the Secretary of
590
State remember that the Dublin Government also said that they believed that the initiative was constructive and creative? Will he take account of the fact that there are many people, probably the majority, in this country who believe that at some stage everybody must get round the table to find a peaceful way to avoid a repetition of the terrible deaths that occur daily, as has happened in so many other parts of the world?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. All constitutional politicians must get round the table, recognising that it is only those who disavow unequivocally the use of violence for political purposes in a democracy and the justifying of it who will be able to find a political solution to political problems. A propos his reference to 25 years ago, I think it will be congenial to the right hon. Gentleman, with his and his family's record, if I say that the price of defending democracy is always high, but it is always worth paying and we will continue to pay it for as long as may be necessary.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his firm but unequivocally just statement, which has helped us to channel our sense of collective grief and righteous indignation into appropriate and, I would hope, constructive responses. Can he tell us that he will not eschew new security measures, including perhaps the introduction of identity cards for all British nationals throughout the United Kingdom and the imposition of a requirement upon Irish nationals in this country to carry a passport?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind opening remarks. The bulk of what he suggested is at least as much—probably rather more—a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary than for me. I take careful heed of what is suggested by my security adviser in Northern Ireland, who is the Chief Constable. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to do so.

BILL PRESENTED
  CLOSED CHURCHYARDS (WALES)
  Mr. Paul Flynn presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the maintenance of closed churchyards in the area subject to the Welsh Church Act 1914: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 4 November, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1679) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Question agreed to.

Public Accounts
4.27 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 12th to 54th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1992–93, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm. 2145, 2175, 2186, 2199, 2226, 2257, 2279, 2310, 2341 and 2354) with particular reference to the following Reports:
Sixteenth, The sale of the twelve regional electricity companies; Twenty-sixth, The Chelsea and Westminster Hospital; Twenty-seventh, Quality of service: war pensions; mobility allowance; attendance allowance; invalid care allowance; Thirty-fourth, Ministry of Defence: prices paid for spare parts; Thirty-fifth, PSA Services account 1991–92; Forty-seventh, Welsh Development Agency accounts 1991–92; Fifty-second, Fire prevention in England and Wales.
Today we are discussing 43 reports—the same number as last year. I am sure that we shall mention many more in debate than the seven that are set down in front of us, but almost all of them would warrant a full-scale debate on their own.
I am grateful to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who are members of the Committee for their dedication. The Committee meets more often than any other Select Committee and a commensurate amount of effort is required. Each week the Committee's members have to digest the information that is given to them in a voluminous amount of paper, to maintain the accountability for which we stand.
As an example of just one of those matters which are not so likely to be dealt with in debate, I shall mention report No. 31, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Account Matters—an uninteresting title. The report deals with control over common agricultural policy exports; it deals with refunds of £455 million; it deals with the single European market that came into being on 1 January 1993, which presents great problems to the Customs and Excise and to all who deal with them, and its many risks. It deals with the way in which Customs and Excise handle the VAT debts of small traders and it gives instances of irregularities; it deals with the issues of time to pay and with the problems of small traders in meeting some of the Customs and Excise requirements. The costs of the Department are rising.
I deliberately singled out what may appear to be one of the less interesting reports in order to show the importance of the matters that we have to consider. I intend to deal mainly with seven reports, but I shall refer to several others, describing some of the lessons that we have to learn and giving details of how we handle our responsibilities. It is a burdensome task for all the Committee members, but it is essential.
The important thing to remember is that we have the enormous advantage of tradition on our side. Here I pay tribute to one who has long since gone: Gladstone got it astonishingly right 130 years ago. He put the responsibility on the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who he said should be a Member of the Opposition. One would never get away with that today, but he had the standing to enable him to impose it on Parliament at the time, with the result that Government expenditure is monitored properly, adequately and—using the traditions that we have inherited—responsibly as well.
592
With the advent of the National Audit Act 1983, we have had to consider questions of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. On economy, we must ensure that whatever the Government buy is bought with due attention to getting the best possible price and deal for the taxpayer. The Committee also considers efficiency—to ensure that the best methods are used—and effectiveness, which covers wider activities.
Normally, the Committee takes evidence from the accounting officers, who are usually permanent secretaries. The Committee's contact with them is a big advantage because it enables us to understand some of the problems that face their Departments and to know some of the personalities involved, so that we can assess how well they are carrying out their functions. We can make comparisons and judge how they are doing. We see the strengths and weaknesses of Departments and of the people who run them.
We discover a number of very able civil servants, and their standards are a matter of great importance to us. A constant stream of overseas visitors come before me, and the Committee, to discover why we have a relatively incorrupt civil service. I always tell them that our main advantage is that we do not have, and are determined not to have, corruption in our civil service.
Fortunately, we do not have to spend much time dealing with fraud and corruption, because we do not have much of it, but when we do find it, everything has to stop—it comes before everything else. We must retain those standards. Of course we want to improve on them, but we must not allow them to weaken in any way.
In attempting to improve the standards of the civil service, we have the defence of the taxpayer in mind. That is what unites the Committee and it is one of our greatest advantages. Of course Committee members have enormous differences of opinion on policy—we are still politicians, and party politicians at that—but we are even able to deal with issues such as privatisation, on which our views differ greatly, because we do not consider policy. If something is the policy of the Government, we consider how they can achieve their objectives and how we can defend the taxpayers and the money that they have to raise. That is what gives us the power for such unanimous reforms.
During the past 10 years every one of more than 400 reports has been unanimous—not because they have been fudged in any way, but because the taxpayer is king as far as we are concerned and so we are able to produce the unanimous reports that are the foundation of the Committee's strength. When Departments study our reports they know that, however widely members may differ, we are united in defence of public money and the public interest.
The Committee is extremely fortunate in having a close and happy relationship with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The National Audit Act 1983 gave us the legislative right to propose matters to the National Audit Office for investigation. That is a very great help. Every year we go through the Comptroller and Auditor General's suggested programme, discuss it, consider matters that we may raise and come to an understanding on the areas of greatest interest.
Important though our discoveries are, our success does not merely lie with them but in what we can prevent from happening. The very fact that our presence is known and that the accounting officer is aware that matters will come

593
before us has the consequence that the officer is very careful in dealing with certain matters that might not otherwise be given the attention that they deserve.
I pay tribute to Sir John Bourn and his staff, who never fail to excite the interest, enthusiasm and acceptance of the Committee. The staff have changed enormously. When I first became a member of the PAC in 1965, most of the staff came in from the executive class and were not much more than book-keepers. Today they are auditors. That makes an enormous difference because when they visit Departments they can ask the kind of questions that any top auditor in the City, or in a big public company or institution, can raise. They are accorded the respect and understanding that is important for proper auditing of our accounts, which is of enormous benefit to us.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, Dr. Bill Jack, also does his work very well. Last year, I mentioned the new offices that were being planned. The Committee recommended that the independence of the Northern Ireland Audit Office would be more clearly demonstrated if its staff were housed in a headquarters building separate from the Government Departments that they audit. It is clearly wrong for them to occupy a building occupied by the Northern Ireland Office Department whose accounts they were auditing. The building that the auditors shared with the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel was also inadequate for their needs. Them Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland and his staff moved to new headquarters close to central Belfast at the end of July. We look forward to seeing the results in due course.
The number of cases that we have and the standards that we maintain have been extended because of the increase in the number of executive agencies and of non-departmental public bodies, of which there are about 1,000. It is an enormous growth industry, and it is difficult to maintain control and oversight.
I referred in my speech last year to those matters, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—whom I am pleased to see in his place—also expressed concern about them. Standards of public service become harder to maintain, let alone improve, when there must be oversight of so many such bodies. The number of cases perhaps means that we are not able to deal with them as thoroughly as we would wish. I shall say more about that later.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a worrying trend of cases of irregularity and hints even of corruption in a couple of nominated quangos? Does not the duty fall heavily on Government Departments to monitor quangos, for which they have some responsibility? The people of Wales in particular look to the Government to clean up their act in respect of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can assure the House that there will be no more such nonsense at the Welsh Office in Cathays park.
Mr. Sheldon: I shall deal with that matter and others raised by my hon. Friend at some length later.
Our great advantage is that we have a civil service that is one of the finest in the world. We should take pride in that. A number of years ago an attempt was made to belittle
594
the role of the civil service. I am glad that that has now ceased and that people understand and respect those who enter the civil service because they believe in high standards of public service. So long as we need public servants, we must reassure them that we have their future and the standards that need to be maintained very much in mind. I will look very closely at those non-departmental public bodies, and so will the Committee. I will refer to them later.
The House should know how we go about our work. Basically, it is not a difficult task. A number of years ago we laid down that whenever a programme that will cost money is put before us, we ask the Department concerned what its objectives are—what it is trying to achieve with that expenditure—and we want it quantified. We also want the outcome quantified; we want the achievement recorded and compared with the objective. At the same time, we want the programme monitored, so that if something goes wrong the Department is able to bring it to a halt, or change it or modify it in some way. Only by comparing objectives with achievements are we able to bring Departments to account for any particular programme. That quantification has been improving in a number of cases.
The Committee has heard many horror stories. Although, luckily, some of the worst examples are in the past, unfortunately we have a few to deal with today. I need not go into those matters at the moment, but will deal with a number of other points.
First, and most important, is the proper conduct of public business—a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Howells)—and I will have more to say on that later. Secondly, there is value for money and how we achieve it. Thirdly, there is performance, and how we judge whether a Department is meeting its obligations in the way that we expect.
The first of the Committee reports of the 1992–93 session that I wish to deal with is the 16th report, entitled "The Sale of the Twelve Regional Electricity Companies". In December 1990, the Government sold all their shares in the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales —which had a total asset value of £16.1 billion—for net proceeds of £7.7 billion, of which £4.9 billion was from the sale of equity and £2.8 billion from specially created debt.
Although there are differences between members of the Committee as to how far we want the privatisation to proceed, we are unanimous in our desire to ensure that we get the best value for the taxpayer. A question that we have put time and again is this: why do privatisations have to be carried out in one fell swoop? Why can they not be phased in? The Government do not sell a year's worth of gilts —£50 billion—in one go on 1 January; they have a very sophisticated broker who knows the market, studies it and releases amounts of gilts into it at relevant periods. Privatisation cannot proceed in quite the same way, but the priniciple is similar.
We have argued time and again that there should be a similar kind of phasing with privatisation—in two or three tranches, perhaps more, depending what it is—because if it goes wrong on the first tranche we can hope to get it right on the second or subsequent tranches.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To quote the immortal words of the late Andrew Holmes on the sale of the regional electricity companies, "It was like selling a £100 suit with a £50 note sewn into the lining." If the Government deliberately underprice a sale in order to make

595
it go with a bang, there is an enormous advantage in retaining 40 per cent. or 25 per cent. or whatever of the shares, so that, if they zoom away afterwards to double their value at privatisation—a fairly common occurrence with the main utilities—the Government and the taxpayer will get the benefit of that higher price at the sale of subsequent tranches. That was done with the generating companies but not with the electricity distribution companies, and the taxpayer has lost many hundreds of millions of pounds as a result.
Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is right. I will deal with that point later.
In paragraph 12 of our 34th report of 1987–88 we dealt with the question of phased sales. That approach has been used on occasion, but in the event the Department decided that if it went for a partial sale it might be seen as a failure of the Government's nerve, which might have affected the climate of the sale and the proceeds. The Department judged that to be the most weighty argument against a partial sale.
That argument does not weigh heavily with me. The Government's argument is that over a period everyone would know that all the assets of these privatisation companies were to be sold off, and that therefore we would get a better sale. I suspect that a stronger argument—which was never put by the Treasury—is that at the beginning of a year the Treasury wants to know how much it will get from privatisation, and it gets a commitment from the Department as to what it will receive. Once the steam engine starts, it is hard to get it to stop. We cannot say, "Look here, things have not gone very well so we should delay the privatisation," because that would delay the receipts and therefore the objective of Government finance.
On the first day of trading, the Government decided that the privatisation was worth £5.2 billion. In the end, the market decided that it was worth £6.3 billion, and the difference was lost to the taxpayer. Such uncertainty should lead to tranches being examined more carefully and fully in the future. We have constantly asserted that to the Government, and we hope that they will accept it.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In an earlier report of the Public Accounts Committee, on the sale of Forestry Commission assets, the Committee strongly took the view that a wholesale sell-off of the nation's assets would not only fail to achieve value for money for the public, but would have disruptive effects on land values. Those matters are now current once again and comparable threats are being uttered by Ministers in respect of Forestry Commission assets. The Government should take to heart the prudent words of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) when they consider the future of forestry.
Mr. Sheldon: I do not feel that the Government have taken fully into account the need for phased sales in the Treasury minutes provided. They have done so in a number of cases; they have paid it lip service—which is of limited value—and in some cases they have accepted it, but 1: do not think that it has really struck them as being as important as the need for speed in the selling off of these publicly owned assets.
We see in the 16th report that the Government appointed 53 advisers to deal with the sale of the electricity companies, and 16 of them were appointed without competition. We feel very uneasy about some of those
596
appointments. We feel that there should have been competition—we do not know why there was not—and we look forward to hearing what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has to say about that.
There were 9 million shareholders on flotation; the number has now fallen to 3 million, so the objective of widening share ownership has not been very successful in that respect.
I now wish to comment on the 26th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, on the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. The Committee was dealing with a 665-bed hospital which was under construction on the site of the former St. Stephen's hospital at a total estimated cost of over £230 million. The regional health authority intended that the cost would ultimately be funded by receipts from the sale of four surplus sites. However, as things have turned out, there is now a gap of around £100 million between the total costs and the expected sales proceeds. As a result, 24 other major schemes in the region have been cancelled or delayed.
The report states the Committee's concern that the health authority assumed that planning agreement would be forthcoming and was therefore unprepared for the difficulty and delay that occurred, at a cost of £16 million. In paragraph 25, the report states that the Committee was surprised that the region should consider that the complex and important project would need only a part-time project development manager. The Committee shared the Treasury's doubts as to whether that role could be adequately discharged on the basis of one day a week. It is quite astonishing that the project was handled in that way. The manager was dealing with a £230 million hospital, and 24 other projects had to be dropped or postponed because so much more money was spent than was estimated.
The chief executive of the NHS management executive at that time, Mr. Duncan Nichol, gave evidence and was asked about the fact that the project development manager had been moved to another post within the national health service while continuing work on the project on a part-time basis. I asked him the following question:
"One of the biggest hospitals of its kind in the history of the National Health Service and the project development manager was moved somewhere else and managed this project on a part-time basis. Was this a sensible way to proceed?"
Was it sensible, in other words, that the project development manager had worked on something else while continuing to work for one day a week on the biggest development project of its kind in the NHS? The National Audit Office report stated that the work of the manager was increased to two days a week in February, but
"still failed to provide adequate control."
I said to Mr. Nichol:
"You presumably agreed that there was not adequate control."
Mr. Nichol replied "I agree with that". That really is a terrible story.
The report also points out that the Committee shared the Treasury's doubts as to whether the role of project development manager could be adequately discharged on that basis. We endorsed the management executive's final conclusion that in future project development managers should give full and undivided attention to the management of major schemes.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The right hon. Gentleman is pointing out a worrying weakness in the way in which public services often operate. There seems to be an unwarranted belief that the number of people capable of

597
doing important jobs is limited. In fact, when a worker is needed to work elsewhere, there is a tendency to try to stretch thinly the resources of those capable people. I believe that the public services are full of able people, many of whom have to wait far too long for recognition. Would it not be better if people were given the opportunity to do a full-time job when such a position arises?
Mr. Sheldon: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Too often we underestimate the potential of the people of this country. People who are provided with a certain amount of training, background and assistance can do all sorts of jobs in the community. They fail to do those jobs because of a lack of trust, not only in the people themselves, but in the methods that can be devised for dealing with and training them.
The memorandum from the Comptroller and Auditor General stated that there were 24 delayed schemes costing more than £1 million which had received approval in principle. Those included projects within the regional health authorities of Bedford, Luton, Watford, Barnet, Napsbury and other places. Those were viable schemes which had been recommended, and were then delayed and delayed because money had been spent unwisely on other projects. The Committee thought that that was wrong and stated its views clearly and firmly.
I will now deal with the 27th report of the Committee, "Quality of Service: War Pensions; Mobility Allowance; Attendance Allowance; Invalid Care Allowance." The report deals with the Department of Social Security and with the Benefits Agency, which was established as an executive agency in April 1991. Mr. Michael Bichard, chief executive of the agency, came before the Committee to explain his responsibility and how he had undertaken it. Sir Michael Partridge, who was and is the permanent secretary at the Department of Social Security, also gave evidence.
The Benefits Agency administers a number of schemes that provide help to people with disabilities and to those who care for them. In 1991–92, there were on average around 2 million people receiving a war pension, mobility allowance, attendance allowance or invalid care allowance. Expenditure on those four schemes in that year amounted to some £3.8 billion. From April 1992, disability living allowance replaced mobility allowance and attendance allowance for people becoming disabled before reaching the age of 65, and who claim before their 66th birthday.
The Committee saw clearly that the service had been deteriorating. War pensions—if I may deal with that matter first—are different from other schemes administered by the Department. They are not social security benefits, but state compensation, which is very different, paid in recognition of the fact that disability or death was suffered during service to the country.
The report states that the average time taken to clear war pensions disablement claims increased from less than six months in 1985 to between eight and nine months in 1990–91. Despite a 30 per cent. increase in productivity in 1991–92, and a further doubling of productivity in the first six months of the following year, the surge of claims resulted in the accumulation of even larger backlogs of work. The Department has estimated that the total number of war pensions claims in 1992–93 will reach 180,000. The report states that the Committee is concerned that the
598
service to war pension claimants has been deteriorating, and also that it took the Department five years to recognise that and to take remedial action.
The report notes the progress now being made in securing improvements in the productivity of staff and the measures taken to deal with the large and unexpected growth in the number of claims in 1992–93. The Committee expects those claims to be pursued with vigour. That is important, because those people have earned their right to their pension in the strongest way possible and it is correct that we should deal with them in a proper, reasonable and efficient manner.
I turn now to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. One of the advantages that Committee members have is that they know the problems faced by those in such circumstances—not just from the voluminous and well-explained papers which they receive, but because of their constituency cases. Committee Members go to hearings with a fair understanding of the problems and are able on occasion to dispute some of the assertions made by those who are called before the Committee. We knew about the matters of which our constituents complained. For example, we all knew of the poor telephone service provided by the agency and about the frequency with which claims for disability living allowance or attendance allowance had been lost.
The agency acknowledged that there had been problems in locating the case papers. That was clearly wrong and showed that the kind of efficient operation that we might have expected was lacking. The agency could not provide even an indication of the number of lost disability living allowance or attendance allowance claim forms, as no statistics had been kept in connection with the problem.
We point out that we were concerned that an enormous backlog of 400,000 uncleared claims for disability living allowance and attendance allowance had built up by June 1992, as compared with the 130,000 that the agency had expected. The agency said that the situation had been caused by the surge of claims in the early months following the scheme's introduction. We were concerned to note that the Department believed that the implementation of disability living allowance had been rushed.
Mr. Alan Williams: The members of our Committee and especially its Chairman understandably try to avoid any political comment, but is it not right that people should be aware that what in fact emerged was that the surge in claims at that date had resulted from the high profile advertising campaign launched in the run-up to the election to draw claimants' attention to what was supposed to be a very generous new system? Lo and behold, that advertising was suspended at the time of the election and never recommenced once the election was over.
Mr. Sheldon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want to make that point. We noted that there had been a change in the advertising, and that had certainly resulted in more claims being made rather more quickly than had perhaps been expected.
In our conclusions, we say that we welcome the improvement in performance on invalid care allowance. I suppose that it may be some consolation to the agency —considering how critical we were of most of the rest of it—that we welcomed that improvement in performance and were pleased to note that the staff of the invalid care

599
allowance unit had received an award for one of the most improved performances in the civil service. We pay tribute to any success of that kind.
The 34th report of the Committee is entitled "Ministry of Defence: Prices Paid for Spare Parts", and concerns the £2 billion a year that the Ministry of Defence spends on spare parts—which are, of course, vital for the maintenance of defence equipment. The spares inventory comprises more than 2·7 million items. During the 1980s, the Department began to adopt a more commercial approach to defence procurement, and that included a number of initiatives relevant or specific to spares procurement. I should point out that the former chief of defence procurement, Sir Peter Levene, has now been replaced by Dr. Malcolm McIntosh.
We were pleased with one aspect of the work done in relation to spare parts—namely, spare parts labelling. We had been concerned that spare parts and control of the cost of spare parts had not been handled as well as they should have been. We were very much aware of what we had been told by a Congressman on our visit to the United States —that the one way to ensure that charges for spare parts were not excessive was to label them with their cost. That congressman would regularly hold up an ashtray and say, "This cost $1,000" or whatever. The cost was so absurd that everyone knew that the taxpayer had been ripped off. As a result of that discussion and our discussions with Sir Peter Levene, we decided to recommend price labelling so that someone going into the store could see the price marked on components.
Labelling is a highly effective way of ensuring that the customer—the taxpayer—is not overcharged. Many contractors to the Ministry of Defence did not like the idea because they felt that they were giving a much better service to the British Government than to Governments overseas and did not want those Governments to realise that they were having to pay rather more. We were somewhat sceptical of that point of view and persisted with our argument, which eventually carried the day. In due course, labelling was introduced.
The Committee is rightly very chary about giving praise. Our task is not to praise, but to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money. In 1966, when Lord James said that he wanted to have the University Grants Committee examined by the PAC because he had a good story to tell, Sir John Boyd-Carpenter, the then Chairman of the Committee, told him, "If you've got a good story to tell, you won't tell it here."
Nowadays, things are a bit different. We are prepared to go a little further in our praise—although not much—and on one occasion I went so far as to say that I was "satisfied" with the work that Sir Peter Levene had done. When he left, however, I went even further, in a statement that I never expected to make again—although I should be delighted to do so—and said that I was "very satisfied", which is about as far as I ought to go in these matters.
The question of the cost of spare parts is an important one because is it something that everyone can understand. Even in very esoteric and technical matters, the public have a right to expect that their money will be handled properly. On matters that they can understand, however, it is even more necessary that they are given such assurances. It is the task of the PAC to provide assurances, and that is what we sought to do.
We identified a need to increase competition in spares procurement. The Department acknowledged that there
600
was scope for a further increase in competition. Given the substantial savings that can be secured, we encouraged the Department to continue its drive to increase the level of competition. The question of competition is important. Competition is not always possible: for example, one cannot have large numbers of manufacturers or concerns providing nuclear submarines. What one can do, however —and what Sir Peter Levene showed could be done—was to have a number of sub-contractors bid for competitively. One can also encourage people to compete in areas in which competition is possible, by giving certain incentives and certain help. That is a positive gesture, which we welcome.
We say in our report:
"We commend the work carried out by the Purchase Research Units which has resulted in the generation of significant savings. However, whilst recognising the Department's plans for disseminating the techniques used by these Units, we note that at present the techniques are by no means widely applied throughout the Department."
In paragraph 16, we say:
"In the past, this Committee has commended the initiative to label spare parts showing the unit price charged thus making users more aware of the cost of the items concerned. We are therefore concerned that some contractors are still not complying with the requirements to place labels on spare parts. Moreover, in some cases where labels are provided these are attached to outer packaging and are therefore not always seen by the end user. Thus, the user is not aware of the price paid and is unable to challenge what might be an unduly high price."
That is the whole purpose of labelling, so we urged the Department to undertake to ensure that the requirement was fully met and our recommendations accepted.
Most of the recommendations of the Committee are accepted in the Treasury minute, and we welcome that. We have our differences from time to time, but we know that the Financial Secretary and the Treasury must also be concerned with securing value for money, which gives us a common theme and a common cause.
In one other aspect in relation to competitive contracts we note the Department's acknowledgement that one way of improving value for money lies in letting fewer and longer comptitive contracts with built-in incentives to ensure downward pressure on costs. Under a long-term contract, one can get a larger quantity at a cheaper price, which is clearly desirable. We are concerned that the Department does not have a system that flags up cases where there have been large increases between orders for the same item. There should be something that calls out for a fresh examination whenever a large increase in price is proposed for any article that it may want to purchase.
I shall now turn to the 35th report of the PSA Services Account 1991–92. I have had trouble over the years with the Property Services Agency and it has been a constant theme of the Committee. The report reads:
"In their Twenty-second Report of Session 1991–92 our predecessors concluded that it was a most serious matter that PSA services' financial systems should have broken down to such an extent that in 1990–91 they had been unable to recover £65·6 million owed by customer departments,"
Our predecessor
"expected PSA services to keep their invoicing up to date,"
It is not a difficult matter to keep one's invoicing up to date. Any business starting from scratch does that automatically. For our predecessor to have to make a recommendation of that kind is almost an insult. We pointed out:

601
"Further increasing difficulties in 1991–92 resulted in clients owing PSA Services £190 million when they closed their books in June 1992. Of this, £116.8 million related to works expenditure on behalf of Government departments."
One might have thought that Government Departments would be paying up if those invoices had been substantiated. We further pointed out:
"We regard it as unsatisfactory that PSA Services could not substantiate invoices"—
it was unable to prove that it had provided the goods or services totalling £12.8 million—
"and we find it most disturbing that some of these have been disputed for up to 10 years…We consider it unsatisfactory that PSA Services were unable to invoice the Ministry of Defence in time for them to pay £80.4 million in the 1991–92 year of account."
That is a sad record, and we felt unhappy about that.
We discussed the problem of the payment of contractors. In question 31, which was put to Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield, on behalf of PSA Services, he said that the department—the PSA—
"are moving over to a system which the Ministry of Defence have authorised for all their contractors, which is the so-called pay-when-paid system"—
one does not pay until one has been paid—
"whereby in the contract that we have with the contractor we shall be saying that we shall pay them when we get paid by our client. This will mean that as soon as the work has been validated there will be a change: we will not be paying the contractor until we are paid by the Ministry of Defence."
That struck us as strange. We knew that the Treasury had recommended that 30 days be the period.
The Treasury minute, which deals with the matter, says that the
"MOD have an existing obligation to pay promptly and this, taken together with the new arrangements adopted by the PSAS Building Management Businesses, should ensure that contractors will be paid within 30 days from validation."
I would like to hear from the Financial Secretary that this is now the rule. It was quite disgraceful. A number of small firms accepted work from the Property Services Agency and found that they were not in a position to know when they would get their money, as it was dependent on when the PSA got its money. As the Treasury advised that it should be 30 days, the Government Departments seem to be at odds with each other. I hope that that has now been resolved and I look forward to hearing from the Financial Secretary in due course.
A particularly serious matter is the Welsh Development Agency accounts for 1991–92. At the close of the investigation, I informed the witnesses that we would produce a strong report. That is what we produced. We discovered a number of serious failings during our investigation. Under the Welsh Development Agency Act 1991, the pensions were determined by the Secretary of State for Wales. Redundancy terms were settled by the agency. The total amount paid—about which the Welsh Office knew nothing—was £2.3 million with a £1.4 million loss.
Again it was not reported to the Welsh Office, as it should have been. The report says that senior officials had the free use of their cars for their own private use.
On the retirement settlement to the agency's international director, the report says:
"We note that tensions which had developed between Mr. Price and his superiors".
Mr. Price was given a retirement package of more than £228,000, with a confidentiality agreement. We are talking
602
about an open Government and open Departments. What are those confidentiality agreements? In private industry, of course, one can undertake all sorts of things with one's own money. What is important with public money is public accountability. Expenditure of that money must be open. If there is a price to be paid for that openness, remember that it is not just in the taxpayer's interest, as that is obvious and essential, but it is also to ensure that we have a incorrupt and fraud-free—as far as is possible—civil service and public administration. That is the task. We dispute the use of confidentiality agreements with points buried away.
We heard also that a total of 48 staff had left the agency over the past 10 years on severance packages. Some of those may have been under acceptable confidential arrangements, but we suspect that many were not.
Following the unsatisfactory appointment of Mr. Carignan, the inward investment operations manager in the United States—when he finally left the WDA, he took away £53,288 of furniture for which he was paid $15,000 —the WDA decided to have a new director of marketing, a Mr. Neil Smith. This is what we said about it:
"We asked the Agency about the way Mr. Smith had been recruited. They accepted that in appointing Mr. Smith, they had been 'conned'".
That is an honest assessment and nobody can dispute that. We are dealing with a genuine 24-carat crook. There was no question that it had been conned, but it should not have been. It was so basic, simple and elementary. It had not complied with its own recruitment procedures. The WDA employed, in a senior position, a person who had previous criminal convictions for deception. The agency had not checked his credentials or references. Had it done so, it would have discovered that his credentials were bogus.
We asked about a number of payments that had been made. One of the more interesting payments was that made to a model agency. I shall now deal with question 19 of 14 December. Following the National Audit Office report, I was talking about the commissioning of Mr. Smith from Shapes model agency. I asked:
"This is an astonishing tale is it not? It refers to payments made to Shapes Model Agency who had at one time had a licence under the Employment Agency Act but this had lapsed so they did not any longer have it. It seemed there was a failure to find out about the status of the Model Agency. Mr. Smith, on a Sunday, had 11 girls from the Model Agency up to his hotel to interview them to see whether they would be suitable for an advertising promotion that he had in mind. What happens in private industry does not concern us but public money can never be used in this kind of way. Did you know anything about this beforehand?"
Mr. Head, of whom more subsequently, replied:
"No, I did not."
That is unbelievable. To behave in that way with public money is an affront. I suspect that many countries that send people to discover how our system operates may handle their matters in a not dissimilar way, but for us to have such records to deal with is not just unacceptable but disgraceful.
Before becoming chairman, Dr. Gwyn Jones, who is now retired, applied to the WDA for a rural conversion grant to convert premises to workshops, and received £16,895. Following his appointment it was clear that that might not be acceptable, but nothing was done. An agency employee just happened to make a routine visit and discovered that a change in use had not been reported, as it should have been under the requirements of the grant.

603
The conduct of the chairman of the WDA is a most serious matter. There should not have been any conflict of interest. We say in our conclusion:
"It is clearly important that persons in high public office should ensure that circumstances do not arise which can give cause to any allegations of abuse of position."
To be chairman of a body and receive funds from that body but not to fulfil properly the requirements of the grant is clearly wrong.
In Operation Wizard, £308,000 was spent on professional fees resulting from an inquiry into the possible privatisation of certain functions of the WDA. That cost was not approved by the board in formal minutes and its existence was not publicly reviewed. Some of the options identified by the consultants involved major restructuring of the agency with changes to its objectives and the possible reduction of a specific commitment to Wales. In our conclusion, we said:
"We are concerned that not only was Parliament denied information, but that this Committee would have remained unaware of the project's existence had it not been for unofficial revelations from within the industry."
Those are serious matters, and they led us to look at some other aspects.
The Treasury has said that more than £10 billion of public money is spent each year by non-departmental public bodies. We happened to investigate one. We recognise that such bodies are statutory bodies, deliberately at arm's length from Government, and therefore that Government Departments cannot control the affairs of the bodies in the same detail as they control their own financial affairs. The Treasury told us that it recognised that, but that did not reduce the importance of proper and clear arrangements for accountability and control.
The Welsh Office told us that it expected to be consulted by its NDPBs over unusual matters concerning irregularity of public expenditure. It should have been consulted on redundancy compensation and changes to the executive car scheme. Only as a result of current investigations have problems in the redundancy scheme been discovered. Those are not just important matters—they are central to how we spend moneys and account for them.
In our report, we say:
"We note that the Treasury have now issued guidance on the control of staff benefits in non-departmental public bodies. We recommend that they keep under review the terms under which non-departmental public bodies operate. Finally, we recommend that the Treasury and the Welsh Office take urgent steps to ensure that problems similar to those covered by this report do not recur, and that lessons which have been learnt are notified to and applied by all non-departmental public bodies."
That is a serious matter, but it is only one of many cases that may be occurring without our knowledge. With the growth of executive agencies, there may be other, different problems.
The proper conduct of public business is a matter of concern to all of us. Although not mentioned on the Order Paper, a number of those matters concerned us. First, in the 28th report on the Ministry of Defence we found irregular expenditure under the efficiency incentive award scheme. The proper conduct of public business was not clearly set out. Under the efficiency scheme, when the Department has made considerable savings certain sums of money could be spent on generally agreed aspects such as sports facilities and improvements in health provision.
Some £682,000 was spent on a coach and 56 minibuses, and money was spent on go-karts, golf club furnishings
604
and a holiday caravan, while £79,000 was spent on a party attended by 1,000 people. It must have been some party. One does not go to many parties where that amount of money is spent.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Will the right hon. Gentleman refresh the memory of those members of the Committee who are here today as to the cost of floodlighting that party? I seem to recall that it was about £28,000 for a non-night party.
Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is just about right. We pay tribute to his work on the Committee, which is valuable. I thank him for that useful observation.
Public money should not be spent in such a way. We were uneasy about the way in which the spending of it had been authorised, which we thought was a most serious matter, and we dealt with it accordingly. In our conclusions, we say:
"We note the Department's view that the irregular expenditure arose as a result of an institutional failure and that it was not appropriate to take disciplinary action against individuals. We endorse the Accounting Officer's acknowledgement that he is ultimately responsible, and we regard such personal accountability as a cardinal principle of Parliament's controls over public expenditure."
That is one of the aspects that I feel that I should draw to the attention of the House.
Another aspect is the payment of £4,700 as part of the legal expenses incurred by the Chancellor, dealt with in the 25th report of the Committee. In paragraph 23, we say:
"Officials had considered that assistance towards meeting the Chancellor's expenditure in this case was justified on the grounds that:
—the scale and lurid nature of the press comments and the enormous consequential press interest derived from Mr. Lamont's position as Chancellor, and he incurred extra costs as a result;
—it was in the public interest to make the payment because the scale of the press attention, unless effectively handled, for example to avoid libel, was having an adverse effect on the Chancellor in his ministerial role and in the effective discharge of his official duties."
We took evidence from the Treasury and those concerned and made the following recommendations:
"There must always be the clearest possible distinction between the use of public funds or resources used to meet expenses incurred by Ministers and civil servants in the direct conduct of their official duties or arising directly from their official position and the use of such funds for other expenses incurred in relation to the activities of Ministers."
We go on to point out:
"There should always be a strong presumption that where there is doubt there will be no use of public funds or resources."
At the end we say:
"It is important that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, the circumstances and grounds for decisions should be made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General at the earliest occasion. We regret that they were not highlighted in this case."
There may be cases for giving Ministers money for special occasions, but the Comptroller and Auditor General must be notified. It is his task to decide whether a case requires further investigation, is acceptable or should be brought forward for examination. We have established that that is how we should proceed with such matters.
The 48th report deals with irregularities in the 1991–92 accounts of Forward civil service catering. There were control failures of between £500,000 and £1 million. Although there was a question of a police prosecution, we felt that standards were not so high as they should be in the

605
public service. We felt that the House should know that something went wrong and that money was made and squandered.
The 44th report, on police cell accommodation costs, deals with the cost of keeping prisoners in police cells. We point out:
"the Home Office's handling of payments to police authorities…was unsatisfactory. There was a serious breakdown in their authorisation and control of expenditure, in that they did not ensure that all claims were certified by police authority Treasurers in the way that they had themselves required…Uncertified claims should not have been made".
That is extremely important, because the size and make-up of claims varied widely, ranging from £89 a day for a prisoner in Surrey to £561 a day for a prisoner in Hertfordshire. We thought that that was very wrong.
In questioning Sir Clive Whitmore, I pointed out that the variation between places was surprising. I said:
"The average charge for mainly food is £1.53 per prisoner day in Northampton and £18.10 per prisoner day by the South Wales police."
People can understand such matters because they know how much food costs. When they see that food costs £1.53 in one place and £18.10 in another, they will ask what sort of meals prisoners receive for £18.10. One could have a good night out in a fancy restaurant in my constituency for that price. I asked what sort of meals prisoners were receiving for that sum, but we received little information on that. Payments are being made without a proper understanding of why some people are spending so much more than others.
We conclude:
"We regard it as unsatisfactory that for many years the Home Office have not been in a position to carry out the independent check…on the claims they authorised and paid. This was because these claims were not supported by a detailed breakdown of costs."
Payments are asked for and the money is received. That cannot be the right way to handle public money. I understand the problems experienced by the police, but certain rules should be followed and accepted.
As a result of many of those matters, particularly those that I have mentioned, the Committee is to produce a general report on the proper conduct of public business. It will deal with what should happen and how those matters should be handled. Most of what has happened should not have happened, because rules exist to prevent it. Those rules were set down many years ago, so we do not have to wait until now to establish them. However, so many exceptions have been made that we must see how we can highlight the problems and bring them to the attention of those concerned. We are dealing with a number of executive agencies and departmental public bodies where the proper conduct of public business is crucial. We have yet to receive the reports from the Wessex and West Midlands regional health authorities, which deal with important and serious matters, so it is right that we should look at the problem in a wider context.
Finally, the 52nd report deals with fire prevention in England and Wales. We have a sorry record for looking after our property. There have been two fires at Donnington. The one that we commented on cost us between £150 million and £170 million and we said how bad it was. Astonishingly, a few years later another fire took place—after our report.
606
The main problem is that Departments do not have insurance assessors. If someone's home is subject to fire risk or if someone has a factory that is storing goods, an assessor will first come round and say whether sprinklers or fire doors are needed and the insurance company will not insure the property unless those requirements are carried out. That is the strongest incentive to carrying out proper fire precautions. When that does not exist—it does not exist in Departments—the easy way out is taken and normal requirements are not met.
In 1990 the fire brigade was called to more than 400,000 fires in England and Wales, 700 people were killed and 12,000 injured. The Home Office has overall responsibility within central Government for the fire service and spends some £15 million a year. The bulk of fire prevention expenditure is incurred by the fire service on inspections and certifying buildings.
In paragraph 3 of the report we point out:
"over the last thirty years the number of fires, fire casualties and financial losses have all increased. There were 120,000 fires in 1960 compared to 401,000 in 1990; and over the same period deaths rose from 430 to 740 a year…The UK death rate is high compared with other developed countries. Insured losses were more than £1 billion in 1991."
We hope that the trend is downwards and some signs show that that might be so.
We have had the problems of the Windsor fire disaster and the serious backlog of certification work in Crown premises. Crown premises without an up-to-date certificate include the Palace of Westminster, where fire safety arrangements were found to be deficient in 1979. I hope that some improvements have been made since then, but the building was still without a certificate. We were told that the estimated date for completion of that work was mid-1994 and that the Home Office expected that a certificate would be issued soon after that. There have been several of those fires and the arrangements for dealing with them have been far from satisfactory. That matter greatly concerns us.
I look forward to the production of the report, on the proper conduct of public business, which will show how Departments should operate and how their responsibilities should be extended to cover the new areas in which that control seems to be weak. I look forward to a proper response by the Financial Secretary in due course.
5.38 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: It has been a privilege to listen to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I find it gratifying that there is at least one group of Back Benchers to whom the Executive listen effectively—a rare phenomenon in this place. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and to all right hon. and hon. Members who work with him.
I believe that the Public Accounts Committee is a model for the other Select Committees. It is essential that Parliament pursue the business of how the Executive spends money and performs its task. It is a great pity that there is not more liaison between the other Select Committees, the better to co-ordinate the pursuit of the Executive. I understand that the Liaison Committee itself meets primarily to discuss where the Select Committees will travel abroad; it might be useful if it met more often to discuss where they travel at home.
It would greatly strengthen the cause of the European Community if we ensured that the ways in which it spends our money were methodically and effectively monitored. I

607
am conscious of the fact that one of the consequences of the Maastricht treaty should be a much more effective auditing system for the EC—I very much hope that that will indeed be the outcome. But one of the reasons why the EC is much less popular than it deserves in principle to be is that there is far too little liaison between national Parliaments and EC organisations in the cause of pursuing the EC's executive. I should like much stronger Back-Bench interest in the effective pursuit of how the EC goes about its business.
I welcome the general report by the PAC, and I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne a question about it. Is it part of its purpose to extract lessons that could be applied to similar cases in other Departments or even within the same Departments? The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was awaiting a response from the Wessex regional health authority. I understand that that is about the purchase of information technology.
One of the besetting weaknesses of both public and private sectors concerns the mechanisms for choosing information technology. I went to a seminar in the summer, where it was explained to me by a learned professor that there are usually 20 per cent. of people in an organisation who, when asked what their jobs uniquely add to the value of the organisation, find it difficult to reply. These people are to be found in disproportionate numbers among those in the organisation who work with information technology.
As the purchase of information technology by health trusts and Government agencies constitutes a huge part of their budgets, this is an area in which it is easy to make terrible financial mistakes or to set up a system that does not work at all. I hope that the general report about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke will highlight lessons for present and future undertakings.
I should like to mention the report on the disability living allowance and similar allowances. I was interested to learn that the telephone system had been so lamentably inadequate—that was also my experience when trying to get through to the agencies in question. One of the most striking features of the newly privatised utilities is that, almost without exception, their telephone answering services have been hugely improved. People who ring the electricity supply companies often get an answer before they have even heard the phone ring.
Interestingly, rapid response of this sort is an expensive operation to mount, but I am told by the chief executive of one of the electricity supply companies that complaints to the company have fallen by 78 per cent. as a direct result of the fact that the public can get through so quickly and easily. That lesson could be profitably transferred to the public sector, where telephone response rates are often still lamentable.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is a critical difference here? That difference is one of emphasis, but it is also a political—with a small "p"—problem. When health authorities attempt to evolve towards models that they may perceive as operating in, say, a privatised electricity company, our investigations show that they tend to favour the kind of sweetheart deals—management buy-outs and so on—that do not entail the disciplines of the private sector. Such ventures can end up disastrously, with £63 million going to waste in Wessex or £10 million in the west midlands. So it is a problem not
608
merely of management discipline but of confusion of direction—about what management really wants a health authority to become.
Mr. Rowe: That is an interesting comment, although the hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he believes that that sort of confusion does not obtain in private sector companies, too. There is an element of truth in what he says, however.
One of the functions of management is to identify precisely what it is trying to achieve. Having identified that there needs to be an improvement in health service responsiveness to patients and their relatives, for instance, management must set up the sort of response service that will enormously reduce anxieties. Anyone in the health service will testify that anxiety is one of the greatest causes of the consumption of time. If anxious relatives can get through to health trusts swiftly and be put through to a person who can give them some sort of answer, those trusts will find, more often than not, that they are well regarded. Some have already achieved this; that is commendable. I was pleased to discover that the PAC draws attention to a failure of telephone communications as an important symptom of a Department or agency not working as well as it should.
Another interesting feature of the report is that self-assessment has begun to make a serious contribution to the effective working of agencies. Instead of having to go for a medical assessment, by filling in a form correctly the public can now claim the disability living allowance and have it paid simply to them—just by filling in the form well. There may be a difficulty, in that this system tends to favour those who are skilled at filling in forms. However, such a system is a promising development.
One of the most fruitful avenues for reducing the waste of money is to curb the attempt by agencies and others, often for good reasons or because the Treasury insists, to do more than they need to do. Those who are assessed as capable of managing their own affairs, and especially the severely disabled, could be allowed to make their own arrangements about spending money day by day and month by month. Such a devolution of detailed responsibility from the centre to the individual could make a tremendous contribution. It would also treat severely disabled people as adults who are capable of deciding how best to spend the public money that has been allocated to them.
The 15th report deals encouragingly with the BBC World Service. The Committee was told that there had been an increase in editorial independence. That is entirely appropriate and reassuring, because the BBC World Service is a huge asset for this country. At a fringe meeting during the Conservative party conference, I learned that, although it is impossible for the World Service to be sure, because it cannot set up auditing arrangements, it believes that it broadcasts to no fewer than 120 million Chinese. That is a formidable audience, but, as the BBC cannot audit the figure, it does not claim it in the listening figures.
As the Department of Trade and Industry knows, such an audience provides a tremendous basis for exporting British goods and British education—a subject in which I am particularly interested. It is because so many people all over the world have learnt English by way of the World Service that they develop an interest in obtaining qualifications which, increasingly, are also obtained through the World Service because of its links to, among

609
other things, the Open university. I was pleased to note that, on the whole, the Committee was impressed by the World Service.
I shall conclude, because many hon. Members who are waiting to take part in the debate know far more about the work of the PAC than I do. I hope that other Select Committees will take a leaf out of the PAC book and will hound the Executive perhaps rather more consistently than some of them have done in the past.
5.53 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: In all the years that I have been in the House, I have not had the privilege of serving on the Public Accounts Committee. However, I had the privilege of being there at the concpetion, if not the birth, of the Welsh Development Agency when I was a Minister in the Welsh Office in 1975. I represent a community in which life without the WDA would be strange and difficult to imagine. That is because of the central role, gradually acquired, that the agency has played in the regeneration and redevelopment of many of our communities.
The WDA has not been unique in carrying out such functions, because functions such as land reclamation were previously carried out successfully by the Welsh Office, for which Ministers are accountable to the House. I was a Minister responsible for the land reclamation unit created after the Aberfan disaster in the late 1960s. The broking and general co-ordinating roles of the agency are vital. The Merthyr east scheme, one of the largest reclamation schemes in Europe—it is being carried out in my constituency—demonstrates the agency's value and importance.
It is right to point to those factors, because the PAC and the National Audit Office have properly revealed a sorry story. Therefore, we should feel even angrier and more distressed to see exposed in the PAC reports poor behaviour, bad standards and maladministration in the agency. Since those exposures, some agency executives have paid the price by losing their jobs. The agency has a new chairman, and it is encouraging to note that he is to establish key priorities for the agency.
I have worked closely with the agency and followed its progress and should like to suggest some priorities. But before doing so, perhaps I may dwell on a general conclusion to be drawn from the experiences and revelations of the PAC. It was quite refreshing to hear the Secretary of State for Wales make a partial confession during his statement on the report. However, there were some errors, the chief of which was that he apparently sought to exonerate and absolve almost completely the board and its previous chairman and he argued that the report virtually did so as well.
In addition to the PAC report, we have also had the report of Sir John Caines, who established an internal audit on the agency's performance. That report anything but absolves the previous board or its chairman. I hope that the Financial Secretary has read that report as well as that of the PAC. Paragraphs 31, 33 and 34 of Sir John's report speak of the board, and not of the executives who have lost their jobs. There is more than a coded reference to the previous chairman when the report states:
610
"Dealing effectively with conflicts of interest involves not only rules and procedures but also an attitude of mind and high personal integrity in the individuals involved."
That is not about the executives. Sir John is a former permanent secretary and was brought in to follow up revelations in the Public Accounts Committee.
His report continues:
"We do not believe that the present policy and practice as regards the handling of conflicts of interest of Agency Board Members are adequate to ensure that the Agency maintains the reputation for integrity which it needs."
Those are powerful statements, and they are made not by politicians in conflict across the Floor of the House but by a review body that was rightly praised by the Secretary of State. As I have said, those are not references to the executives, the agency's paid officials.
Paragraph 71 of Sir John's report states:
"When the top leadership is not perceived to attach importance to enforcing sound management, good practices are allowed to slip. Corners are cut and bad decisions are taken."
That is not just a reference to Mr. Head and company. The expression "top leadership" cannot just be about the executives who have lost their jobs: it must be about the board and its chairman. The Secretary of State was pressed by hon. Members about Dr. Gwyn Jones's place on other boards, such as the BBC and S4C. He should think again and should consider his position in the light not only of the PAC report but by the report by Sir John Caines.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the comments of John Osmond in today's Western Mail. On the role of Peter Walker and Gwyn Jones in Operation Wizard, he says:
"There is no doubt that this"—
Operation Wizard—
"was motivated by Peter Walker, hand-in-glove with Gwyn Jones. Proof can be seen in a file of memos and letters lodged in the office of the Agency's chief executive Philip Head who resigned last week, a fall guy if ever there was one."
Mr. Rowlands: That is additional information. However, I hope that I am resting my case not on press and public comment, but on the internal audit set up by the agency and chaired by a distinguished former permanent secretary.
Paragraph 73 of the report makes a more interesting point:
"We believe that the prevailing culture was not one conducive to care over compliance matters and played a powerful part in bringing about the events with which we have been concerned."
I listened with fascination to the report of the enormous diligence and investigative qualities shown by the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
In reflecting on what has happened over the past few years, the one conclusion to be drawn is about the prevailing culture of the 1980s—a curious culture in respect of public life and public bodies. The Government have often slagged off the role of certain groups of public servants and officials, such as those in the DSS offices at the point of service delivery. However, at the higher level, in the appointment of people to quangos, there has been not only an explosion in numbers, but a significant explosion in salaries and emoluments. The Government have justified that by saying that it is necessary to appoint more commercially minded people with entrepreneurial skills.
I wonder just where a balance will be struck. When will commercial ability and responsibility run alongside a public sense of duty? It is a privilege to be the chairman of, for example, the Welsh Development Agency. It is one of

611
the most important agencies carrying out a very important function, so the post of chairman is one of the most important appointments that can be made. The job should not be simply about leasing cars or being paid £61,000 a year for a part-time job; it should be about the role that has to be filled. The salary is more than the Prime Minister gets.
S4C is currently advertising for a new controller. It should be a vocation. I am a great supporter of S4C, which does an excellent job. I accept that the job needs someone who is a good media controller—but at £106,000 a year? That is much more than the Prime Minister gets, even taking into account his house, car and other perks. A balance must be struck between public service—a commitment to being the chairman of S4C or the WDA —and reward.
I remind the Financial Secretary that the people at the point of service delivery in DSS offices or the officials in the WDA are to have their pay increase pegged at zero. Why do not the Government make a fresh start and halve the salary being offered to the controller of S4C? We should then discover whether committed, first-class people still want the job, as I believe they will. We want someone who is committed to the spirit of public service broadcasting.
Why do not the Government halve the salary for the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency? They should advertise the post at the lower salary and then see whether people of great quality stilt come forward. They would show their sense of public duty and service and they would be paid sensibly.
The second area of concern is one that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) dealt with at some length—the relationship between quangos and Government and quangos and Parliament, and the degree of accountability. I have in my hand a secret internal Whitehall document that deals with that very issue. It suggests that some caution would be engendered by an organisation's responsibility to appear before the PAC when its accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report of his audit of those accounts are before the Committee. It states:
"No doubt there would be reasonable tolerance of error and the PAC would realise that it is easy to be wise after the event, but the knowledge that there would be a post mortem examination would be bound to influence the"
organisation
"and induce a spirit of caution in approaching anything hitherto untried. Of course, the wider and vaguer the"
organisation's
"powers, the less scope for C and AG's criticism."
That quotation came from a secret, internal Whitehall document. Alas, it is not in the Rhodri Morgan class. In fact, it was written in 1934—nearly 60 years ago—on the eve of the creation of the forerunner to the WDA, the first Commission for Special or Distressed Areas. Sixty years later, we are debating the same issue—the balance that must be struck between the role of an agency and its accountability to Parliament.
I am interested in the phrase
"induce a spirit of caution".
I hope that, in one key respect, the work of the PAC—the investigation, the report and the revelations—do not, in fact, induce a spirit of caution in the WDA. I am referring to the fundamental function of the agency, which is to get on with the regeneration of our industrial and manufacturing base in communities such as mine. Let us
612
have the inducement for caution and restraint when it comes to managing the internal affairs and carrying out the administration of the agency, but we do not want a consequence of the sad and sorry story that has been revealed to be an inducement of caution in regenerating industry.
Communities such as mine do not want a cautious, frightened agency; they want an agency that plays a central, fundamental role.
As I said earlier, I want to outline the key priority of the agency. It is my belief that, through the appointment of a new chief executive, we can send out a loud and clear message about what the agency's role should be. When it was established in the 1970s, its role—which I believe still holds today—was to develop the industrial, engineering and manufacturing base of communities such as the one that I represent. It was to generate jobs. There is great opportunity to do that.
People ask, "Where will the jobs come from?" They are already there in my area. Along the route of the M4 have grown up large assembly plants, such as Sony, National Panasonic and Bosch. They are large consumers of components and other manufacturing services. We need to get a greater percentage of indigenous, locally and regionally—or even United Kingdom-produced—goods because that will create jobs. One of the central functions of the WDA is to do that. The appointments that are about to be made should reflect that central priority.
There is a unit within the WDA called "Source Wales". I have pleaded for there also to be a "Source Valleys" so that we can tap into the jobs already coming to south Wales through the large assembly plants. The Source Wales team and people like Mr. David Harris currently appear to be on the margins of the agency's activities; if they are put at the heart of a revitalised agency, we can put behind us the sorry story that has been revealed in the PAC's report. We can then re-establish the spirit intended in 1975 and which has been carried forward by successive Governments—which is for an agency whose job is the regeneration of communities such as mine.
6.9 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I begin my contribution to this debate as I have begun my contributions to every Public Accounts Committee sitting in which I have spoken by paying tribute to the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who kindly guides us through our affairs and ensures that we speak with a united voice. If the Committee were divided, our reports and pronouncements would be much less effective. I also thank the National Audit Office for the thoroughness of its reports under the leadership of Sir John Bourn.
When I was appointed to the PAC about six or seven years ago, I remember reading a catalogue of horrors and thinking that Departments would surely realise their mistakes and learn from them and that the flow of disasters would gradually dry up. However, I then thought that the PAC had existed for more than 100 years and that the flow of disasters was unlikely to dry up merely because Richard Page had become a member. In the six or seven years that I have been a member of the PAC, the catalogue of disasters seems to have got worse, not better. I am confident that there will be a supply of raw material for the PAC for many years to come.

613
As the Committee's Chairman said, two critical themes emerge in the report, both directly related to the introduction of market discipline and the decentralisation of the public sector. Both will threaten the continuation of the process or even reverse it if they are not dealt with properly. Of course, the two themes existed before decentralisation, but decentralisation now enables the public spotlight to be focused on them more clearly and the cover-ups to be exposed. I shall deal with cover-ups a little later.
First, we have witnessed a serious breakdown in the strategic management of publicly financed projects. Departments appear to have relinquished not only day-to-day management, as was intended, but the oversight of activities contracted to agencies under their remit. That has led to a considerable loss of taxpayers' money.
Secondly, the chain of accountability between taxpayers and the activities that they finance has been needlessly broken. Major and costly mistakes and abuses have been unearthed by the NAO, but the individuals and organisations responsible have invariably escaped scot-free or the individuals have resigned, in some cases with six-figure golden handshakes. Some of the most costly examples are to be found in the regional health authorities. I therefore trust that the Secretary of State for Health will bear that message in mind when undertaking the reform of those authorities, which she announced last week.
I have selected just four examples, each of which vividly highlights these issues and outlines an individual twist that may be of interest to the House. Members of the PAC will be surprised to learn that the Westminster and Chelsea hospital will not appear on my list; the Chairman has already dealt with the errors that took place on that project, although I believe that he did so far too gently.
The first example is what happens when one publicly financed body rips off another and, as usual, the taxpayer picks up the tab. We have already heard about some of the costs of police cell accommodation. If someone were to ask an average member of the public what the police force should charge the prison service per night for such accommodation, he might say that Surrey's figure of £89 was a bit expensive but probably about right.
Some of Surrey's senior police officials must have travelled to other counties to find what they were charging, because Surrey increased its charges from £89 a night, which was at the bottom of the table of charges. One might suppose that £120 was enough, or £140, or £160, or £180. I have to report that the average is £234 a night for a prisoner held in police cells which, as Arthur Daley would say, is a nice little earner. However, the price does not stop at £234; it goes up and up.
One can almost imagine the menu card being hung behind the door in some prison cells, requesting the prisoner to fill it in—would he care for French bread or croissants in the morning, jam or marmalade, Weetabix or porridge, haddock or kippers, egg and bacon or black pudding, coffee or tea? One can imagine a kindly Dixon of Dock Green type policemen knocking on the door at 8.30 am asking, "Would sir care for breakfast now?" In Hertfordshire such accommodation costs £561 a night, and that is the sort of service that I would expect for such a
614
sum. It is an appalling waste of public money, although I know that the Home Office is placing specified limits on certain items such as prisoners' food, as the Chairman said.
Despite the variations in the figures and despite the annual bill of about £100 million, the police authorities made little effort to check the bills. Indeed, about half the 41 police authorities did not even bother to use the standard form to submit their claims for reimbursement.
The second example is illustrated by the case of Wessex regional health authority in its attempt to introduce computerisation. Before I am called to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I am well aware that the PAC has not approved the final report, so I shall not mention the £43 million that was spent on a computer system, which has now been abandoned, or the £3.15 million spent on giving a soft landing to the 104 ex-employees of the health authority who, in fact, turned out to number only 60. However, I shall mention what can be described only as a cover-up, when section 30 of the Local Government Act 1992 was used to hide the red faces of public officials.
The Committee was originally to take evidence on 10 February, so it came as a surprise to read in Computer Weekly about a second secret report from the district auditor which was not drawn to our attention or made available. We made inquiries and found that the exposé in Computer Weekly was correct. The Chairman rightly deferred the meeting. We took evidence on 5 May when we were able to see the whole report.
On seeing the report, it became abundantly clear that, the health authority and the management executive should have and could have acted sooner to end the expensive saga. To cap it all, one of the managers involved was able to retire with a pay-off of more than £100,000. My worry is that a report was kept secret when there was no reason for its not being in the public domain. It was made confidential simply to hide officials' embarrassment at the way in which the case was handled.
The third example, which has already been mentioned, involves the Welsh Development Agency. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned the necessity of the entrepreneurial spirit. Drive and efficiency are needed, but we must remember that the WDA deals with public money. The press has paid considerable attention to the fact that the WDA, for all its success in assisting the Welsh economy—I pay tribute to it for what it has achieved—has been less successful in its internal management.
The young and exuberant chairman, who was appointed in 1988 without references, has done much to stamp his personal identity on the agency, going far beyond the number plates on his fully fuelled, grace-and-favour Jaguar. The agency has been run not as an organisation funded by the taxpayer but as the personal business of its senior managers. Perks have been agreed, commercial deals have been made and staff have been hired and fired without regard to the standards of public sector accountability that we hold so dear.
It is perhaps symptomatic that a convicted fraudster was appointed as the agency's director of marketing. He was no doubt helping to cast off its public sector image when he decided to interview girls from a local, unlicensed model agency at the Celtic Bay hotel, somehow incurring a £450 bill in the process.
The agency's reputation has spread far and wide. It has done a tremendous job for Wales but, sadly, our standards of public accountability and principle, which are the envy

615
of the world, seem to have been abandoned. We need not only the flair of the entrepreneur but acceptance of the fact that public money and public office are involved.
The final example is of the failure to provide a product to original specification arose during the replacement of two auxiliary oilers by the Ministry of Defence. Given the sheer scale of the MOD budget, it is inevitable that it will regularly attract the Committee's attention. Management mistakes in the MOD can have costly long-term effects. The disappointing feature of the contract for the two oilers was that, although work on the second started a couple of years after the first, it succeeded in being commissioned a few weeks before the first.
The original specification provided that the oilers should have vertically launched Sea Wolf missiles to give protection against attack. During the Falklands conflict, we saw what happened when an auxiliary oiler was attacked. The stories and pictures of the Sir Galahad and the Sir Tristram will remain in our minds for ever. I learned then that a £100,000 missile can take out a £100 million ship just like that. It was a disgrace not to allow those oilers to have the Sea Wolf. It cost £300,000 to remove the parts of Sea Wolf that had already been fitted to the oilers when it was decided to abandon it.
The MOD has a habit of behaving in such a manner. I remember the saga of the advanced short-range air-to-air missile. The MOD delayed placing the order for years; it prevaricated, changed and negotiated. It emerged that the purpose of the Tornado, to which the ASRAAM should have been fitted, was to prevent a possible Soviet bomber attack and that the Russian equivalent to our present missile was superior. We would have been knowingly sending our Tornados—heaven forbid that it should have happened—into action against a superior weapon. The MOD delayed making a decision, not for weeks and months but for years.
It is clear from the Committee's report that decentralisation in public service must not lead to the abandonment of public sector standards. It can be achieved without stifling initiatives. We are seeing a progressive and positive improvement, but managers of executive agencies and decentralised services must continue to look for and receive clear central guidance. In addition, they must guarantee that the taxpayer will receive value for money and must ensure local and national accountability, enforced, as it would be in any enterprise, by firm disciplinary measures.
It has been far too easy to negotiate resignations using large sums of money rather than taking disciplinary action and accepting the publicity that it would attract. I hope that there will be more accountability and that there will be no repeat of a report being sumitted to us when a secret cover-up report is hidden in the background and not drawn to our attention.
6.25 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and a number of Opposition Members have rightly focused on the challenges to the Public Accounts Committee that have stemmed from the establishment of executive agencies. We should be no less rigorous in our scrutiny of our own role as a Committee of the House than we expect Departments and other agencies to be in their presentations to us.
616
I want to focus on one Department and one report about which the Public Accounts Committee has faced a baffling problem for many years. I refer to the Lord Chancellor's Department, whose representatives have appeared before our Committee a number of times and, candidly, have baffled us.
In the last Session, we were faced with an account of the Department's handling of legal aid that we found unsatisfactory. The Committee is not used to employing superlatives in our criticisms of Departments or public agencies; we choose our words with care. That does not diminish the impact of what we are saying, but superlatives alone will do do describe the cavalier approach of the Lord Chancellor's Department to the findings of the Committee and of its predecessors.
It is a joy perhaps surpassed only by the pleasure of watching "Yes, Minister" to read the evidence of Sir Thomas Legg, twice delivered to the Public Accounts Committee in his explanations of the Department's failures to monitor the growth of legal aid and of the uncertainties that the Department had in projecting the consequences for our citizens that flowed from the changes that the Department had made.
His evidence was the most ingenuous to which I had listened in many years of membership of the Committee. We must ask ourselves, arising from that study, whether the Lord Chancellor's Department is capable of doing its job.
I have read the Treasury minute supplied in response to the Committee's 46th report. The minute purports to deal with some of our criticisms about the Department's forecasting and monitoring of legal aid expenditure. The 46th report is not the first occasion when the PAC has considered the matter. A report in the 1986–87 Session expressed astonishment at the lack of control.
In the report that we are considering today, we found that the position was no better than it had been then. The Lord Chancellor's Department appeared to have made no significant improvements. Indeed, we stated that it was
"unsatisfactory"—
and what a modest word that is—
"that, given the improvements promised six years ago, the Department's forecasting and monitoring are no better today than they were then. It is still not possible to identify more precisely the causes of the increases in legal aid expenditure over the years."
Candidly, invincible ignorance from the Lord Chancellor's Department is no longer tolerable. It has taken no steps to make good the deficiencies, and the Treasury minute suggests that it has nothing in mind to deal with the problem.
Paragraph 100 of the Treasury minute states:
"The Lord Chancellor's Department…has gained in experience and is now more confident of its forecasts than it was able to be in 1986."
We discovered that, in 1991–92, the Department's estimate were £250 million more than the approved estimate of £698 million. That was an increase of 36 per cent. If the Department is prepared to rest on what it has done so far, that will not satisfy the Committee or the House.
The Department's invincible ignorance is outstripped only by its complacency. Even more horrific than the astonishing increase in expenditure—which the Lord Chancellor's Department has not explained—has been the Department's inability to explain or seek information

617
about the direct and indirect effects of what the Government propose to do in respect of legal aid costs and the administration of justice.
I will never forget the evidence of Sir Thomas Legg in which he solemnly denied to the PAC that he had any recollection of a letter which his Department had received a few days before from the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in which the two top judges of the realm drew attention to their concerns that self-representation by litigants would flow from the Government's proposed changes to legal aid and, as a consequence, the costs of the legal system would increase substantially. That fear of the two top judges of the realm did not come to the mind of the permanent secretary when he gave evidence about the assessments. He stretched the credulity of the Committee.
Mr. Terry Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only did it fail to come to the mind of Sir Thomas Legg, but it failed to come to the minds of a team of officials and advisers who were sitting behind him. It was the greatest act of collective amnesia that we have ever seen.
Mr. Maclennan: Yes, I remember that and I recall that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) described it as collective amnesia. If I recall correctly, when the right hon. Gentleman suggested that to Sir Thomas Legg, he said that it was not so much collective amnesia as a collective wrong categorisation. It was bumbledom at its worst, although I have a strong suspicion that the answer on the second occasion was very carefully considered.
What happened on that occasion is less important than what has happened since and what steps are to be taken by the Lord Chancellor's Department to deal with the Committee's criticisms after hearing Sir Thomas Legg twice. The Committee drew attention to the attitude of both branches of the legal profession about what was being done, and asked in its 46th report for the closest co-operation between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the two branches of the legal profession.
The Treasury minute is very unsatisfactory, to say the least, on that point. Paragraph 112 states:
"The Department is taking steps to implement the proposals put forward by the legal profession, though it continues to believe that in practice their effect on the overall cost of legal aid will be small."
The minute is thoroughly dismissive and shows that the Lord Chancellor's Department appears to have learnt nothing and to be determined to continue in its bad old ways.
The most disturbing aspect of the Department's response relates to the impact of the changes. The Committee found that the impact of those changes did not appear to have been fully researched or supported by thorough analysis of costs and benefits. The least that the Committee might have expected is that there should have been thorough analysis of the costs and benefits as a result of the proposed changes. However, not only has there been no such analysis: there will apparently be no analysis in future.
Paragraph 110 of the Treasury minute, in response to the recommendation that the emerging results of the changes in legal aid should be monitored, states:
618
"On the assessments it has made the Department has no doubt that the overall 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."
That is a statement of the obvious if ever there was one. However, there is no sign of an intention to monitor. According to paragraph 111,
"The Department will monitor the effect of the changes"—
but it does not say how.
"It will continue to look for ways of improving efficiency and effectiveness in the use of legal aid, the operation of the courts and the delivery of legal services. The Government is committed to ensuring that legal aid is directed at those whose need is greatest."
There is not a single word in answer to the Committee's specific inquiries about the impact on individuals who might, as a result of the changes in the rules on legal aid, not be able to afford representation or to have their case heard in court.
That this matter is significant, although locked up in these arcane documents, is testified to by the speech made yesterday by Lord Woolf on the future of our legal system. When asked whether the system is failing us, Lord Woolf said, in effect, yes. He said that we must now contemplate bringing in a second-class system of civil law under which disputes can be heard, without legal representation, by judges. There is evidently no way in which we can provide effective legal representation under the present arrangements.
The Public Accounts Committee deals with what has passed and how the Departments of State have handled public expenditure. Under the new national audit legislation, we look at the efficiency and effectiveness with which that public money is made available. We have repeatedly drawn attention to the shortcomings of one of the greatest Departments of State headed by the second most senior Cabinet Minister—second only to the Prime Minister—the Lord Chancellor himself, who has brought the system—I do not speak of him personally because it is not entirely the personal responsibility of the Lord Chancellor; the problem has obtained for many years—to such a pass that we now have to talk about second-class legal solutions, and Lords of Appeal and others are having to canvass such ideas.
There is a political remedy which runs far beyond the remit of the Public Accounts Committee to consider, but the time has long since passed when it was satisfactory for such matters to be presided over by a Minister who is permanently in the upper House, who presides over the debates of the upper House, who sits as a judge in the top court of the land and who serves many other archaic functions which, candidly, are not appropriate to a Minister of Justice. The time has come to have a Minister of Justice in this House who is prepared to take conrtrol of the totally inadequate administration of a Department which we have had cause to criticise on so many occasions.
6.41 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He has made some important points about a matter which has caused the Public Accounts Committee the greatest possible concern.
One of the things that I dislike about public life today is the phrase that we read in so many reports, "The Department will continue to monitor the situation." When

619
I read those words I know that the Department concerned intends to do absolutely nothing about the situation. I hope, therefore, that the Public Accounts Committee will return to these matters, because, within our remit, it is possible to follow up some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his admirable contribution.
I join the Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), in his tribute to Sir John Bourn and the staff of the National Audit Office and, indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. The Committee is very well served by Sir John, by his opposite number in Northern Ireland and by all members of the National Audit Office. The whole House has cause to be grateful to them all.
Only a few days ago I was extremely interested to hear on the radio a report of the substantial sums which the Public Accounts Committee has saved the taxpayer as a result of our examinations of various Departments of State during the past 12 months. I do not think that many other public bodies can demonstrate such savings. I trust that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury heard those figures and that they have given him and his colleagues in the Treasury some comfort in their difficult task.
The Public Accounts Committee is a remarkable body, as the Chairman has pointed out. It has 15 Members of Parliament drawn from all quarters of the House who meet twice a week and whose lives are virtually dedicated to ploughing through very long and complex documents, examining witnesses and subsequently approving reports—about 50 of them. It is a truly gigantic task. I am very pleased that several hon. Members who are not members of the Public Accounts Committee are present and that one of them has already contributed to the debate. I hope that other hon. Members will also do so.
I should like to pay another compliment, and that is to the radio programme "In Committee", which is broadcast at 11 pm on Sundays. Whenever I am asked by my constituents or by business men what the Public Accounts Committee is all about, I say, "I will invite you to attend a sitting so that you can hear what we are doing and I will send you reports that interest you, but I recommend that you listen to 'In Committee'." That programme informs the public not only about the work of the Public Accounts Committee but about the work of other Select Committees of the House.
We spend much of our time examining waste, mismanagement and incompetence. The waste, mismanagement and incompetence to which right hon. and hon. Members have referred should be the Treasury's top target if it wants to reduce public expenditure. A great wealth of information is available to the Treasury in dealing with such matters, and I look forward to some vigorous action being taken.
I am sorry that I have to refer to mismanagement by the Treasury itself. The first report that I wish to draw to the attention of the House is not one of those to which the motion specifically draws our attention, but it is particularly significant in the light of forthcoming events because it relates to the failure of no less a Department of State than Her Majesty's Treasury to exercise proper control over the purchasing procedures of an organisation for which it and it alone has direct responsibility.
That organisation is known as Forward—forward with what I am not quite clear. Forward with the people it might be, but I am not sure about that. However, to most hon.
620
Members it is probably a somewhat shadowy organisation, and I doubt whether, if asked, many would be able to say what it does. Until a little time ago, it was known as the Civil Service Catering Organisation, for which the acronym is CISCO.
Forward, therefore, is part of the Treasury. It is supposed to operate on commercial lines with its own chief executive, finance personnel and operations directors. It runs, so we are told, or helps to run, about 175 restaurants in a wide range of Departments. Among other things, we discover that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the largest restaurateurs in the country, which is also not widely known by hon. Members or the general public. Moreover, that organisation has a turnover of £30 million per annum. The Comptroller and Auditor General reported to the Public Accounts Committee on irregularities in the accounts of Forward for 1991–92 and qualified the audit certificate in the light of continuing uncertainties on key systems and controls and on the propriety and regularity of Forward receipts and expenditure.
That is a truly astonishing state of affairs, because those irregularities are the result of what the Treasury has acknowledged to be a serious breakdown in financial control. The estimated overall cost of failures in control at Forward is between £0.5 million and £1 million. Since our report to the House was published, the Treasury has agreed with the Inland Revenue that Forward's liability for unpaid tax and national insurance contributions is no less than £380,000. That, taken with £110,000 for the cost of work by Ernst and Young and up to £400,000 for cash and stock losses in the two years covered, suggests a total loss of up to £900,000.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he presents his Budget proposals to the House and no doubt talks to hon. Members about the stern measures that are necessary to deal with deficiency and to ensure that waste is rooted out in all Departments of State, will look to his own Department and realise that the problem of irregularities is not confined to organisations outside his own or, indeed, outside the Government. It is extraordinary that that failure of control occurred.
I shall say a few words about what happened. Fictitious employees were entered on the casual employee payroll so that the wages of real employees could be recorded as remaining below the pay-as-you-earn threshold. In other words, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the employees were genuine. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. It reminds me, and it may remind the Chairman of the Committee, of a remarkable speech in the House some years ago by the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale when he was unearthing the irregularities in Fleet street. Workers were being paid in fictitious names such as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, which caused the Inland Revenue to tighten up on those irregularities.
In this case, we find an organisation directly under the control of the Treasury doing exactly the same thing. Payments to casual employees remained gross without deductions for PAYE and national insurance, records were destroyed at four locations, and so on.
The Treasury minutes that we received in response to the investigation of this sorry matter said
"A report on progress in settling the disciplinary cases will be sent to the Committee in the near future. Of the original 15 cases, 11 have been concluded. Of the remainder, 1 case awaits the completion of police investigations and official investigations are

621
still in progress on the other 3. There have been two further cases, one is still under consideration, and in the other the person involved is to be dismissed following a successful prosecution."
I do not regard that as impressive in view of the serious nature of the matters involved. To pick up the Chairman on his use of vocabulary in dealing with these matters, I am dissatisfied with the result.
The second case on which I must comment concerns Chelsea and Westminster hospital, which is situated in the North-West Thames region—the region in which my constituency is situated. I have always had a high regard for the North-West Thames regional health authority and the outstanding leadership of its chairman. I am sad, therefore, that we have heard today about the lack of control over a substantial hospital construction project. It is extraordinary that such a public authority proceeded with the construction of a hospital of this size without being certain that all of the necessary planning consents were firmly in place. That must never happen again.
The hospital was built on the assumption that certain income would be available from the sale of land to defray the cost. With the fall in land prices, the income was not forthcoming. It is easy to be wise after the event, so perhaps one should not be as critical as one might otherwise have been. Nevertheless, it is terrible when we read that North-West Thames relied on loans of more than £56 million from other regions to finance the project and paid interest of some £4 million on those loans, thus increasing the cost of the project. As we have heard, the whole operation resulted in a huge cost overrun. That means that other desirable projects in the region will be short of money that might otherwise have been allocated to highly desirable projects. That must never be allowed to happen again.
Another matter to which the Chairman referred briefly is the difficult and sensitive matter referred to in the Committee's 25th report, which deals with the payment of legal expenses incurred by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. That report has shown the Public Accounts Committee at its best. I have been a member of the Committee for 10 years, and I cannot remember a previous occasion when we have taken evidence from the head of the civil service, the present permanent secretary to the Treasury and his predecessor.
The proceedings were carried out with great dignity, and the Committee investigated these matters in the greatest possible depth. I am pleased that a number of things have been made clear: first, the expenditure of public money was confined principally to the handling of the necessary press relations that resulted from the incident and, secondly, as a result of the Committee's investigation, the Cabinet Office has produced a good code of practice so that, if such events occur in the future—we all know that events of this sort can occur in public life—new guidelines lay down clearly where the division lies between personal and public duties and expenses, and private and party political activities. That must be commended.
I hope that members of the public and those who are interested in the incident will be reassured by the fact that, as a result of the work of the Committee, we now have clear and explicit guidelines which demand that, when there is any doubt, the accounting officer must be informed and the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be taken. That is a satisfactory conclusion to an
622
investigation that was carried out with dignity and swiftly, and involved taking evidence from the highest officials in the civil service.
I cannot conclude my remarks without mentioning briefly the Welsh Development Agency. My colleagues have spoken about it and I do not wish to say a great deal more, except that it is one of the worst cases that has ever come before the Committee in my 10 years of membership. I was especially glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in the House last week in which he made it clear that the report showed that his predecessors were to blame. He accepted responsibility for the actions of politicians in his Department but at the same time drew a fair balance between the responsibilities of the political heads of the Department and its chief officers.
I was impressed by reading the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in questioning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the Committee's examination of the entire matter and the active steps that are being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will bring the sorry tale to a conclusion. I certainly share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the time has come to get on with the work that needs to be done in Wales and that the errors of the past should not in any way be allowed to prevent useful and important action being taken by the Welsh Development Agency to stimulate investment, growth and employment in the Principality.
As a Committee, we can justifiably claim that it has served the House diligently and that it has a good record of savings. I hope very much—I say this every year—that more hon. Members who are not on the Committee will be persuaded to read the reports, to attend the debates and to speak. I have ensured that local business men, people in local government, clergymen and constituents who are interested in certain aspects of public life receive and read the Committee's reports so that they know that their interests are being protected and that we are determined to get value for money and to concentrate on effectiveness and economy in the conduct of the public service in Britain.
7.1 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: I join the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for the way in which he has continued to chair the Public Accounts Select Committee during the past year, The Committee is indebted to my right hon. Friend for the skill and sensitivity with which he has guided our deliberation. I am sure that the work of the Committee has been greatly enhanced by his chairmanship and for that we are all grateful.
I also join the hon. Member for Uxbridge in paying tribute to the work in the past year of Sir John Bourn and Dr. Jack, his colleague from Northern Ireland, and their respective National Audit Offices. If I do not refer in detail to any reports published by Dr. Jack, it is only because the scandals that we have witnessed in connection with England and Wales have been much greater in scale at least than those in Northern Ireland.

623
I pay especial tribute to the staff at the National Audit Office and to those who do the less glamorous work at the Certification Office, who have produced more and more reports in the past year. The reports attached to the accounts have arisen not from the value-for-money studies but from the straightforward certification audits and have given rise, in many cases, to our hearings. There has been a definite increase in the number of occasions on which we have taken evidence from those reports compared with previous years and the staff who work on that aspect of the National Audit Office deserve congratulation.
We need reports from the National Audit Office more quickly. The preparation of the value-for-money reports are sometimes delayed by the protracted negotiations between the National Audit Office and the Departments involved. The delay is much less in the production of reports in connection with the certified accounts and I suspect that is because of the pressure to publish those accounts. That pressure limits the amount of time that we spend talking with the Departments. The Departments appear sometimes to be procrastinating to draw out the discussion and dilute the reports of the National Audit Office.
If I were to make one point of constructive criticism of the NAO, it would be that it should take a tougher line in standing up to the Departments and refusing to dilute its reports. Of course, as is proper, it should record the comments and reaction of the Deivrtments to the criticisms made by the NAO, but it should stand by those criticisms and not seek agreement at all cost. On one or two occasions in connection with the value-for-money reports, I suspected that the influence exerted by the Department over the NAO in its anxiety to publish the report was greater than we would have wished.
We need quicker reports and more rough and ready reports—which would help the speed of production. Sometimes it is important to take evidence on something that has happened before too many months or even years have passed. Far too often, the Public Accounts Committee finds itself discussing a problem not with the accounting officer who was responsible at the time but with his successor. A perfect excuse and defence which arises time after time, sometimes gently and sometimes all too obviously, is that the accounting officer was not in office at the time of the scandal under discussion. Many members of the PAC have noticed that feature.
The way to stop that failing is to have reports brought before us more quickly. The NAO should not strive too energetically to obtain agreement with a Department, and in that way we might speed up our work, hasten our deliberations and have the opportunity to talk about what went wrong with the person on the spot at the time, rather than the person promoted to the job and left holding the baby.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West referred to cover-ups—especially in the case of Wessex regional health authority, which is not before us for debate today. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that sometimes things were kept confidential to save the red faces of officials. I am sure that he is absolutely right.
All members of the Committee are conscious of the fact that that has happened far too often in the past in connection with defence scandals where there has been a colossal waste of money and delay in defence programmes. The present head of the Defence Procurement Agency is much more open than his predecessor and things have
624
improved. Dr. McIntosh is more appreciative of that desire for openness—perhaps because he comes from Australia—and is more open, not only with us but with the public; he does not try to keep secret matters that were probably known to the Russian Government long before they were known to the Public Accounts Select Committee. The desire to preserve confidentiality and to avoid embarrassment has often been the driving factor, not the need for secrecy to protect our services.
We have witnessed such unnecessary secrecy in other cases, most notably that of the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, mentioned by the hon. Members for Uxbridge and for Hertfordshire, West whose constituents are in the North West Thames region. There were two issues involved. One was the amount of money, the overrun of costs in the building of that hospital, and the other was the delay in completing its construction. That second issue has not been mentioned. I emphasise that that delay was an excellent example of an attempt to suppress information.
The information was in a report that came before us, but Sir Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the national health service management executive contacted the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and asked that the table that showed the delays be kept secret, and that we ask questions only in a secret session and that the details be not made known to the public—the people who lived in the North West Thames region who were suffering from the postponement and even permanent deferment of the much needed schemes, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned, and who were to benefit from the much-awaited hospital and were made to wait much longer than they should have.
That information was to be suppressed, but it has not been, because the Chairman of the PAC, supported by the Committee, insisted that there was no reason for keeping that information confidential and that it should be published. The people who live in the region are entitled to that information, just as the taxpayer is entitled to know the way in which the Ministry of Defence has failed to get a delivery of weapons programmes on time. People should not be in fear of information becoming public knowledge, but they are because they want to save themselves from embarrassment.
Of course, the greatest embarrassment of the past year's cases, which has been mentioned by every speaker in the debate, is the case of the Welsh Development Agency. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was right on the mark when, quoting from another report, he said that the real cause of the problem was the prevailing and pervasive culture that has permeated far too many public bodies in the past 14 years. It is the same culture that has affected and afflicted the West Midlands regional health authority and the Wessex regional health authority, as we shall see when we come to next year's debate on the basis of the report that is shortly to be published. I shall say no more about that now, except that it raises the same issue.
Another special feature of the Welsh Development Agency is precisely that it is Welsh, or rather that it is sponsored by the Welsh Office. In the past few years—I emphasise that because it has not always been the case —the Welsh Office has become a byword for waste, inefficiency and mismanagement and for its inability to control non-departmental public bodies. To be fair to the

625
Welsh Office, it is not the only body to have that problem. The problem seems especially to afflict non-departmental public bodies administered under this Government.
We had a similar problem with the University college of Cardiff. The matter did not involve the Welsh Office, but it was a similar problem with a public body in south Wales in which many of us felt that there were political overtones. There were problems with the Development Board for Rural Wales which were very similar to the problems with the Welsh Development Agency, which did involve the Welsh Office.
There is another body that many of us tend to confuse because it is headed by one of the previous Secretaries of State for Wales—Lord Crickhowell. That body is the National Rivers Authority. The NRA is not based in Wales, but it is headed by a man who was Secretary of State for Wales and, during his chairmanship, the PAC produced a very critical report which mentioned many features that were the same as those of the Development Board for Rural Wales and of the Welsh Development Agency. The problem seems to afflict the group of Conservatives who come from Wales, and seems to feature far too often under this Government.
I was very concerned about the way in which the Secretary of State for Wales evaded a question I put to him last week. I drew his attention to the fact that the Welsh Development Agency scandal was only the latest in a series of scandals. I then asked him whether there were any more scandals to come and he said that of course he could not guarantee that there would be no scandals in future. That was not the question. He may have misunderstood the question or have simply been evading it. The question is, how many more scandals which originated before the changes were made have yet to come before the PAC? In other words, how many skeletons are still in the closet waiting to come out? The question is not how many bodies will be put in the closet in future. Some of us are concerned about whether we have seen the end of the series of reports on Welsh bodies under this Government.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge has said that all the reports that come before us are a catalogue of waste, incompetence and mismanagement. He is right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has pointed out that there are some very able civil servants. It is good to remind ourselves of that fact. We do not tend to see able civil servants; we tend to look at reports that are highly critical of what has happened and of what has been done by civil servants in implementing Ministers' policy decisions.
We have seen a series of examples of incompetence during the past 12 months. I have been concerned with the way in which many of the accounting officers have performed in front of the PAC. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) drew justifiable attention to the dismal—that is a mild word for it—performance of Sir Thomas Legg who is, after all, a permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department. He is not the only example to come before us in the past 12 months.
We had, for example, the permanent secretary to the Department of National Heritage, who came before us to talk about the scheduling of ancient monuments in England. There are 60,000 ancient monuments in England
626
and most of them are supposed to be scheduled. The scheduling work began in 1882. By 1984, the succeeding section, for which the accounting officer is still responsible, had managed to schedule 13,000. That figure must be seen against the background figure of 60,000. Between 1984 and 1992, another 800 were scheduled.
When the accounting officer was asked a direct question by the Chairman of the PAC about when he expected to finish the job, he said that he thought that 70 to 80 per cent. would be scheduled by 2003. [Laughter.] I hear one or two of my hon. Friends snorting at that estimate. They should not underestimate the pace at which the Department of National Heritage is now going to get on with the job. The figure of 70 to 80 per cent. out of a total of 60,000 works out at about 42,000. That means that there are still about 30,000 ancient monuments to be scheduled over 10 years, and that means 3,000 a year. When we put that figure to the permanent secretary in Committee, he was not able to disagree with it.
In a subsequent memorandum, the permanent secretary said that the numbers would be slightly lower. We asked him how he intended to increase the figure to 3,000 a year when previously the figure had been only 80 a year. He said that he was not really sure and that it depended on resources, but that he was sure that he would get there. He did not really have a clue. He did not have a plan or a programme, and he could not tell us how many monuments would be scheduled this year, next year or the year after. The figures had all the appearance of having been plucked out of the air. Fortuitously, the target date of 2003 is a year after the permanent secretary is due to retire. We have since had a supplementary memorandum giving us his programme over the next few years before his retirement. The Committee will want to return to that matter before he leaves his employment in the civil service.
We must not be too unfair to the permanent secretary to the Department of National Heritage. The permanent secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was not exactly clear about his programme when he came before us to discuss coastal defences in England. We pointed out that he had received a report to the effect that 16 per cent. of coastal defence works needed to be replaced over five years. We asked him—I felt that it was a fair question—how much it would cost to replace that 16 per cent. of coastal defence works so that we should then know how much we should ask the Government to spend over five years. Unfortunately, that was beyond the permanent secretary, although the Ministry has responsibility, in one guise or another, for defences against the sea. It has had that responsibility almost as long as the Department of National Heritage and its predecessors have had responsibility for scheduling ancient monuments.
We pointed out that the National Audit Office report showed that two years ago a survey said that various proportions of the National Rivers Authority defences, of local authority defences and of private or corporate owners' defences needed "significant work" which should be carried out as soon as possible. The survey came out two years ago, so it seemed reasonable to ask the permanent secretary how many miles or kilometres of sea defences were involved. He did not know that either. We asked him whether, in that case, he knew that the work had all been done, because that would have been a good reason for not knowing the figures; they would have been an unnecessary detail. He did not know whether any of the work had been done in the previous two years.

627
We were talking about coastal defences that needed significant work if they were to stop flooding. As we all know, flooding can cause people to lose their lives. It was a serious matter, yet the permanent secretary did not know what was involved. I did not have much confidence in his competence to protect us against the sea.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has already referred to the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Department, apart from anything else, sets the criteria to be used in granting legal aid. It decides the criteria and gives them to the Legal Aid Board. Yet when the permanent secretary was asked how much income and how much in savings one had to have to become ineligible for legal aid, he did not know. That was during questioning about legal aid.
If we had been discussing something else—the administration of justice generally or something to do with the courts—that might have been reasonable, but we were there to talk about legal aid and he did not have the foggiest idea of how much money one had to earn or receive or how much one needed to have in savings to lose all eligibility for legal aid. We were not asking detailed questions about the table, just what was the limit at which one forfeited all legal aid. He had no idea.
Then there is the Home Office. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West referred to the way in which the Hertfordshire police authority was "ripping off"—I think it was his expression—public money by charging excessive bills for accommodating prisoners in police cells. The criticisms were justified. We had to ask, why was that happening anyway? How did it happen that prisoners were kept in police cells instead of in prison? Why were we using police officers instead of prison officers to look after prisoners? The answer was that there were not enough places in the prisons. We all know that.
It emerged through questioning that there were 45,000 prisoners at the peak in 1990–91. We were considering the next year. The peak in the next year was 48,000 people, so the number of prisoners increased by 3,000. The permanent secretary told us that that exceeded the forecast. By how much did it exceed the forecast? The forecast was originally 44,000. The Home Office projected a reduction in the number of prisoners and then, to be fair to it, revised the forecast back to the level of the previous year. There was an increase, however, so the forecast was very inaccurate.
We can understand all that, but I found it difficult to accept it when the permanent secretary to the Home Office said that he did not know why the increase had taken place. It is one thing to make an estimate and get the forecast wrong, but it is quite another not to have any theories as to why the actual figures exceeded the predicted figures. That seemed to me to be incompetent.
There were two possible theories: either the courts were sending proportionately more offenders to prison or more people were being brought before the courts and the courts were sentencing the same, or a smaller, proportion of people to prison. The permanent secretary at the Home Office had no idea. He did not know the cause. Unless one knows why increases occur, one will not be good at predicting the future. That is obvious.
The chairman of Customs and Excise came before us to talk about VAT avoidance. A report from the National Audit Office described nine cases in which allegations of VAT avoidance had appeared before the High Court. The chairman agreed that all nine cases were typical. Of those
628
nine cases, one was still sub judice so he could not discuss it. Of the other eight, Customs and Excise won one and lost seven: one to Customs and Excise, seven to the avoiders. The only case that Customs and Excise won was a case involving a publican's wife serving sandwiches. That was worth £1,200 a year. My hon. Friends will not be surprised to know that every case that Customs and Excise lost involved sums many times that amount, running into millions of pounds a year. It seemed to me that the conclusion to draw from that was that Customs and Excise is good at dealing with publicans' wives but not at dealing with big companies and banks. It is not in the same league as the banks and big corporations of this country.
The chairman said that those cases were not typical examples anyway—having previously agreed that they were typical. He gave us figures to prove that he was right and that the record of the Customs and Excise was much better. When we examined the figures that he gave us, we found another classic exercise in wool-pulling. He told us that 49 cases were lodged with the High Court during the year in question. Of the cases that were heard by the High Court during the year, Customs and Excise won seven and lost four.
On the face of it, that left 38 others, but just a minute—those that were heard were unlikely to be those that were lodged, because a hearing takes a long time in the High Court. There was a clear opportunity, in the supplementary memorandum, for us all to read about an attempt by the chairman of Customs and Excise—he has now gone, and we shall not see him again—to pull the wool over our eyes. He promised to provide those figures to justify his assertion that the report gave a misleading impression.
That was not the only occasion. We found out, when talking to the chairman of Customs and Excise about the failure to clear arrears of VAT, that Customs and Excise does not produce an age profile of VAT arrears. That is an elementary management tool. Customs and Excise must be the only business-type organisation in the country that does not produce an age profile of its debts to know whether it is collecting them efficiently; that is essential. Instead, Customs and Excise does a special exercise every couple of years. When we asked the chairman by how much the arrears had decreased, we found that they had increased. In the two years that we were considering, what are called remissions increased by a quarter—no less than £1·1·5 million.
In the very month in which we were discussing the inability of Customs and Excise to recover £115 million in VAT arrears, the newspapers were full of stories about how the Benefits Agency had failed to recover £21 million in loans to the poorest people in society from the social fund. It appears that more than five times that amount went in remissions. We asked, "Are you sure?" and "How much of that was written off and how much was collected?" But the Chairman did not know. We know, however, that more and more people enjoyed those remissions, and I do not think that they were publicans' wives.
My biggest criticism is that too often, when considering the affairs that have come before us during the past few years, we have observed a gradual shading of the role of the civil servant. Accounting officers and permanent secretaries are the same thing—some of the accounting officers are the heads of non-governmental public bodies. Increasingly, they appear before us in the role of politicians, rather than that of civil servants. Imperceptibly, the civil service is being politicised.

629
Perhaps the clearest example during the past year came from the Benefits Agency. It was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—the example of the way in which the introduction of disability living allowance was rushed. There was a flood of publicity up until, but not after, the general election of 1992. When we asked why it was rushed, it became clear that it happened so that the Conservatives could boast in the pre-election period about what they were doing for people with disabilities. The resources to cope with that "surge of claims"—the phrase used by those civil servants —were not put in place.
When we asked why the resources were not provided to cope with those claims from people with disabilities, and why people were not employed so that those claimants could have the benefits to which most of them were entitled, we could not get the facts, because people were acting more politically than as civil servants before the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. Morgan: Was that the Government equivalent of the Hoover free flights offer? In good public relations terms, one can provide what is called "feel good" advertising, followed by a "feel suicidal" performance by the agency that makes the offer to the public, in the hope that there are so many obstacles to getting the benefits that are advertised as available that people will not follow through and make a fuss about it. The agency gets the public relations credit for having made it seem that milk and honey and free offers are available, although they are not, but it does not intend to put the staff in to respond in a reasonable time to the demands that will result from the advertising campaign.
Mr. Davis: I thought that it was closer to the case of the Central Office of Information, which came before the Public Accounts Committee a few years ago, when we considered its expenditure. The variations were remarkable and there were clearly peaks and troughs. If I remind the House that expenditure on so-called information—much of which is television advertising—peaked in 1982, followed by a trough in 1984, and that it bumped alone in 1985 and again peaked in 1986, only to decline in 1988, I think that hon. Members will understand the significance of those dates.
Mr. Ron Davies: No, tell us.
Mr. Davis: The shadow Secretary of State for Wales wants to be told. I do not think that he is that naive, but the accounting officer for the COI needed to be told. Although his job is to give out information and to explain the facts of political life here to people in other countries, he did not know the dates of general elections during the past decade. We all realise what that expenditure was about and most Opposition Members recognise that the advertising for disability living allowance was in the same category.
Although I may be wrong, I think that the hon. Member for Uxbridge said that more people should attend these debates. I do not think that we need more debates on the work of the Public Accounts Committee, but the debates need to be more focused.
One of the problems in holding a debate like this at fairly short notice—we only knew about it last Thursday —is that a pile of 50 PAC reports is indigestible. It is
630
impossible to read all of them during the weekend and I can well understand that many colleagues might have more pressing duties, or more pleasurable activities. It is unreasonable to expect people to take part in these debates at such short notice.
As we believe that the work of the PAC is important, it would be easier to get greater participation and to have a better debate if we focused on a few reports only, perhaps those affecting linked Departments. For example, we could debate reports affecting the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and other tax-related Departments, or the Home Office and Environment. The details could be worked out through the usual channels, but we ought to be able to have more focused, sharper and better debates. That is important.
I think that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that there should be more liaison with other Select Committees; I agree, but the way to achieve it is by involving members of other Committees in debates on PAC reports on such subjects as the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, which has been mentioned so often this evening. On that constructive note, I conclude my remarks.
7.32 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I shall speak briefly about the Public Accounts Committee report on the Welsh Development Agency. I welcome the fact that the irregularities in that agency's behaviour have been brought to light by the report, and I warmly congratulate those hon. Members who have been instrumental in bringing that about, especially members of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) also deserves a special mention. The fact that his finger was pointing in the wrong direction when he spoke about the irregularities does not minimise the importance of his contribution to the revelations about the WDA's misdemeanours.
I entirely concur with the strength of condemnation that we have heard tonight. Having said that, however, I also agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that what happened must not be used as an excuse for damaging the work that the agency can and must continue to do for Wales. An all-Wales agency, capable of taking an overview of our economy, of developing strategies to create a prosperous and sustainable Wales, and of marshalling resources to support those strategies, is essential, and would be essential, even within the framework of a democratic, self-governing Wales of the type that we want to be established.
The strategies pursued by the agency have been criticised and it has been suggested that there has perhaps been an over-emphasis on providing factory space and physical infrastructure, important though they are. I am told that in recent years, Mr. Philip Head, the chief executive, has been influential in bringing about the new and welcome emphasis on encouraging existing enterprises within Wales, through the business services and skills development sections of the agency. New attention has been paid to local, small and medium-sized enterprises and the promotion of the use of new technology among them.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney mentioned Source Wales—an initiative centring on the creation of linkages between large multinationals and local

631
suppliers, strengthening the multiplier effect of inward investment. Such development of the indigenous industrial sector is vital. Its results are likely to be more long-term, less dramatically visible and not as easy to trumpet as Welsh Office successes as are other results, and perhaps not so amenable to photo-opportunities and statements at meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee. In many ways, however, that is the way forward as a strategy for industrial development in Wales.
The WDA has been able to develop that more subtle and complex strategy—a strategy which, in many ways, is more in tune with the social and cultural needs of the Welsh community as well its purely economic needs—because it has had the freedom to do so. It is essential for the agency to be able to retain the power of initiative in that way and it is essential that its budget be sufficient to enable it to use that power effectively.
The fact that there has been improper conduct in financial matters—travelling expenses, redundancy payments and so forth—is no reason for eroding the power of independent decision making on strategy, policy development and entrepreneurial initiative.
Secondly, I must refer to the recommendations of Sir John Caines's inquiry, which was set up by Mr. Rowe Beddoes, the new chairman. I shall read three of the recommendations, as reported in the Western Mail, which, put together, cause me some concern. The first is:
"Board members should disclose all interests in contracts",
which should go without saying. The fact that it needs to be said at all seems serious. The second recommendation is:
"Conflict of interest rules should be tightened to cover employees' families and close friends".
The rules should have encompassed that in the first place.
The third recommendation, taken together with the first two, worries me considerably, as it states:
"Greater efforts should be made to find board members from outside Wales, even if it means diluting the proportion of Welsh men and women."
I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker$ That is a recommendation of breathtaking impertinence. I can just imagine what the Secretary of State for Social Security would say if it were suggested that irregularities or corruption in England should be dealt with by importing people from France, Spain or Italy to deal with them.
If one puts those three recommendations together—they are juxtaposed in the report—one begins to get the picture. They portray an image of an inbred province, riddled with corruption, which has to be rescued from itself by the intervention of impeccably rigorously ethical representatives of the metropolitan power. That is what it seems to be saying to me. It is the voice of the English colonial mentality in its glory—whatever is to be done about Wales and the situation there, it certainly cannot be left to the natives. To say that I find that offensive would be the understatement of the year.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I may say that I recognise entirely—as do all sensible, enlightened and progressive people—the contribution that English people make to the life of Wales. They have done so in the past and will do so in future. Not just English people are capable of showing an understanding of our national life, culture and aspirations and of making an important contribution. However, it requires empathy, research and dialogue to gain an understanding of what kind of place Wales is—and it is a complex place.
632
The Welsh Development Agency's deficiencies spring not from the fact that it is too Welsh but that it does not properly reflect the whole spectrum of Welsh life. Neither is it directly accountable to the people of Wales—and that is true of many other non-departmental bodies. I recommend the analysis made by Sir John Caines from which I quoted earlier.
The WDA's problem is that its members are determined according to their acceptability to the Secretary of State for Wales. The agency needs not more colonialism but democracy, accountability and development policies that enhance the distinctive social and cultural traditions of Wales. We will only get that package together when Wales stops being a province, stops allowing itself to be treated as a province, and has the democratic Parliament that more and more people in Wales acknowledge as a fundamental necessity.
7.41 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I join the congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He is in the difficult position of chairing a Committee that, after a long period of one Government in office, is inevitably looking at problems that have arisen during the life of that Government. It is to my right hon. Friend's credit that he has created a consensus within the Committee that enables it to present unanimous reports and to enjoy an identity of interest in the way that it approaches problems.
My right hon. Friend is a man of singularly generous disposition, so criticism from him usually means being close to a situation that would cause others of us to explode. In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I may say that I do not go along entirely with his belief that there has been no lowering of standards in public life.
Last week, a newspaper reported that a former permanent secretary in the Home Office is running courses for civil servants on how to deal with the Public Accounts Committee. I found that amusing, but wondered why such courses are necessary. What is their purpose? If a civil servant is only appearing before the Committee to answer questions about a report agreed with his Department, why does he need coaching?
I believe that there has been a lowering of standards in public life in terms of propriety, honesty and attitude. As my right hon. Friend said, when we see such changes it angers us that rarely does a witness come before us who is actually responsible for the situation that he is there to defend—and rarely do we hear of anyone, no matter how grave their misjudgment, suffering any punishment or disadvantage.
Two elements are contributing to that decline. One is the proliferation of quangos, which inevitably—especially in the Welsh context—consist of ministerial placemen. Immunity is created because in criticising an appointee, a Minister would be criticising himself for making that appointment. When one considers the political background of the chairmen of the West Midlands and Wessex regional health authorities, and of those appointed to quangos in Wales, one can understand why they feel secure and enjoy a form of political protection.
An insidious, if unintended, consequence of the proliferation of quangos, which one would be foolish to ignore, is an unplanned and undesirable change in the

633
nature of the next steps agency, which is viewed by virtually everyone within it as the first step to privatisation. That produces a perhaps intentional awareness of the profit motive, but also the sublimation of a sense of public service. A consequence of that philosophical adjustment is an awareness of the opportunities of the new situation in which the management find themselves.
It is significant that the management buy-out is a major element in the privatisation that follows from quangos. I hoped to demonstrate that the advantages enjoyed by the in-house team may be an element in one appalling case. The in-house people know the warts, what is hidden, what is wrong, what fat can be cut away, and what could be a realistic bid. They have an incentive to conceal reality from those who might counter-bid.
In the West Midlands regional health authority case, the software function was being hived off and the chairman said, "We told them that if they got the contract and were successful in becoming privatised, they could have a £1.9 million annual contract for the next three years to give a soft landing to the people who worked there." Strangely enough, the two other bidders were not successful. They were not told about the £1.9 million contract. The chairman could not see that there was something unacceptable about telling one bidder in a privatisation process that it had a contract for £2 million in its pocket and not letting the other bidders know.
Intrinsic to the privatisation-via-agency route is the temptation to make the megabuck very quickly. It is the one chance that someone working in the public sector has to make it financially big—[Interruption.] That matter is, of course, of great lack of interest to members of the Treasury Bench. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot be bothered to listen, and the Whip is too busy engaged in conversation with him to allow him to listen. On the one day of the year that we have such a debate, we should at least be able to expect that the Treasury Minister present would have the courtesy to put up with those of us who attended every meeting of the PAC throughout the year to produce reports—which then receive disdainful replies in the form of Treasury minutes, as I hope to demonstrate.
There is an increasing reluctance to recognise the importance of accountability to the House. Such reluctance goes back, philosophically and politically, to one particular lady, whose contempt for the House dominated political thinking for over a decade. That contempt for the House is now implicit in Ministers who have never been in opposition.
There are Opposition Members who have never been in government, and there are Conservative Members who have never been in opposition. I know that the Government Chief Whip will not be reassured, but one advantage of being in opposition is that one learns how dangerous it is to allow a Government to become arrogant and to think that they can treat the House as they wish. The arrogance at the top has spread down through the political middle, and has now begun to feed into the executive machine.
There are people in the civil service who, for the past 14 years, have served one political philosophy. I am not making a party political point—the same would apply if we had been in government for the past 14 years—but, in a
634
way, the swinging to and fro of Governments in the past helped to sustain the impartiality implicit within the civil service.
Those of us who have served in government have made friends with civil servants while working with them. We knew that while they were briefing us at the Dispatch Box, they were aware that within a short period they might be working for Members on the other side of the House.
The result of the past 14 years has been that those in the quangos feel immune because Ministers and the Government have been there for so long. Those in the civil service have become attuned to the philosophy that has prevailed in the Government for so long, and have begun to adjust to it. We are seeing a lowering of standards, which was not intended, but is inevitable. A corruption of attitude has also taken place, starting from the top and working down.
We in the Public Accounts Committee must consider whether we should call not only the present accounting officer, but the person who held office at the time when the issues that we are discussing took place. It is no good officials thinking that all they have to do is switch jobs or take an early retirement when their misdemeanours are being discussed by the Public Accounts Committee. They should not think that they can shrug, draw their earnings-related pension, take an outside job with companies with whom they dealt while in government, and earn more money with their combined pension and outside job than they earned as civil servants.
The Welsh Development Agency is an organisation in which people felt that they were protected by the Minister because they were protected by the Minister. Operation Wizard referred to a covert privatisation operation. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), the then Secretary of State, now Lord Walker, denied that there were any plans to privatise, while at the same time, according to the evidence given to the Committee, the operation was going on with the express approval of that Secretary of State.
After the National Audit Office report was issued, and after we had had that appalling hearing in February—anyone who watched it must have been embarrassed for the witnesses because of what came out—Lord Walker's successor, the present Secretary of State for Employment, promptly reappointed the chairman. Indeed, he appointed him head of S4C, which carries with it automatic governorship of the BBC.
Mr. Morgan: It is the other way round.
Mr. Williams: Whatever way round it is, he has got both jobs.
One of the worrying features about the WDA is that, good as the work of the National Audit Office was, it did not discover what was going on at the WDA. It found out about the cars and the pensions, but it was whistle-blowers who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who put them in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and myself as members of the Public Accounts Committee. People within the WDA were so incensed at the dishonesty, concealment and arrogance of the people now in control of this important quango that they felt they had to talk to us and tell us what was going on, even at the risk of losing their jobs.

635
Even the massive machine of the National Audit Office and the prestige of the Comprtoller and Auditor General was not enough to squeeze out of this protected semi-political operation what was going on in that quango—and what was going on was endorsed by a senior Minister.
I take exception to the reply from the Treasury in its minute. The sole reference to Wizard is to say that the Comptroller and Auditor General did not complain that it was improper in accounting terms. That is to miss the whole point. Yes, the money was there, it was accounted for—the £320,000 was not put in pockets and run away with—but nowhere was the word "Wizard" used; nowhere was anyone told that Wizard existed; even the board, when it took reports, did not minute the report on Wizard.
The money was deliberately spread between accounts so that the three operations would not be related in any outsider's mind, and to ensure that the House, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office never discovered that, at the heart of the WDA, was a group of men conspiring to distort its role to enable them to take over the profits from its property and its consultancy work.
Yet those men were and are protected. As I have said, we had the evidence in February, but only last week did we have a statement from the Government. As has been pointed out, nowhere has there been any criticism of the board or Ministers—that goes without saying. Instead, we were told that the previous chief executive, Mr. Waterstone—who was very much involved—and various other people have gone scot free. The members of the board are appointees of the Minister, and he could dismiss them immediately should he wish to do so, but they are still there—and some of them are on a number of Welsh quangos—and still holding those posts, despite what has been revealed in relation to the WDA.
We had as chairman of the Welsh Development Agency a man who had to have his arm twisted for the major part of a year before he could be persuaded to pay back the grants that he had received under the rural conversion scheme for a property in north Wales. As chairman, we had a man who benefited from the private car usage scheme, and who flew by Concorde and by helicopter so he could more quickly make the appointment with the wrong man in the United States. That wrong man eventually walked off with the funds for furniture and office equipment which had been left in the office petty cash.
No one checked the references of the chairman. The fact that he had a million was enough to impress the Lord Walker. We understand why Lord Walker was impressed, but no one asked why ICL asked the chairman to leave. No one asked why the company to which he sold his business to make his millions almost immediately went into desperate financial difficulties when it tried to use what it bought. No one asked those questions. He is still there, waving to us from the top of a hill in the sunset, and enjoying his governorship of the BBC. He should be banned from public office.
A similar situation exists with Forward Catering, the company referred to by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). The company has been demoralised by the fact that it has been expecting privatisation for so long, and the privatisation has been deferred and deferred. The situation in this case is that a chief executive has set up a private company incorporating the name "Forward" in the names of his wife and his deputy, who is his daughter.
636
Forward Catering did not cook the books, but literally burned the books, although I do not blame the chief executive for that. The accounts were destroyed on four occasions, and ghost workers were employed. One section of the Treasury—Forward Catering—was defrauding the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security. Hon. Members can imagine what would happen if one of our constituents had defrauded the Department of Social Security of even £5. The full force of the law would come into play in that instance.
But what have we had here? There has been virtually no punishment for anyone. One little girl who, in fairness, deserved to be dismissed was summarily dismissed. I believe that one regional director was downgraded and one official was reprimanded. However, that is all the punishment that has resulted from an attempt to defraud the Inland Revenue and the Department of over one third of a million pounds, and from the loss of £400,000 of stock. That is £8,000 of stock a week that just walked. Recommendations—made as far back as 1983—that a proper accounting system be set up were ignored, yet the Treasury has still done virtually nothing.
Switching to a different level, it is not surprising to see the effect of Government cuts on people's thinking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to fire prevention reports. Here again was a staggering situation, although staggering for different reasons. The situation shows the danger of combining the imposition of cuts with the protection of Crown immunity. The people responsible for 8,000 Government buildings should have had an inspectorate of 38 to ensure that the buildings were adequately protected against fire. Instead, only two of the anticipated 38 were employed. The two who were employed spent half their time dealing with administrative work, and so were able to carry out virtually no inspections.
Successive Governments in their wisdom have decided that they will not insure public buildings, but will recognise that what they save on insurance will be used to meet the costs when a building gets burned. In the case of Hampton Court, £5 million of fire damage was done six years ago, but still no fire certificate exists for the building. In the case of Windsor, people were beginning to get a bit nervous about the system, and there was a public appeal to provide the money for repairs. The money that has been saved over the previous years from not insuring buildings has not been used in those cases.
The fact that buildings are not insured presents disciplinary problems, and I use discipline in the intellectual sense. As all hon. Members will know from insuring their homes, if one wants to insure a building one must meet certain standards which are laid down by the insurers. One of the problems of not insuring Government buildings is there is no outside monitoring pressure to apply standards in the Government sector that would apply elsewhere.
For example, the administrative wing of a hospital needs a fire certificate, but the area for the poor patients does not. Her Majesty's prisons—where people are locked in—need no fire certificates at all. Those are some of the matters that the Committee has come across in its deliberations this year.
One of the worst of those matters, and one which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne earlier, was the privatisation of the 12 regional electricity companies.

637
I will not take long, and I will conclude with these comments. In this case, the public have been robbed twice. First, £16 billion of public assets—that was their replacement value—were sold off, not for the £8 billion which the Government claimed to have received, but for £5 billion from the shareholders. Secondly, the other £3 billion which the Government said that they had obtained from privatising electricity did not come from the shareholders at all. It came in the form of a notionally created and non-existent debt which was imposed on the day of privatisation. The money came from the people from whom the electricity industry was taken. The debt had to be paid back, but no one ever had any money for it. The money came from the consumers, and that became clear in the evidence that the Committee received.
Some £1·8 billion of the £2.8 billion has been paid by consumers. For example, in London the average consumer has already paid £141 for the privilege of someone else owning what had been his or her electricity industry. In the midlands, the figure is £24. In the northern area, it is £69, and in the southern area, it is £49. Those prices have been already paid by consumers towards what the Government call the receipts from the privatisation of the electricity industry.
Interestingly, at a time when there is a public outcry about the possible imposition of VAT on fuel, the public do not realise that they are already paying a privatisation tax on electricity. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why is the Minister laughing?"] That is what I called the arrogance of continuous government.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to conclude that I am arrogant. Will he simply explain to the House by how much the real price of electricity has fallen to the consumer since privatisation?
Mr. Williams: If the Financial Secretary cares to look back, he will discover that his Government bumped up electricity prices before privatisation. Before he says anything about gas, may I remind him that, for three years running, his Government imposed a 10 per cent. price increase—over and above VAT—on the gas industry, adding 33 per cent. to the price of gas, and now turn round and say, "Ah yes, but gas prices have not increased as rapidly since privatisation." They fatten industries up and after they have fattened them up they privatise them. Then they turn round and say, "There we are. Things are looking much better now than they were before."
Mr. Morgan: I am sure that what the Financial Secretary really wants my right hon. Friend to tell the House is that, in the five years from the commencement of the privatisation process—the publication of the White Paper by Lord Parkinson, the then Secretary of State for Energy, in February 1988—the price of electricity to domestic consumers in the United Kingdom rose by an average of 44 per cent., whereas in most European countries, it rose by between nil and 10 per cent. In other words, the cost of privatisation to the United Kingdom domestic consumer from the beginning of the process to the end was very high indeed.
Mr. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend. That was just the point that I intended to make and he has explained the position far more clearly than I could have done.
I conclude with my one regret—which I am sure the Chairman of the Committee will share. The Committee has suffered a great loss: in the coming Session, we shall no longer see the man whom I call the Sylvester Stallone of Whitehall because he has appeared before us so often. We shall no longer have as a witness Duncan Nichol, the head of the National Health Service Management Executive, who is now moving into the academic world. Let me offer a word of advice to his future employers: by all means take full advantage of the experience that he brings, but please, please, please do not let him buy a computer.
8.11 pm
Dr. Kim Howells: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has conducted the affairs of the Public Accounts Committee in a terrific fashion throughout. The consensus that has emerged has been most important.
I also thank Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and his magnificent staff. I was lucky enough to be invited to the newly consecrated Cardiff office. I was given a tour of the place and an explanation of how it works. I must say that the staff there are the very antithesis of many of those whom they are paid to investigate. The office is about as far away from the Athenaeum as it is possible to get. There is none of that imperial air about them which has unfortunately cursed those occupying some key positions in this great civil service of ours—some of whom are still there, although that is another matter.
There are some worrying trends in public administration—some of them mentioned tonight—which are likely to accumulate rather than decrease. They are the result not only of privatisations and of the creation of next steps agencies but of the growth of hospital trusts and opted-out schools. All those bodies will require proper auditing, accounting and monitoring. I know from my private conversations with those in the Comptroller and Auditor General's office and other agencies that there are great worries that there will not be the staff to carry out such audits. I am afraid that in some cases there will be almost a typescript for corruption.
We must be very careful. It has already been stated tonight that our civil service—warts and all—is one of our national treasures, and the service's lack of corruption has been one of its greatest virtues. I am lucky enough to have travelled quite extensively in Italy and the last thing that I should want to see is a slide towards what one might call the Italian mode of public administration. It seems to me that that is all too possible, given the new scenario.
We must construct new ways of ensuring that there is proper accountability. In that respect, I hope that the rumours that we heard a couple of years ago to the effect that the office of the CAG was to be split among the other Select Committees and its power diluted were not true and will not re-emerge. I know that the Chairman of the Committee fought tooth and nail to prevent any such slide. It is vital that the PAC should retain its historic role and that, in seeking ammunition, it should have the full armoury of the CAG's office at its disposal.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important to get the structures right not

639
merely in terms of parliamentary and civil service accountability but in terms of the accountability of the Ministers who run the Departments and who are ultimately responsible? Does my hon. Friend agree that the present Secretary of State for Wales has washed his hands absolutely of what is going on in an agency for which he is directly responsible? Nor have such occurrences been restricted to recent times. The Chairman of the PAC will recall that, some seven or eight years ago, when I was a member of the Committee, millions of pounds that went to the Parrott Corporation were never properly accounted for. There has been a history of non-accountability among politicians.
At one time Ministers would resign if something went wrong in their Department, as happened in the case of the Crichel Down episode, but the present Secretary of State for Wales does not want to know: he claims all the credit but never the blame when things go wrong.
Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend has made an important point and one which leads me neatly to the argument that I was about to advance. I have said some hard things about the Welsh Office in the past few weeks. I think that my criticisms are deserved and that there is a real problem with the Welsh Office. For whatever reason, the Welsh Office has not been properly managed and has not fulfilled the functions that are central to its existence, which include the monitoring and proper management of quangos that run and administer Wales from day to day.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that there is only one person who carries the can for the administration of the Welsh Office, and that is the Secretary of State for Wales. It ill becomes the previous Secretary of State to sit smugly through the statement that the present Secretary of State made on the débâcle of the Welsh Development Agency as though it had nothing to do with him.
It ill becomes the Treasury, too, to try to pretend that it knew all along what was going on within Operation Wizard. That is one part of the Treasury minute that really irks us. It is somehow assumed that it is all right if money is secreted away in another vote or category—if it works, that is fine, and if it does not the experiment has failed but no one will really carry the blame for it.
We had a taste of that attitude during the extraordinary period of legal aid for the former Chancellor, who ran into some personal difficulty which he had to resolve rather quickly on a Saturday night and hired London's most expensive lawyer to help him out. We discovered that little anomaly only as a result of a whistleblower, not as a result of acute and observant administration by the permanent secretary's office. It is a real shame that in such cases we have to depend on whistleblowers, which reinforces my earlier point that the Comptroller and Auditor General's department must be strengthened rather than weakened as we head further into this new era of administration.
We came across the most extraordinary examples of desperate incompetence. Under the chairmanship of Sir James Ackers, we have seen perhaps £10 million or £15 million of the West Midlands health authority's money go down the drain; under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Buchanan, we have seen perhaps £50 million or £60 million of the Wessex health authority's money go down the drain, which is the price of a district general hospital. That money has gone as a result of some sweetheart
640
management buy-out in an IT department that failed miserably and continues to fail miserably. Are those responsible being punished?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out one case where an employee on the shop floor was disciplined for serious wrongdoing. In the case of Wessex health authority, Sir Robert Buchanan, who was its chairman, is now the deputy director of supplies for the whole of the NHS. We look at that with a degree of incomprehension. It makes no sense whatever. We heard about Dr. Gwyn Jones, the former chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. One wonders what on earth the Welsh Office thinks it is up to in that respect.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), argued that English administrators have no place in Wales, which seems a particularly extraordinary and arrogant thing to say. I should hate to think that we from Wales could have no part to play in the administration of England or any other part of Great Britain. Albeit reluctantly and with great reservations, I voted for Maastricht.
Mr. John Maxton: Shame.
Dr. Howells: Some people may shout, "Shame."
One of the things that it meant was that, if somebody showed talent, whether he be German, Italian, French or Belgian, he would play a part in reconstructing the life of Europe.
Such awful parochialism is a poison that infects Parliaments when they are overridden with nationalist nonsense. We must be careful about that. After all, it was Welsh administrators—even Welsh-speaking administrators—who created the chaos at the WDA through their incompetence and questionable objectives. With precious public funds, what counts is talent, honesty and flair. I do not care where the people come from so long as they know the proper way to deal with precious public funds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) referred in his wonderful summing up to the almost farcical hearing that we had when we discussed coastal defences. I was hoping that he would make the next point, but he did not, so I shall make it now. We saw in many of those hearings that the permanent secretary sometimes arrived with the chief executive and a dozen or 15—I once counted 18—advisers from the Department. One wonders who ran the Department when the public accounts hearing was on.
When my hon. Friend asked the permanent secretary to tell us where exactly the sea defences were likely to collapse and land be flooded, the permanent secretary turned to his helpers on the seats behind, and not one of them could name a single mile of coastline where that danger existed. There was a feverish searching through of books. Nobody could name a single stretch of coast. It did not give me a great deal of confidence in the competence of those officials during that hearing.
It has already been stated—with a degree of frivolity —that courses are now held, or mock runs, before officials come before the Public Accounts Committee. They are told, "This is how you are likely to be questioned." They did not do much of a job on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It was absolutely appalling.
Another important problem that has not been mentioned so far this evening is language—almost semantics. With the next steps agencies we get a different language. I know

641
that we have got used to calling patients in hospitals "customers". Even taxpayers are customers now, although they are sometimes called punters—usually if they are about to go to gaol.
Another problem is the curse of the consultants. We are constantly being told that matters got out of hand because bad advice was received from consultants. There is a curse of consultants so far as quangos, next steps agencies and the Welsh Ofice are concerned. I remember we had a case during the hearing that was as dramatic a scandal as that surrounding the WDA. It concerned the Development Board for Rural Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, as though he were skinning an onion, peeled down to the extraordinary truth behind Mr. Ian Skewis's redundancy package. We were told that the outgoing chief executive, Mr. Skewis, had been promised guaranteed consultancy work as part of his redundancy package. It was worth a large amount of money. When we asked what the consultancy work was, no one could tell us. We were told, "We'll make up some consultancy work for him." The permanent secretary said that it would be about rural affairs. We pressed him on that and asked whether it would be about milking cows. "Possibly," he said, "but it would have been about rural affairs".
It is like a sick joke. One does not know what consultancies are going to be about. They are about keeping people on board, protecting old friends and ensuring that the bump is not too hard when one hits the ground. I fear that one of the reasons why the Secretary of State for Wales has not had the courage to take action over the former chairman of the WDA is precisely because the chairman was appointed by a Secretary of State for Wales and defended by his successor as part of the great spirit of Thatcherism which was transforming the Welsh economy. To admit that that guy had made a mess and should be taken off such an important body is far too much for them to do. They should get off their high horses and act on behalf of the people of Wales.
Finally, before I forget, I meant to say from the start that, in gracing our first session almost a year ago, the Minister did the Committee a great service. He sat patiently throughout. We appreciated that. One sometimes gets the feeling that the departmental officials are sent along to carry the can, so it was nice to see the Minister play an active role in the deliberations of the Committee.
I draw the Minister's attention to something of which I am sure he is all too well aware, because it has such a vast budget. Our 46th report deals with the administration of legal aid. For those who are not aware of it, I will spell out how big the budget is. This year, it is no less than £1.1 billion of public expenditure, and by 1995–96, even after the changes in the administration of legal aid, it will be £1.5 billion. There is no question but that those are huge sums of money. I understand that in 1993–94, 120,000 fewer civil legal aid certificates will be issued than would have been issued if the changes outlined in the report had not been instigated.
I hope that the Treasury understands that the Committee feels strongly about the disgraceful lack of information during our hearings on that investigation. The Department should have been ashamed of itself. The Lord Chancellor's Department had worked with the Bar Council and the Law Society, but representatives of both those bodies made it
642
clear to us in conversations that they were appalled by the lack of consultation before those enormously important changes were introduced. Despite all our reservations about lawyers and the old stories about licences to print money, both are eminently sensible organisations and the Public Accounts Committee values the material that they gave us when we were investigating legal aid.
We must destroy the myths about the huge profits that can be made by law firms from legal aid. That is not the case. We came across hints of some improprieties and I am glad to see that the Treasury has responded quite positively to them. I notice that it is to investigate all reports of fraud by clients.
We have to reaffirm that justice cannot be bought cheaply. It costs a lot of money. The budget is enormous, and the statistical database on which important decisions about huge expenses are made is simply not good enough. It is scandalously underfunded in that respect. Much more work must be done. Attention must be paid to the justifiable complaints by the Law Society and the Bar Council about the way in which courts are run. There are many inefficiencies in that system. Savings are being posited, but they could be disastrous. Courts will close, there will be longer waiting lists for trials and I fear that that is the other side of the coin of the proposed cuts in legal aid. Those are not cuts in the real sense, but they are cuts in the number of people who qualify for legal aid.
The reason for the rise in costs is still a mystery. The Committee's conclusion was:
"We remain concerned, however, that in real terms cases are much more costly today that they were ten years ago. We therefore recommend that the Department should urgently set in hand further research to seek to identify the causes of these increases; to establish whether or not they are justified; to take necessary action to reinforce effective control over the assessment and payment of costs; and to eliminate additional costs arising from delays and shortcomings within the systems of civil and criminal justice."
Has the Treasury minute been acted upon? It says:
"In the coming months, the Lord Chancellor's Department intends to issue a public consultation document setting out proposals for a less formal (and cheaper) method than trial in open court for handling smaller personal injury claims. There will also be proposals for a concurrent increase in the small claims jurisdiction."
Has that consultation document gone out? What is its status? What are the early reports, if any, on its progress? It is important that we should be told that tonight.
Treasury response No. 122 says:
"The results of the National Audit Office Study of the administration of the Crown Court are expected soon."
Has that been published? Can we know what it contains? It also says:
"The Department is committed to working with other agencies in the criminal justice system to identify and reduce areas of delay and cost in the passage of cases through the courts."
I have not seen any evidence that real work is being done on that. I am glad that the Financial Secretary has sent a colleague over to find out. I am sure that we all want to know.
I know that many others wish to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) probably wants to speak about a subject that has interested him for a long time. I hope that the Minister will realise that our concerns stretch across all the reports. We all congratulate the civil service on the magnificent work that it does and we stand by it and desire to strengthen the ethos of its

643
work. We must also register that there are grave disquiets about many of the tendencies and trends that we have witnessed over the past year.
8.36 pm
Mr. John Horam: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Committee. He has been relentless in his vigilance in this respect and we all know of the conscientious way in which he approaches his task. The officials of the National Audit Office, under the Comptroller and Auditor General, produced some excellent reports in the course of the last long Session of Parliament. It is a pity that we do not have sufficient time fully to digest all the reports. Because there were so many of them, some have had to be dealt with rather quickly. Nevertheless, they have done a good job.
The members of the Public Accounts Committee have been through many of the reports. We have talked to the officials about the problems that they encountered in compiling the reports and then had two-hour sessions with the permanent secretary, the ineffable Sir Duncan Nichol, or whoever, flanked by 15 or 20 civil servants, no doubt learning how to deal with irritating Members of Parliament. We have read the draft reports containing the Committee's final recommendations. Lastly, we have come to the words of the Financial Secretary in reply to our mammoth effort.
What strikes me about the words of the Financial Secretary is that they are brief—terse and economical are other words that spring to mind. I am not against brevity. There is enough prolixity in this place to allow us to welcome any brevity. However, that otherwise admirable quality is carried to extraordinary lengths.
Let us take a typical report, which happens to come to hand, of no fewer than 44 pages of dense text on A4. The Treasury's reply is only three and a quarter pages long, most of which consists of quotations from the report, with a large margin and lots of space in between. That is carrying what I would otherwise regard as a great virtue to an absurd length. The report's brevity means that few of the substantial charges made by the Committee are covered comprehensively. Moreover, the remarks that are made are not relevant to the strength of the case made by the Committee.
One example is the Committee's 26th report into the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. Committee members will remember the background to that issue, which I still regard as a staggering example of a major Government mistake. In London there are far too many hospital beds, and far too many expensive hospital beds. The cost of treating people in London is estimated at twice or two and a half times the cost in a suburb or further afield. Many specialist units in London do a unique job and I am not discussing those. I am talking about an average hospital case in London.
Despite that background, it was decided as recently as 1987 or 1988 to build a brand-new hospital costing well over £200 million in an area with an excessive number of beds already. Moreover, it was decided to build that hospital in the most expensive part of the capital. Chelsea and Westminster is probably the most expensive location in the entire country to build a hospital. So, in a city with too many expensive beds already, we build an even more
644
grandiose and expensive hospital only some three miles from one of the newest hospitals at Charing Cross, which is only 25 or 30 years old.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has not been helped by that decision, which was made only five years ago. As she has said, the position in London has not come upon us out of the blue. How many reports have been issued on the hospital situation in London since the turn of the century? I cannot remember whether it is 11 or 21, but it is a substantial number. They have all come to the same conclusion as my right hon. Friend—there are too many hospital beds. Nevertheless, the Chelsea and Westminster hospital was built.
We then asked the Treasury to comment on that decision. The PAC concluded:
"In view of the very high costs of building in London and … that surplus beds were increasing in the capital, we are surprised that the Management Executive, in deciding to build this hospital, did not have regard to the wider pattern of hospital[s] … in London and the … Home Counties".
The Treasury's response was:
"The Department took account of the effect of the project on hospitals within the North West Thames Regional Health Authority (the health authority) and in other Thames Regions before approving the project in December 1988. The project was approved because it would achieve improved quality of care, together with a reduction of beds in line with the Region's strategy, and would lead to significant revenue savings."
My complaint about that response is that it is extraordinarily brief and does not deal with the full burden of the case put by the Committee. Furthermore, it does not deal with the PAC's point that the project should have been viewed in a wider context, not merely of the authority m question but of all the hospital provision in London and the home counties. The response does not take on board that broad picture.
The PAC's second conclusion—that
"the project should be considered in the broadest geographical and organisational context and not limited to narrow local factors, however attractive the proposals may be to local interests"—
makes substantially the same point. It asks the Treasury to lift its eyes from the specific, look more broadly at the regional scene and see whether the decision was right. The Treasury's response was:
"The Government already recognises the importance of this"—
the broader scene.
"Treasury guidance on project appraisal makes it clear that projects should be evaluated in this way."
There is no recognition of the fact that the project clearly was not evaluated in that way but was simply a restatement of a generalised Government position, which seems to have been totally ignored in that respect.
The PAC noted that a consequence of spending all that money in one place was that other valuable projects in the north-west had to be delayed. No fewer than 24 different projects of varying sizes worth £120 million had to be delayed because all the money was being shovelled into building the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. So we concluded:
"We note that the North West Thames Region relied on loans of over £56 million from other regions to finance the project"—
not only did it have its own money but it had to draw on other regions, which therefore suffered delays in their projects—
"and paid interest of some £4 million on the loans, thus increasing the cost of the project."
The Treasury replied in one sentence:

645
"These loans incurred no extra cost for the NHS as a whole, and this practice is an appropriate way to make best use of available capital monies."
Was it an appropriate way to make best use of capital moneys to take £56 million from all the other regions and shovel it into a hole when the project was vastly over-expensive, not needed and of dubious long-term value, although I am sure that it is a splendid hospital? That is being economical with the truth in a big way. Technically, the Treasury was right. With its usual skill, it seized on a technical point but ignored the wider issue, which is a pity.
I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on the interest that he appears to be taking in the PAC's work. After all, we are a part—albeit a small part —of the business of trying to keep the leviathan of public spending under control. Therefore, when the Committee comes up with an example, as in the case of the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, that is scandalous in terms of how the project was managed and the strategic decision that lay behind it, the Government should give a more substantial reply.
8.48 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am half apologetic for being yet another Welsh Member to speak in this debate—[Interruption] I said half apologetic. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your predecessors who have chaired the debate may be forgiven for thinking that it was the annual Welsh day debate and that some English interlopers had fallen into it by mistake. Not so. The point is that there has been a lot of interest in the work of the PAC in Wales. Over the past two or three years the PAC has taken a great deal of interest in quangos for which the Welsh Office is responsible and in quangos operating in Wales for which United Kingdom-wide Departments are responsible.
The interest in Wales has centred in the main on the investigation into the 1991–92 accounts of the WDA, but there are many parallels with the English investigations that the PAC has carried out, too.
Tonight we are looking at how the Government responded to the criticisms levelled by the PAC. In the case of the WDA the response has come in three forms. First, we have the formal Treasury minute, but, as has already been pointed out, the Treasury tends to hide behind nit-picking technicalities when it can. We therefore do not always learn much from Treasury responses. The Treasury should be a little more frank and a little less technical and defensive when it responds, as the PAC is making good points.
The second response about the WDA was last week's statement by the Secretary of State, which also tended to be rather light, attributing all the blame to officials who have had to walk but claiming that everyone else is clean, including the previous chairman, who can stay, say the Government, in his other public appointments. Obviously, previous Secretaries of State are clean too, we are told: after all, they are previous Secretaries of State. They should not be forced to give up appointments that they have recently been given by the Government.
Lord Walker became chairman on 1 April this year of the English equivalent of the WDA—the new Urban Regeneration Agency. So the Government will not
646
suddenly agree, just because the boring old PAC has found that he has done something wrong, that they were wrong to appoint Lord Walker head of the URA, which has a budget 10 times the size of the WDA's. The Government would never do that.
Have these responses been adequate? We have also had the internal report by the WDA—Sir John Caines's report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has already referred. These reports do not express how the people of Wales feel—which is that they have been let down by the WDA's goings on of the past few years. The all-pervasive culture of arrogance needs to be uprooted from the WDA.
I would not be speaking tonight if I felt that the three responses had been adequate. I still believe that we are underplaying the issue. I would go as far as to say that the Chairman of the PAC underplayed it, but that is to do with his personal style; it is not a criticism of him. Unfortunately, he is not in his place to hear my remarks at this moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has already alluded to Operation Wizard and the question whether it was properly dealt with. The Secretary of State referred to it last week. The PAC has heavily criticised the operation, but it was rebuffed by the Secretary of State in his statement. He said that the Comptroller and Auditor General did not pick up any improprieties in the business of the hiring of consultants to do £300,000-worth of work. Parliament was not told what the work was for, but the Secretary of State did not find the matter irregular in any narrow accountancy sense, so we are given to believe that it did not really matter.
More broadly, though, it is surely not right that a body for which the Secretary of State is responsible can decide, with his authority but not that of Parliament, to consider privatising itself. It was not aiming to bring in private capital by increasing its activities and leasing factories to private developers—not at all. That might have been said to fall legitimately within the discretion given to a Secretary of State, or even a chairman of the agency. It can legitimately consider how to bring in private capital.
But that is not what Operation Wizard was about, as the PAC minutes of evidence make clear on page 67. In appendix 10, the PAC put the question:
"Did any senior executives or Board members have talks with any outside body or persons about finance for either a management buy out or a management backed buy out ?"
The agency's answer was:
"The initial studies concerned either a share placement or flotation whilst later studies considered a partnership approach".
So what was under discussion was the selling of shares in the WDA and the floating of the WDA on the stock exchange.
Unless Parliament authorises a move towards privatising an agency and is given a Government explanation from the Dispatch Box, it surely cannot be right for £300,000 to be spent on consultancy fees with the intent of selling shares in the WDA on the stock exchange. That requires parliamentary approval, and it plainly did not have it. That is why the people of Wales still think that the top brass at the WDA, who were actively encouraged by Lord Walker, ought to be asked to pay the £300,000 back. If the privatisation plan had gone through, they might have been major partners in the management buy-out, proceeding to a share flotation, and they might easily have become millionaires. As the flotation did not go through, why

647
should the taxpayers have to pay for the one-way bet that the top brass took on privatisation without authority from Parliament?
In short, the Secretary of State, in total confidence and secrecy, was able to authorise a complete change in the WDA's status, as established by Parliament, without explaining anything about it to the House.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is singularly and worryingly devious about the whole situation is the fact that the Secretary of State authorised this not using Welsh Office money, which would have been identified by Parliament, but at arm's length via the WDA, which gave him a greater chance of concealment?
Mr. Morgan: Perfectly right. The point has been made that this was not explained to the House—but it goes further. The matter was specifically denied in the House when, at oral questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) asked the then Secretary of State, in the summer of 1989, whether the WDA had authorised Barclays de Zoete Wedd to do some studies on the privatisation of the WDA. The Secretary of State replied that my hon. Friend's information was wholly inaccurate. At least my hon. Friend got the name of the merchant bank right. We now know that Barclays de Zoete Wedd did indeed carry out the studies.
The Chairman of the PAC also referred to Neil Smith and the famous episode of the Shapes model agency. Although an extremely interesting issue, it too was underplayed in the course of this debate. Great play has been made of the fact that the Shapes model agency was unregistered. It had been registered at one time but the registration had lapsed. Is that the most important issue, or is it that the agency was run by a convicted brothel keeper? The latter is probably a better indication of the dangerous waters into which the WDA was entering. The full flavour of that has not come out in the debate. [Interruption ] My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) makes the point that the ethnic origins of a brothel keeper could be considered important matters of public concern. I do not think so.
The pattern is the same whether in England or Wales when one is dealing with a failure to monitor the activities of quangos. What does Dr. Gwyn Jones have to do to get himself sacked from public office in the BBC and S4C, and what does Sir Robin Buchanan have to do to prevent his being promoted from chairman of the Wessex health authority to deputy chairman of the National Health Service Supplies Authority? What do those people have to do to prevent their being moved not simply sideways but upwards after some ghastly misdoings have been discovered by the various parliamentary monitoring processes of which we and the debate are a part? What do they have to do before they finally get the chop because Parliament has said that they are not fit and proper people to be in charge of expenditure and responsible through the Secretary of State to Parliament for millions of pounds of public money? In that context, it does not matter whether they are operating in England or in Wales.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who is not in his place, reacted in a Pavlovian manner to Sir John Caines's report about what was supposed to happen in the WDA following the uncovering of the shenanigans. Page 9 of Sir John's summary report contains a reference which I think the hon. Gentleman misquoted. He
648
implied that one of Sir John's recommendations was that Welsh people should not be appointed to the WDA board. Sir John did not say that. He said:
"The Secretary of State should be ready to seek more widely to find board members, even if that risks diluting the proportion of Wales-based people serving on the board in order for the board to be seen to be above criticism."
That could easily mean talented Welsh exiles working in industry in America, Scotland, England, Germany or anywhere else, as distinct from people of non-Welsh origin who are working in Wales as bosses of big firms. Such people often tend to be appointed to the WDA board.
The Pavlovian reaction by the hon. Gentleman was absolutely predictable. He took it to be an admission that Wales cannot run its own affairs. But that is not what the report is about. It is about how to clean up an act that has clearly been going wrong and how to prevent a recurrence of the problems.
Other matters on the same page of the report are far more important than the ethnic origins of board members. For example, it refers to procedures that I thought were already in place, but I presume from the report that they are not. That has lessons for the whole world of quangos. At board meetings, a chairman or any member of the board can declare an interest. One assumes that, from that moment on, those people take no part in the discussions, but it appears that that has not been happening.
The report recommends:
"No relevant papers should be provided to a board member with a declared conflict of interest."
I should hope not, and I should like to think that that has been the practice in the past, but I am certain from reading Sir John's report that it has not. That means that those with a conflict of interest are still given the papers that are provided to other board members.
The report states:
"At board meetings once declarations have been tabled the board member who has declared an interest should exclude himself from the meeting for the discussion of the items giving rise to the conflict."
That has not been happening, either. Therefore, there is no rule to say that board members should declare an interest but cannot stay there and take part in the discussions. What is the point of declaring the interest? There is nothing to stop that board member using his influence and contributing with his specialised knowledge of the project because he has an interest in it. I had hoped that that was happening all along, but evidently it was not.
Before the Treasury responds to the criticisms, it should read Sir John's document. It states:
"The Secretary of State should ensure that no two or more board members should have a common other directorship regardless of whether any conflict of interest exists at the time."
I assume that that cannot be a reference to anything other than the problem that has arisen over Dr. Gwyn Jones becoming a board member of Tesco at the same time as the managing director of Tesco became a board member of the WDA. That is obviously thought undesirable. As far as I am aware, that is the only example on the WDA board. However, it is not a matter just for the WDA: it should become the basis of a generalised Government rule for all quangos.
We have learnt other lessons about protection for whistleblowers. Time and again, hon. Members have said how important they are in supplementing the abilities of the National Audit Office in getting behind the defences put up by Departments and quangos. We cannot work without whistleblowers. Members of Parliament are

649
dependent on them, perhaps me more than most. They are important in the process of monitoring what is happening and identifying any waste of public money.
We must deal with gagging clauses imposed on people who are asked to leave their jobs because they have fallen out with the chairman or something like that. My recollection is that last year the Treasury said that gagging clauses should be banned in the public sector, but I do not know whether any action has been taken to ensure that. Because of the fear of industrial tribunals and the fact that they are held in public, every time there is a major row involving someone who knows where the bones are buried —someone who can identify where there has been a significant waste of public money—the natural reaction of quangos and Government Departments is, as the PAC's Chairman said, to spend yet more public money on a gagging clause to cover up that waste. They want to prevent that person from revealing the waste to a Member of Parliament, a newspaper, a permanent secretary or whatever.
I hope that tonight the Financial Secretary will make a firm declaration that gagging clauses in the public sector will be banned. We must protect whistle blowers and strengthen our monitoring function and control over the waste of public money.
9.6 pm
Mr. John Maxton: As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I feel slightly nervous about following all the Welsh Members who have already spoken. I want to take this opportunity—and I intend to do so annually—to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the PAC, on what must be his 10th year in that position. I remember him taking over the Committee after the general election in 1983. Before that, I had served on the Committee under the chairmanship of Joel Barnett. Although my right hon. Friend has chaired the Committee for 10 years, his speech this evening has shown that he still retains his enthusiasm for the job, which he does with the same verve now as he did 10 years ago.
When I served on the Committee, one of its inquiries was into the De Lorean affair. When I was dragged by my children—or perhaps it was the other way around—to see the film "Back to the Future", I was interested eventually to see a De Lorean car in operation, even if it was only on film.
I am always sorry that more hon. Members do not take part in these debates. If they looked at all the reports, not just those listed on the Order Paper, they would realise the opportunities available to raise issues related to their constituencies or areas. They could then put on record, both here and in the local newspapers, various issues of concern. My problem with today's debate is that, because I was not in the House last Thursday, I did not know that this debate was to be held today. I did not receive my Whip until late on Friday because I had left home early in the morning before the post had arrived. Therefore, I was not able to get hold of the relevant reports until this morning. I regret that and I wish that there were some way of providing longer notice of debates.
I do not intend to speak to any of the reports that are listed for special consideration. I want to concentrate my
650
remarks on the 20th report on the national health service accident and emergency departments in Scotland—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may be expecting me to do so. It is an important report, and it may be an accurate report. My concern is that it has political implications for those of us who serve in Scotland because it could be used by a Government seeking to cut certain services within the NHS and especially within the city of Glasgow, of which I am one representative in the House.
Paragraph 8 of the report states:
"In Glasgow, the provision and location of Accident & Emergency services largely reflect historical factors. The rationalisation of these services would help avoid expensive duplication of facilities and result in a more efficient and effective service to the public."
I do not know what that would mean to my constituents in Cathcart. Rationalisation usually means that one or two departments—if not more—will be closed and then centralised elsewhere.
Like most major cities, Glasgow is divided into south and north by a river. People on the south side want services on the south side and people in the north want services on the north side. My constituency is located on the south side of Glasgow where there are two accident and emergency services in two hospitals. One is in the Victoria infirmary and the other is in the Southern general hospital. The one that is under threat—if there is a threat—from rationalisation is the Victoria, which directly serves my constituency although the hospital is not in my constituency.
If the accident and emergency service there were to close, my constituents would have to travel by bus into the centre of Glasgow—if they called an ambulance, it would be even more expensive—and then catch another bus nearly five miles in the opposite direction to the Southern general hospital. The alternative would be to change buses and cross the river to the Royal or the Western infirmary. That would mean that they would have to travel considerably further; the risks would be much greater and more people might die. I am talking about my constituents.
Did any member of the Public Accounts Committee go to Glasgow to examine what the closure of an accident and emergency service in one hospital would mean to the people who have to travel into and out of the city? I believe that, if the accident and emergency service at the Victoria were to close, it would be the first step towards closing the entire hospital. That is the inevitable conclusion. It would mean that my constituents would have to travel greater distances, not only for accident and emergency services but for all hospital treatment.
It is not good enough for the Committee simply to say that there should be a rationalisation of services. The report states that the need for rationalisation has long been recognised—at least since 1985—but that nothing has been done. Perhaps nothing was done because Greater Glasgow health board recognises that it cannot close accident and emergency departments willy-nilly without putting something else in their place.
The report states that there are problems with what are called unnecessary attendances, although I accept that the claim is made in a survey carried out by the health board, not by the Committee itself. It is claimed that one third of patients do not need to attend the accident and emergency department. Who said so? Who judges whether someone is attending such a department unnecessarily? Let me relate a small personal story to illustrate my point.

651
About a year ago, my son was having a shower in one of those showers that is part of the bath. He slipped and cut his foot on the plug, which is one of those that go up and down. I heard him shout and I went into the bathroom. On entering, one would have thought that it was a scene from "Psycho". There was blood all over the walls and the bath. I thought that he had done serious damage to his foot, so inevitably, and rightly in my view, my wife and I put pads on his foot and I took him to the nearest accident and emergency department. When the pads were removed, staff had difficulty in finding the cut. It was a razor-sharp cut to the padded part of the foot that sent blood everywhere but quickly abated. The nurse did not even have to stitch it; all she did was put some webbed tape across it.
Was I right to take my son to hospital? Was it an unnecessary admission? In my view, it was not. I had every good reason to believe that my son required hospital treatment. That was my assumption when I saw blood everywhere, but I am sure that someone conducting a survey would have regarded it as an unnecessary attendance. Who makes such a judgment? Someone may walk into an accident and emergency department because he has pains in his chest and it may turn out to be indigestion.
There is speculation in Scotland about the helicopter ambulance service. Inevitably, helicopters are required to take people from remote areas to hospital. I have read a proposal in newspapers—I know that what one reads in newspapers is not always true—that if a general practitioner calls the ambulance service to take a patient to hospital and the hospital decrees that it was unecessary for the patient to go to hospital, the GP has to pay for the helicopter from his own funds. That is absurd and should not even be considered, but apparently it is the way that the Scottish Office is thinking.
The report does not suggest where people should go after 5 or 6 o'clock at night when most GPs' surgeries are closed and there is one doctor, who often does not belong to the practice, on duty to deal with all the patients who call. What are parents expected to do when a child falls and cuts himself so badly that he requires stitches, or breaks an arm or twists and possibly breaks an ankle? Should they go to the accident and emergency department? Would that be an unnecessary referral? If there is an alternative, I wish that the report had spelt it out.
I believe that there is an alternative. Greater Glasgow health board is considering a proposal that health centres —there is one in the major housing scheme in Castlemilk in my constituency—should provide a 24-hour service and that a doctor should always be on duty with full X-ray equipment to deal with cuts and breaks, to treat heart attacks with resuscitation equipment and to refer people to hospital; fewer patients would then use an accident and emergency department.
In many ways, that would be a more efficient way of dealing with those patients, but I do not believe that it would be cheaper if health centres had to have radiographers to work X-ray equipment or technicians to deal with plastering. It would be no cheaper than keeping open accident and emergency departments in all hospitals. That way may be more efficient, but I do not believe that it is cheaper. If we could achieve that fuller service in our health centres, I would probably welcome it. However, I do not see those proposals coming and I certainly do not see
652
a Government who are currently intent on cutting public expenditure allowing Greater Glasgow health board to do that.
The report may be perfectly adequate. However, I am afraid that it will be thrown in my face and in the faces of my Scottish colleagues when there are proposals to cut accident and emergency services in Scotland. That is my concern about the matter.
9.19 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, one could be forgiven for thinking that this is a Welsh night with the occasional English and even more occasional Scottish interloper. At the beginning of last year's debate, I congratulated my hon. Friends with Welsh constituencies for making full use of the opportunities presented by this annual debate. Quite rightly, they have done the same thing very effectively this year.
However, I find it disappointing that, again like last year, only a very small number of Conservative Members have chosen to participate in the debate. Before dealing with matters of substance, I want to place on record—as other hon. Members have—my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for his work and for that of the Public Accounts Committee. Under his chairmanship and functioning in a bipartisan manner, the Committee continues to speak with great authority and to command respect from all parts of the House.
Depressingly, however, there are recurrent themes when one reads the Treasury replies to this year's Committee reports. I wonder just how much notice the Government take of the Committee's work. Year after year, we are assured by successive Financial Secretaries that the Government take the issues very seriously. However, there are recurring themes. I find it very difficult to equate the tough language of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on public expenditure matters with the facts as revealed by the PAC.
Among those depressingly recurrent themes is out and out fraud. Fraud is identified in reports ranging from the Welsh Development Agency accounts investigation through the important report on countering VAT avoidance to the report dealing with the accounts of the Forward civil service catering arrangements.
Inevitably, and equally depressingly, there is yet again a report that highlights losses to the public purse as a direct result of the Government's privatisation programme. That is a recurrent theme in these debates. This year, it involves the issue of the sale of the 12 regional electricity companies. That report takes its place alongside previous reports on the sale of Rolls-Royce, the royal ordnance factories, Rover group and the water authorities.
The 26th report, on the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, also sets out a sorry tale of losses brought about as a direct result of the Conservative party's ideological absurdities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) explained.
Mr. Page: To try to say that the losses of various aspects of Government, as revealed by the PAC, can be put down purely to the Government's privatisation policy is rather simplistic. If the hon. Gentleman looks back over history and considers PAC reports under a Labour

653
Government, he will find equal losses. I would hesitate to suggest that we can pin everything on one particular process.
Mr. Brown: One will not find losses due to privatisation or to property speculation. I am drawing the attention of the House to two areas in which the Government's ideological commitment have got the better of their other stated objective which is the sound management of public finances.
The Government's privatisation programme has led to the interests of the new shareholders taking precedence over the legitimate interests of the British taxpayer. Similarly, the Government's ideologically driven obsession with an ever-rising property market in the late 1980s led to substantial losses, absurdities and bankruptcies in the early 1990s. Any hon. Member who represents a constituency that has the misfortune to be saddled with an urban development corporation will know what I mean. Developments that are predicated on a rising property market tend to come unstuck when the property market does not rise.
On the subject of property values and safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill referred to coastal erosion. That was particularly selfless of him, as Birmingham is probably under no immediate threat. However, on second thoughts, if work proceeds at the present pace identified by the PAC, who knows, my hon. Friend might be congratulated on his perception. At least, as the water laps around his ankles, my hon. Friend will not face the reproaches that will be directed at the three previous Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, all of whom represent Anglian constituencies. Presumably, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has presided over the matter, is willing to see more than his vote being eroded.
Two other firm favourites of Public Accounts Committee debates are the Ministry of Defence and, of course, the affairs of Northern Ireland. This year, the Ministry of Defence is again represented by a range of reports, most significantly those dealing with major defence projects, spare parts and the costs of the Gulf war. As well as the report dealing with the premature retirement of teachers in Northern Ireland, this year there are also reports on the Northern Ireland Local Enterprise Development Unit and on the payment of income support in Northern Ireland.
It is almost as though the Public Accounts Committee, aware of its heavy responsibilities and the detailed routine —some might even say the dull nature—of much of its work, has set out to enliven this year's debate with a little topical comic relief. As well as the report dealing with the catering arrangements at the Treasury, we have a report dealing with the Treasury's own in-house legal aid scheme as it applies to Chancellors of the Exchequer—not, of course, that there is much chance of getting the money back, even though it was described as
"astonishingly good value for money"
and "extremely cheap" by Sir Peter Middleton. One wonders what Sir Peter was using for comparison. I thought that the Conservative party was in favour of competitive tendering. We could certainly have used a little competitive tendering in that case.
654
However, on to more serious matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke of the importance of economic development in Wales and drew upon his extensive knowledge of 20th century history. Last year, we discussed the affairs of the Development Board for Rural Wales, headed by a Conservative party political appointee, a Mr. Glyn Davies. The report criticised the outrageous retirement settlement to the retiring chief executive of the board. It criticised the £180,000 capital cost of his pension enhancements and the consultancy arrangement which enabled that gentleman, in retirement, to work for up to 150 days on unspecified work for a fee of £200 a day.
That scandal, the clear result of Conservative party political jobbery in Wales, is echoed in the equally serious report this year dealing with the Welsh Development Agency. Again, the agency is headed by a Conservative party political appointee, this time a Dr. Gwyn Jones. Again, the chief executive has gone in a welter of criticism. Again, there is a massive loss, this time £1.4 million, on redundancy payments. Again there is criticism of ineffective supervision by the Welsh Office. Again, the Public Accounts Committee criticised over-generous retirement settlements, in a manner almost identical to last year's complaints against the Development Board for Rural Wales.
Of course, there is the free personal use of cars for private motoring and what seems to be the bizarre arrangement whereby an American citizen, a Mr. Carignam, was able to remove and sell £53,000 of development board furniture and repay the board $15,000 for it. That is effectively fraud. The Public Accounts Committee tells us that the appointment of the director of marketing
"constituted a major financial risk which should have been avoided."
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, unusually for him, went much further and said that it was a case of a "genuine 24-carat crook".
No doubt the same care and diligence was exercised in the director's appointment as was exercised in the appointment of the agency's chairman, who was chosen at a Tory party fund-raising lunch. Undoubtedly, that is what the Prime Minister was referring to last Tuesday when he told the House about the "great many secret sources" of Conservative party funding. He said:
"they are all cheese and wine parties up and down the country."—[Official Report, 19 October 1993: Vol. 230, c. 144.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) drew telling links from a number of the themes that emerged from this sorry affair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) drew attention to the corrosive effect of political interference on public life and the independence of the civil service. The grotesque counterpart to that unpleasant political jobbery is the squandering of some £300 million in European Community grants for party political motives. Although the Conservative party is content to see large sums of public money squandered in a most outrageous way through political jobbery in Wales, it is not willing to attract European development funds to areas respresented by its political opponents.
We have been warned by the Regional Affairs Commissioner of the European Commission that
"significant amounts of money allocated to the UK risk being lost".

655
A Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Wayne David, has warned us that his constituency—an area that is supposed to benefit from the work of the Welsh Development Agency—will lose some £11.9 million in potential European Community grants because the Government will not provide matching funding.
The issue of blatant party politicking raises its ugly head again with the Conservative party attempting to redraw Britain's list of needy areas to include such famous centres of urban deprivation as Kensington and Chelsea. This outrageous, politically driven scandal is a blatant attempt to punish poor communities for having voted Labour and to bribe marginally better-off communities to retain a misguided allegiance to the Conservative party. It is pathetic, irresponsible and wholly in character for this Government.
The topic of irresponsibility brings me to the two reports dealing with the Government's privatisation programme. The report dealing with the sale of the two generating companies, National Power and PowerGen, highlights the lack of competition in the appointment of some of the Department's 37 advisers on the sales, arid the Department's decision not to publish the sums of money paid to them. The Public Accounts Committee made the point—the Chairman of the Committee has made this point in previous debates—that the compressed timetable for the sales and the resultant pressure on Departments to do things quickly should not be used as an excuse for uneconomic arrangements.
The same point about the appointment of advisers without competition is made in the report dealing with the sale of the 12 regional electricity companies.
Mr. Maxton: I point out to my hon. Friend that the point about advisers also applies in the sale of Scottish Power and the Hydro Board.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that point.
The Public Accounts Committee drew our attention to the fact that the taxpayer did not share in the higher than expected profits for the first year following privatisation. In short, the Committee told us that the interests of the new shareholders have taken precedence over the legitimate interests of the taxpayer. Nor has the Government's stated objective of achieving a broader share ownership been achieved, despite privatisation having been accompanied by the most generous arrangements yet for employee participation. As the total level of shareholdings has fallen from 9 million to 3 million since privatisation, it is clear that people have reasonably taken a short-term gain, rather than sought a long-term investment.
Increasingly, people believe that privatisation of the public utilities is like the national lottery but without the attendant risks. As the stated objective of wider and deeper share ownership is not achieved, it seems reasonable to ask why the British taxpayer should be forced to subsidise the arrangements.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West referred to the cost to the taxpayer, and was challenged gamely, but inaccurately, by the Financial Secretary. The issue was the indexation of prices for the public utilities. I regret that my figures only go up to 1991. I had hoped to have civil servants to update them beyond that, but, alas, it was not to be. Taking 1979 to 1991, the average change per year on the 1978 base is 7·9 per cent. for electricity, 8·6 per
656
cent. for gas, 7.7 per cent. for telephones and 11.4 per cent. for water charges, although the all-items retail prices index increase is only 7.4 per cent. Public utility prices under the Conservatives have risen dramatically ahead of the inflation rate. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) is being uncharacteristically obtuse.
The Government say that they are keen on performance indicators, on publishing lists and setting targets. I wonder whether it has occurred to my right hon. Friend who chairs the Public Accounts Committee that the PAC might adopt such an approach. Lists could be provided year by year, indicating Government Departments in order of efficiency. Incidence of fraud, loss of public money proportionate to the overall budget, perhaps even a list of the individual Departments' ability to achieve stated performance indicators could be provided. Such a way of viewing things would promote healthy and good-natured competition among Ministers and senior officials. We could debate such an overview of the effectiveness of Government Departments as part of our annual debate.
No one could be in any doubt where such scrutiny would leave the Ministry of Defence. The report dealing with the major defence projects highlights a grotesque state of affairs surrounding a number of significant defence procurement decisions—especially the AOR1 . We are told that the vessel has been delayed by three years—a 74 per cent. overrun—and that extra funding of £53 million was required, which Harland and Woolf was just given by the Northern Ireland Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred to the De Lorean car and its performance in the film "Back to the Future". It is not the only Northern Ireland project to perform less well than was promised. The AOR1 story is one of the biggest defence procurement scandals of the post-war era. There are currently more than 2,000 faults in it that require correction and one wonders why the Ministry of Defence does not take the obvious course and have the same vessel refitted at the same yard that delivered the AOR2 to the Ministry of Defence defect-free. The report dealing with prices paid for spare parts highlights concerns. It is not a small matter, since the Ministry of Defence spends some £2 billion a year on parts —although not, apparently, on labelling them.
What are we to make of the £79,000 that the Ministry of Defence contrived to spend on a party—not the Conservative party, but a real party with refreshments and floodlights? That is the way in which savings were spent. Is disciplinary action to be taken? No. The Ministry of Defence does not take effective disciplinary action against those who come under that Department. We know that, because a report from the Public Accounts Committee in the past year told us precisely that.
One other report to which I wish to refer is the 30th report of the PAC entitled "Countering VAT Avoidance" It drew our attention to the fact that the Committee was concerned that Customs and Excise has so little information on incidence of tax at risk from avoidance. The report continues:
"We are concerned that not enough has been done in the past to monitor the effectiveness of avoidance countermeasures."
My hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill told us that the Customs and Excise had no age profile of their debt. There is clearly cause for concern in the report.
When the Government firmly intend to extend value added tax to the domestic fuel bills of the poorest in our

657
society, when they intend to make the poorest fifth of consumers spend an average of 12 per cent. on fuel and pay tax on top, while the richest one fifth pay 4 per cent. only —although they will pay 17.5 per cent. VAT on top—it is surely right that the House should look again at whether the VAT that is supposed to be paid now is collected. The Government have a duty to collect what is due—to clamp down on graft and fraud and on inefficiencies in the public sector.
The Public Accounts Committee does a first-rate job in drawing such matters to the attention of the House. However, I cannot say that the Government do a first-rate job in responding to the matters that the PAC draws to our attention because the same issues and the same themes, often in the same Departments, recur year after year after year. That disgrace is the stark truth of the matters that face the House today.
9.39 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) struck an uncharacteristically partisan note in his closing comments. He did not pick up the perfectly proper remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), who drew attention to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee has existed for well over 100 years and that, in that time, it has made it its business to report on the inadequacies in the public service. It is in no sense to undermine the commitment and quality of our public service to draw the attention of the House and of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East to the fact that the PAC throughout its history has found inadequacies and has performed the important task of reporting them to the House so that we can collectively ensure that the high standards that we set are maintained as effectively as possible.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I congratulate him personally because, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East observed, he has been Chairman of the PAC for more than 10 years. As he himself said, he was first a member of that Committee in 1965, almost 30 years ago. It is a considerable record of service to the most important and the longest established of all our Select Committees and it is a record to which, I am sure, the whole House wants to give credit.
It is not merely a matter of personal service; it is also a matter of the efficient conduct of business in the Committee. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne drew attention to the fact that the Committee has published 43 reports in the past year. During his period as Chairman, it has published more than 400 reports, all of them unanimous. That is a considerable testament to his success as Chairman of the Committee. As he said, it is a vindication of Gladstone's dictum that the way in which to make the Committee effective as a policeman of standards of propriety in the public service is to ensure that the Chairman of the PAC is an Opposition Member. The right hon. Gentleman is fulfilling that task in a way of which, I am sure, the grand old man would have approved.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) observed, the European Community might do well
658
to copy some of the systems that we have here for enforcing propriety in the expenditure of public money. One might say that that should be the case not merely in terms of propriety but in terms of the budgetary disciplines that we should all want to see in that institution.
This is the day on which the Committee reports to the House and gives an opportunity for the House to give credit to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for the tenure of his chairmanship of this important Committee. It is also an opportunity for the whole House to reaffirm the debt that we all owe to the quality in general of our public servants. As I said, merely to report on a few lapses, important though those are, does not undermine our recognition of the quality of the vast majority of the people who work in the civil service and of those who work more generally in the public service. We are indeed fortunate in this country in the standards of propriety and honesty that we have in the public service.
The PAC plays an important part in the support mechanism for those standards within the public service. All of us in the House want to see those standards maintained and we shall never be content until the happy day, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West rightly believes will never dawn, when the PAC can report to the House in its annual debate that it can find no example of inadequacy in the public service.
The commitment to continue to enforce, to maintain and, where possible, to improve the standards of our public service must not be confused with a commitment to see things continue to be done in the way in which they have always been done. The public service, like every other part of our society, will change; it always has. It is changing and it will continue to change to try to ensure the better delivery of public services. It is important to stress that we have to continue to ensure that the methods of delivery change and that the methods of management change to match current best practice without losing any of the traditional values to which we all rightly attach great importance.
That was the theme with which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne concluded his remarks, but I think that he would agree that the general theme is the most important argument that he made in drawing together the specifics that ran through his speech. He was concerned to ensure that we had a code that set out clearly what we believe to be the standards that are required for the proper conduct of public business.
He and other speakers emphasised a theme that emerged in the debate last year—that it is important for the proper conduct of public business that we define clearly the objectives that we expect all institutions in the public sector to deliver, that we set them, where possible, finite targets against which their performance can be judged and that we require them to publish reports of their performance at the end of each year against those objectives. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that we had made some progress this year towards that objective.
The Government consider it very important that we should define the standards and the outputs that we seek from the public service and test the delivery of those standards against the objectives that we set ourselves. That is what the programme of the citizens charter is about. It is about defining outputs and testing performance against those outputs.

659
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was worried that the proper standards in the conduct of public business may in some sense be under stress as a result of a long period of Conservative Government. He was generous enough to say that it was the long period rather than the nature of the party that concerned him. He will forgive me if I do not volunteer a solution to that problem in terms of the length of tenure of the party in government, but I recognise the enhanced importance, after a long period with one party in government, of reinforcing again and again the difference between the definition of objectives, which is the proper task of the politician, and the delivery of those objectives in an economic sense, which is the proper task of the public servant.
That is where the answer to his conundrum lies, if indeed a conundrum exists: it is our job as politicians to set the objectives and it is the task of the public service and of the Executive branch of Government to deliver on objectives set by the politicians, who are themselves accountable to the House for the setting and delivery of those objectives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West stressed the importance, as he saw it, of strategic management—of the Department and Ministers being responsible for strategy and officials being accountable for ensuring that that strategy is carried out. That is the proper distinction that he drew and it is the answer to the argument that was made during the debate by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West.
Having reaffirmed the fact that I agree with what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said about the importance of rules for the proper conduct of public business, I shall now mention the specific example in which it is common ground in all parts of the House that those standards were found most wanting in the course of the Committee's work during the past 12 months. That is the concern about what has been happening in the Welsh Development Agency.
As one Opposition Member observed, it is a cause of regret to me that this is the second debate of this nature that I have answered as Financial Secretary. Last year we were discussing the Development Board for Rural Wales and this year it is the Welsh Development Agency. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke about the importance of the work that has been done by the WDA and I agree. It has had a record of success in delivering improved economic and structural development in Wales.
That does not excuse things that were revealed by the PAC and accepted by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Wales as disclosing a state of affairs that should not be tolerated. Clearly, matters in the WDA have not been as they should. My right hon. Friend was at pains to make it clear at this Dispatch Box last week that as long as he is Secretary of State he will seek to ensure that rules are put in place to prevent a recurrence of the events revealed by the Committee.
Mr. Rowlands: The Financial Secretary sat patiently listening to a number of submissions made by the Opposition. Will he now say whether he believes that Dr. Gwyn Jones should remain as a governor of the BBC and S4C, given what we have told the Minister about that person's track record?
Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend made it clear that he does not believe that the revelations about the WDA constitute a reason for doubting Dr. Gwyn Jones's fitness to continue as a governor of the BBC and of S4C. The facts revealed by the PAC did not demonstrate that he acted in any sense beyond the law. They certainly demonstrated a want of judgment of the way in which the public resources should be used by the chairman of a public body. That is not in dispute, but there is no sense in which Dr. Gwyn Jones acted beyond the law.
I want to cover a number of other issues.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: How fortunate.
Mr. Dorrell: It is fortunate, but the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne both thought that this was an important point. I refer to the sale of regional electricity companies.
There is nothing for which to apologise in that respect. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne thought that the companies should have been sold in tranches, and he doubted the basis on which that approach was rejected. The Government thought that was not the correct approach because there would have been doubt in the marketplace as to whether the end result of the policy would be delivered.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested that that was a weak argument because everybody knew that the policy would be delivered, bur that is based on hindsight. It was much less clear at the time the electricity industry was privatised that the new market would be successfully developed. We know now that the industry was successfully privatised, and that the companies trade successfully on the stock exchange. At the: time the decision was taken, it was a question whether or not that judgment was right—and at that stage it was a judgment and not a fact. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's dismissal of the Government's argument, which was a perfectly proper judgment for them to reach at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman said also that he did not believe that that was the driving force behind the Government's judgment; rather, that it was Treasury concern to see the cash in its hand in a particular year. I doubt that the right hon. Gentleman can find any basis on which to support that argument in the history of the privatisation of regional electricity companies or of the rest of the privatisation programme. We made it clear from the beginning that the case for privatising large parts of the public sector in 1979 was based on a desire to make those parts of the economy work more effectively.
When one considers the effect of privatisation on the electricity and gas industries, British Telecom and other undertakings that were taken out of the politicised management of the public sector and put into the commercial context of the private sector, it is clear that we delivered the objective that we set ourselves of improving the quality of management of an important part of the British economy.
Mr. Sheldon: That is not the point that I was making from the point of view of the Public Accounts Committee. The point I was making was about the speed of the action, not whether it was right or wrong. If more time had been given to it, it could have been done with greater benefit to the taxpayer.
Mr. Dorrell: That is the right hon. Gentleman's judgment. The greatest benefit to the taxpayer has been to deliver an electricity industry that is efficiently managed and responds properly to the signals from its customers, rather than to continue under the political management from which the industry had suffered for too long. Other things being equal, there was a gain to be made by securing a quick rather than a slow transfer of the industry to a private sector structure of management.
I have to take seriously the judgment of our advisers at the time as to how the industry could most effectively be floated on the stock exchange. Their advice was that the manner in which we did so was most likely to deliver value to the taxpayer.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Minister not in danger of glossing over a part of the defence for the 100 per cent. sale? The Department told the National Audit Office that it went for a 100 per cent. sale rather than a partial sale because it was concerned about the effect of an Opposition statement on investor confidence. When pressed at the PAC, Sir Peter Gregson, the permanent secretary to the DTI, could not point to any such statement, because it had never been made.
Mr. Dorrell: I dealt with the argument in what I said to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
What may seem obvious with hindsight was not obvious at the time the companies were floated. The question was whether they could be successfully floated and whether there would be a successful trade in the shares of the regional electricity companies under the structure designed by the Government. We now know that that was a success, but ahead of the event we could not possibly have known that it would be.
As a former Minister at the Department of Health, I have had previous dealings with the Chelsea and Westminster hospital project, although I hasten to add that I was not in office in January 1989.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) quite rightly said that judgments about the development of individual hospital projects in London should now be made in the context of the London-wide hospital position. My right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set up the Tomlinson inquiry to look at that subject as a key part of NHS management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington will remember that since approval in principle was given by the
662
Department of Health for the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, the NHS management structure has been fundamentally reformed, in a way that is far more likely to reveal the kind of issues to which he referred. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern about whether the decision would have been taken in the same way today; unfortunately, that also runs the risk of applying hindsight to an issue that was less clear at the time.
We knew at the time the judgment was made that the Chelsea and Westminster hospital project would involve the expenditure of substantial capital resources, but it would also deliver health service care to that part of London at a lower revenue cost than the existing system of care. By that yardstick, the Chelsea and Westminster hospital investment project has been a success. The budget for patient care of that hospital is now roughly £23 million lower than it would have been had the previous pattern of provision continued.
I must add that, as the Committee has rightly identified and the Treasury minute has acknowledged, there were examples of the management of the project that we would wish to see handled differently in future. It is perfectly clear that a project of such a nature should have full-time project management within NHS capacity. The project was not unmanaged but was subject to a project management contract. It involved the full-time employment of four people who managed the evolution of the project, as a result of which we delivered lower contract values than would otherwise have been the case.
This is an important annual debate which reflects the importance that we attach to propriety in the public service. It is an honour for me, as Financial Secretary, to be able to respond to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 12th to 54th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1992–93, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm. 2145, 2175, 2186, 2199, 2226, 2257, 2279, 2310, 2341 and 2354) with particular reference to the following Reports:
Sixteenth, The sale of the twelve regional electricity companies; Twenty-sixth, The Chelsea and Westminster Hospital; Twenty-seventh, Quality of service; war pensions; mobility allowance; attendance allowance; invalid care allowance; Thirty-fourth, Ministry of Defence: prices paid for spare parts; Thirty-fifth, PSA Services account 1991–92; Forty-seventh, Welsh Development Agency accounts 1991–92; Fifty-second, Fire prevention in England and Wales.

Local Government (Isle of Wight)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
10 pm
Mr. Barry Field: The Adjournment debate tonight concerns a matter of particular importance to my constituents because it affects the future of local government in the Isle of Wight.
On 6 March 1992, the Local Government Act received the Royal Assent. On 21 December 1992, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who is now the Home Secretary, issued a press release from the Department in which he stated, inter alia, that the Government intended that fresh council elections be held in all areas where unitary authorities were set up. He stated that there would be elected shadow authorities in the areas where unitary authorities were to be set up. They would be established in virtually all areas, and my right hon. and learned Friend went on to talk of "a fresh start".
In a letter of 22 December—I emphasise the fact that the letter was written on the day after the press release—Robin Young, director of the local government directorate at the Department of the Environment, asked the chief executive of South Wight borough council for representations from the Isle of Wight about elections to a shadow—I also emphasise that word—authority. The letter states that that could affect the establishing of any new authority.
In a Department of the Environment press release on 5 March this year, the then Secretary of State says that the new structure for the island will be introduced in April 1995 and, to prepare for that, a shadow authority will be elected in May 1994. In a letter dated 2 July this year, the Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), informed me that the recommendations of the Local Government Commission had been generally welcomed. He said:
"The timing of implementation would be 1 April 1995, as Michael Howard announced in March."
The Local Government Commission had of course published its final recommendations to the Secretary of State in April of this year. The commission recommended that
"a single unitary authority should be established for the Isle of Wight to replace"—
again I emphasise the word "replace"—
"the existing county council and the boroughs of Medina and South Wight."
The commission said "to replace". It could hardly be clearer.
So what is the problem? Why are we having the debate this evening? On 4 August the Minister for Local Government upset the apple cart in a letter to Councillor Pettit who, I believe, is the chairman of the Association of County Councils. The letter stated that there would be no new authority and no shadow authority separate from the existing three councils. Unbelievably, particularly in view of all my work and the time that I spent with the Minister's predecessors in getting it right, the elections in May 1994 would be for the existing county councils, albeit with the additional seats.
In one fell swoop, the Department of the Environment had dissolved every ounce of consensus that I had erected and had sold the borough councillors and staff right down
664
the Solent. That was done without the slightest word of consultation as was promised in the ministerial letter of 2 July—just four weeks previously.
So what on earth is going on? To say that the decision caused an earthquake on the Isle of Wight would be an understatement. On 29 December, all the parties concerned went to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and told him how angry we were. All the political parties on the three councils were represented, including independent councillors, and council leaders and officers and myself also attended.
At that meeting, the Minister promised us that, if we could prove that the Department had in any way misled us or given us false expectations, he would have the matter reopened. Nothing could be clearer than the press releases and the correspondence from Mr. Young and other members of staff in his Department, as well as the commission—all referred to in my letter to the Minister of 5 October. I put it on record that I am happy to waive my parliamentary privilege in matters of correspondence should the Minister wish to publish all or part of the correspondence that he and I have had.
At the meeting, I suggested that paragraph 4 of the commission's recommendations about seaward boundaries should be revisited. That is entirely in line with the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on coastal zone protection and planning published in May last year in which Sir Hugh Rossi was kind enough to indicate that 1 played a leading part. That would enable the commission's recommendations to be adhered to and the wishes of the people of the Isle of Wight complied with.
At our September meeting with the Minister, the leader of the county council, Morris Barton, told the Minister that elections next year to the existing county council—albeit with the additional seats—would confuse the electorate and be seen as a waste of money given that elections were held only last year.
What makes me madder than a bald badger is that I spent hours in correspondence and conversation with the previous Secretary of State and the then local government Minister—now the Secretary of State for Wales—arguing this very point and obtaining their agreement as evinced by the press releases already quoted in the debate.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will at least do me the courtesy tonight of confirming that he has understood the unanimity of purpose among all the political parties, councillors and people of the Isle of Wight. I hope that he will acknowledge, too, that despite my very real upset at seeing my patient work totally dismantled, my response has been tempered by my refusal to become embroiled in personal recriminations or an unconstructive approach, although I have told the Minister that I will be seeking a meeting with the Prime Minister. I am actively pursuing that, as I believe that my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend alone, should consider the consequences of the problem. I have received confirmation from my right hon. Friend's PPS tonight that that matter is in train.
I note that, in evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment last week, Sir John Banham stated that, if the commission's proposals were turned down, he would have to consider his position.
How do we proceed? Where there is a will, there is a way. At Question Time last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment indicated that the island has his ear as

665
regards this problem and his good will in so far as he can influence the present impasse. I suggest that my right hon. Friend looks to the staff commission to see whether it can protect the borough's position and whether a way can be found for the three authorities to become an ad hoc shadow authority for 1994. I suggest that the disposition and staff appointments should be made, with the elections to the new authority taking place in 1995.
I also suggest that the Secretary of State should confirm that he will use his powers to allow the authority to name itself, because the Isle of Wight is unique and feels strongly the need to recognise that fact. Councillor Barton is quite right about the elections. The line drawn in the sand in all of this should be the cancellation of those wasteful elections next year and the holding of elections the following year.
My frustration is compounded when I read two things. First, in the Local Government Chronicle an unnamed spokesman from the Department of the Environment wrote:
"the Isle of Wight decision was not controversial. 'It seems sensible to be completely clear where the review is going before the secretary of state makes a final decision on the Isle of Wight'."
I agree with that but, unfortunately, that was pre-empted somewhat by the letter from the Minister for Local Government and Planning in August.
I note that County News of 14 October reported that, in connection with the commission's new objectives, the Secretary of State has again referred to the need
"to give more weight to proposals emerging as a result of local consensus".
That is exactly what the Isle of Wight did. It gained local consensus. It was in entire agreement. There is not so much as a moiety of doubt or a scintilla of disagreement among the good citizens and burghers of England's fairest isle, yet we are now told that we cannot proceed as we originally proposed.
My hon. Friend the Minister impressed all who met him on 28 September. We hope that, in him, we may have found the David who will defeat the Goliaths at Marsham street. Anyone who gives permissions for sharks to stick out of roofs in suburbia is surely just the Minister for whom we are looking—one with original thought to accommodate the needs of the people of the Isle of Wight.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us this evening when the Secretary of State intends to make an announcement about the recommendations of the Local Government Commission. Is the operative date still 1995? When is the Isle of Wight order to be laid before Parliament? When does the staff commission intend to issue specific guidance about the staff transfers relating to the reorganisation of the Isle of Wight?
If I may be so bold, I suggest that my hon. Friend arranges to meet the three chief executives or senior managers of the island's three authorities to make absolutely certain that there are no unforeseen wrinkles in any solutions that he has to offer, then invites the leading councillors of the authorities, along the lines of the deputation that he kindly saw on 28 September, to discuss his proposals. After that, it will, of course, be up to each authority to endorse the way out that impasse.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take my points on board. I am grateful for having been granted the Adjournment
666
debate. I am sad that I have to come before the House on this issue, because there was no doubt in my mind—or those of my constituents, councillors of all parties and of none—that we had originally in the statement from the previous Secretary of State and from the Minister for Local Government and Planning a decision and solution that would commend itself to the majority of the people of the Isle of Wight. The letter in August unfortunately seems to have cut right across that consensus and caused us considerable consternation.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): A fresh start and a new beginning with a new council on the Isle of Wight is what the people of the Isle of Wight said that they want. It is what the existing local authorities on the island have said that they would like; and it is what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has been steadfast in advocating to Ministers as being in the best interests of the island.
The approach of a fresh start, one local authority provider and one voice for the Isle of Wight has been carefully considered by the Local Government Commission. Having listened, the Local Government Commission has now recommended one island, one authority.
Of course, I have to point out that in law my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still considering the Local Government Commission's proposals for the island. I have no doubt that he will wish to come to a conclusion on that shortly, but not before he has had adequate time to consider the matters that have arisen from the debate. Anything—indeed everything—that I say tonight must be without prejudice to the decision that will be taken by my right hon. Friend.
The House will have noted, however, that in recent guidance the Local Government Commission has been asked to give more weight to proposals emerging as a result of local agreement, and the benefits of unitary authorities have been re-emphasised. In those circumstances, the House will note that the commission's proposals for the Isle of Wight are based on strong local agreement —a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has made clear—across party and local authority tiers and boundaries and would lead to a unitary authority for the island. That is in keeping with the guidance given to the Local Government Commission. It may be helpful if this evening I consider the likely implications of the commission's recommendations on the basis that they were to be accepted.
My hon. Friend has made three specific requests. The first is that I ask officials in my Department to discuss with the chief executives and senior officers of the local authorities on the island the best way of taking forward and completing the transition to a new authority. The second is that we consider further the timings of elections on the island. The third is that, having considered those points, I visit the Island to discuss the matters in detail with local councillors from all three local authorities, to make sure that everyone is agreed on the best way forward and what is in the best interests of the future of the Isle of Wight. I am happy to say yes, yes and yes to my hon. Friend's three requests.

667
When we established the Local Government Commission, we said that we were in favour of unitary authorities, and that where they were to be set up there should be a fresh start. Local people should have the opportunity to set for themselves the political agenda for decisions on how best local government services should be delivered to local people by the new council in their area. That is still very much our objective.
The concerns that have been raised this evening by my hon. Friend relate to issues concerning the differences between "new authorities" and "continuing authorities" under the legislation. It might help if I put those two phrases in inverted commas when I use them throughout my speech. I am not sure how one puts inverted commas into Hansard, but doubtless it will be worked out. In practical terms, for reasons that I shall go into, I do not believe that in practice, particularly in an area such as the Isle of Wight, there will be very much difference between a "new authority" and an authority which will clearly be perceived by everybody as being new but which will in law technically be a "continuing authority".
The Local Government Act 1992 will not allow a unitary authority to be set up as a new legal entity where the boundaries of the new authority are coterminous with those of an existing authority. So, for example, if the commission were to recommend that in a particular part of the country the best way forward for local government would be a unitary authority based on the boundaries of an existing shire county, with the districts being absorbed into the new council, in law what we would have would be a "continuing authority" of the county council rather than a "new authority".
Because the Isle of Wight is, in fact and by definition, an island, its boundaries are fixed, and because the sea cannot be included in a local authority's area, no amount of creative manoeuvre—for example, of the local government allegiance of any of the forts in the Solent—could serve substantially to alter the boundaries of the Isle of Wight. It thus follows that any new unitary authority on the island for the whole island will by definition have boundaries that are coterminous with the existing boundaries of the county council and thus in law will be a "continuing authority" rather than a "new authority".
I appreciate that that fact has caused concerns on the island, not least because earlier comments from Ministers had not highlighted that point. I appreciate that there were concerns that, once it was made clear, it signalled some intention on the part of Ministers to bring about something other than that desired by people on the Isle of Wight. It does not. It is simply a straightforward statement of the law as approved by Parliament and with which none of the local authority associations disagree. However, for all practical purposes I do not believe that it will make a significant difference to, or impact on, the strength of a fresh start for the Isle of Wight with what everyone will see as a new council with new local boundaries after fresh elections.
In the context of local government reorganisation, thought needs to be given to several matters, including where people want to get to after the establishment of a new unitary authority. I suspect that there are several issues by which we should test that: first, preparations for the new authority; secondly, elections for the new authority; thirdly, staffing issues—instructions to both the existing and new authorities.
668
As my hon. Friend made clear, there are at present three local authorities on the Isle of Wight: the county council and two district councils. Those three authorities have already shown a willingness to get together, sort things out and prepare for the future. When they came to see me recently, they formed a united deputation of councillors and officers from all three local authorities, who have clearly all been working together to try to determine what is in the island's best interests.
There is absolutely no reason why members of the existing local authorities should not get together to shape and plan the strategy of the new unitary authority on the island. Such an approach is to be encouraged and welcomed. They are perfectly free to enter into such working agreements together as they consider will be helpful in sorting out new staffing and management procedures after reorganisation. Indeed, councillors on the island have already set a good example of working together and I see absolutely no difficulty in their bringing about practical working arrangements best suited to the needs of the island to ensure the most constructive transition to the new unitary authority.
My hon. Friend asked me whether existing authorities on the island can work together to prepare for the new unitary authority. My answer is yes, I very much hope that they will be encouraged to work closely together and set an example to other parts of the country of how local authorities can work together to prepare for new unitary authorities.
Secondly, my hon. Friend explained his concerns about elections. There will of course be fresh elections to the new unitary authority on the island. Every existing councillor, whether county or district, will have an opportunity to seek election to the new authority, as will anyone not at present a councillor who wishes to contest those elections. The elections will also take place on new local boundaries.
At present the elections are due to take place in May 1994, so the councillors would then have powers to take decisions for the assumption of all unitary local authority functions in April 1995. Local people would of course be able to elect the councillors whom they judge would best do the job.
I appreciate, however, that my hon. Friend and many people on the Isle of Wight would prefer no elections next year and elections on new local boundaries to the new authority in May 1995. I appreciate the arguments that my hon. Friend and local councillors have made for such a course. There are a number of issues to consider. A good starting point would be if my officials discussed this further with the chief executives of the existing local authorities, whereupon I would be more than willing to meet councillors from those authorities to discuss options for elections, before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the House take any final decisions on the timing of elections for the new unitary authority.
Thirdly, but of equal importance, are the staff. I appreciate that there are concerns on the island that if there is in law a "continuing authority" rather than a "new authority" the staff of the existing district councils may in some way be discriminated against in favour of the staff of the county council. I do not believe so. Of course local government reorganisation, wherever it takes place, will give rise to staffing issues. That shows the wisdom of our decision to set up a local government staff commission to consider these issues and to give guidance and advice.

669
My hon. Friend has been most helpful, tonight and in correspondence elsewhere, in highlighting the concerns of people on the island and suggesting ways of ensuring fair treatment for all staff. That is certainly what we want; we want no local government staff to feel that they have been discriminated against in the process. We have been drawing up new guidance to the staff commission, in consultation with the local authority associations, to ensure that it is fully aware off all these issues—especially the "new/continuing authority" questions. We shall give this new guidance to the staff commission shortly. I believe that as a result of our guidance and of the existence and work of the staff commission no local government employee on the island need feel subjected to any prejudice.
On all the issues of importance we shall ensure that for all practical purposes the arrangements for moving forward to a new unitary authority mirror as far as possible those that would have been in place had it not been possible for a "continuing authority" to exist in law.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepts the recommendation of the local government commission after
670
May 1995, there will be a new unitary authority on the Isle of Wight with a new name. Fresh elections will have been held on new local boundaries. Local people will have elected councillors to the new authority to give the island a fresh start.
Local people, local councillors and my hon. Friend have all been working hard to ensure the best future for the Isle of Wight. We, too, want to ensure the best future for the island, and with good will and flexibility I am sure that we can achieve what we all want—that which is in the best interests of the people of the Isle of Wight.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought these matters to the attention of the House. I hope that I have been able to reassure him, and to confirm that I am more than willing to make sure that officials work on his request. In due course I look forward to discussing these matters with elected councillors from the island and with my hon. Friend. I believe that there is every possibility that we shall achieve what he and everyone on the island want: a new authority with a fresh start.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Birkenhead Precinct
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how the proceeds of selling the commissioners' holding in the Birkenhead precinct have been reinvested.

  Mr. Alison
  Proceeds from sales of commissioners' property are, generally speaking, applied towards the consolidation of the investment portfolio. Recent sale proceeds, including those from Grange precinct, have been used mainly to fund the remainder of the commissioners' development programme and to reduce borrowings.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Voting Procedures
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to change the House's voting procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no such plans.

  Parliamentary Television Feed
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on securing direct television feeds to hon. Members' offices from the Chamber.

  Mr. Newton
  Until recently the only Members authorised by the Broadcasting Committee to receive a clean television feed from the Chamber in their offices within the House were the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, at its meeting on 19 July, the Committee agreed that for the purposes of facilitating the management of the business of the House, the following additional Members' offices should be supplied with a clean television feed: 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; and the Whips Offices of the Government, the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. The installation of the necessary cabling and television sets was carried out during the summer recess.

  So far as individual hon. and right hon. Members are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will be aware from previous answers on this subject that the Committee has approved in principle the supply of a feed to all Members' offices, provided that the service is available to all parts of the Parliamentary estate simultaneously. The Committee has also accepted, however, that because of the complexity and cost of the cabling work involved in such an undertaking, further progress must await decisions on the broader question of the provision of a parliamentary data and video network to Members' offices. Proposals on this
  406
  subject, which are currently under consideration by the Information Committee, are not expected to come before the House until the beginning of 1994 at the earliest.

  Members' Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many employees of hon. Members are paid out of the office costs allowance; and how many hon. Members have given their employees a contract of employment.

  Mr. Newton
  At 30 September 1993, 1,656 employees of hon. Members were directly paid salaries which were charged to the employing Members' office costs allowance. A total of 617 hon. Members have given one or more of their employees a contract of employment.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many individuals currently in receipt of employee payments from the office costs allowance are married or otherwise related to current hon. Members.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have not yet given any of their staff a contract of employment; how many individual staff do not have contracts; what action he is taking to ensure contracts are provided; what sanction he has against hon. Members who refuse to issue contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Twenty-four Members have not lodged a copy of the contract of employment in respect of any of their staff who are classified as employees.

  Copies of contracts have not been sent to the Fees Office in respect of 264 employees of Members. The Fees Office continually monitors the position and periodically reminds hon. Members of their obligation to provide contracts.

  I am not aware of any Members who have refused to issue contracts and I have no plans to make a statement.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many parliamentary questions have been answered in the last 12 months with the statement that the required figures are not available.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not in a readily available form and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Inhumane Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many states have made representations to his Department with regard to the holding of a conference to review the inhumane weaspons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in touch with EC and NATO partners about the proposal to convene a review conference on the United Nations weaponry convention, but no states have so far made representations to us on this issue.
  407
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those states that have(a) signed and (b) ratified the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following states have ratified, accepted or acceded to additional protocol I to the Geneva conventions:

  Albaia

  Algeria

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Armenia

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Benin

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei Darussalam

  Bulgaria

  Burkina

  Burundi

  Byelorussia

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Central African Republc

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Comoros Islands

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czechoslovakia

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Ecuador

  E1 Salvador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Finland

  Gabon

  The Gambia

  Germany

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Greece

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  Guinea Bissau

  Guyana

  Holy See

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  People's Democratic Republic of Korea

  Kuwait

  Kyrgyzstan

  Laos

  Latvia

  Liberia

  Libya

  Liechtenstein

  Luxembourg

  Macedonia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  408

  Maldives

  Mali

  Malta

  MauritaniaMauritius

  Mexico

  MoldovaMozambique

  Namibia

  The Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Rwanda

  Samoa

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Solomon Islands

  Spain

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent and the Grenadine

  Suriname

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Tunisia

  Turkmenistan

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Vietnam

  Western Samoa

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  The following states have signed but not ratified additional protocol I:

  Egypt

  Honduras

  Iran

  Ireland

  Mongolia

  Morocco

  Nicaragua

  Pakistan

  Panama

  Philippines

  San Marino

  United Kingdom

  United States.

  The following states have ratified, accepted or acceded to additional protocol II:

  Albania

  Algeria

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Armenia

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  409

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Benin

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei Darussalam

  Bulgaria

  Burkina

  Burundi

  Byelorussia

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Central African Republic

  Chile

  China

  Comoros Islands

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Croatia

  Czechoslovakia

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  El Salvador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Finland

  France

  Gabon

  The Gambia

  Germany

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Greece

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  Guinea Bissau

  Guyana

  Holy See

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Republic of Korea

  Kuwait

  Kyrgyzstan

  Laos

  Latvia

  Liberia

  Libya

  Liechtenstein

  Luxembourg

  Macedonia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Maldives

  Mali

  Malta

  Mauritania

  Mauritius

  Moldova

  Namibia

  The Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Romania

  Russia

  Somoa

  Senegal

  410

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Solomon Islands

  Spain

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  Suriname

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Tunisia

  Turkmenistan

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Western Samoa

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Yugoslavia

  The following states have signed but not ratified additional protocol II:

  Egypt

  Honduras

  Iran

  Ireland

  Mongolia

  Morocco

  Nicaragua

  Pakistan

  Panama

  San Marino

  United Kingdom

  United States

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those states that have(a) signed and (b) ratified the inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following states have ratified, accepted or acceded to the convention:Australia, Austria, Benin, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, China, Cuba, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Japan, Latvia, Laos, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine and Yugoslavia.

  The following states have signed but not ratified the convention:
  Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Iceland, Ireland, Italy. Luxembourg, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sudan, Togo, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and Vietnam.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on how many states have made representations to the United Nations Secretary-General with regard to the holding of a conference to review the inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our information is that only France has made representations to the United Nations Secretary General to request the convening of a review conference on the United Nations weaponry convention.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects that the United Kingdom will ratify the 1981 inhumane weapons convention.
  411
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I told the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in my reply to his question on 22 October at column 371, we hope to reach a decision soon on ratification of the 1981 UN weaponry convention.

  High Commission, Nairobi
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the construction of the new British High Commission office in Nairobi, Kenya; and when this work is expected to be completed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The estimated outturn construction cost is £5.3 million and the High Commission is programmed to move into the new premises in summer 1995.

  European Movement
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the European Movement continues to receive funds from his Department.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave the European Movement a grant of £30,000 in 1992 to fund a series of regional conferences on the Maastricht treaty. The European Movement will receive a grant of £10,000 this year. No commitment has been given for future years.

  Gul Masih
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the case of Gul Masih, a Christian sentenced to death under the blasphemy laws in Pakistan; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There has been considerable parliamentary and public interest in this case. While an appeal is pending and the case is sub judice, we have not taken any formal action. We have however on several occasions made clear informally to the Pakistani authorities the strength of feeling this case has aroused in the United Kingdom. We will consider what action we should take when the appeal has been heard.

  Human Rights Week
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support he has given to Amnesty International's Human Rights Week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We take every opportunity to promote respect for human rights. We recognise Amnesty International's important role in identifying human rights abuses and bringing pressure to bear on governments which commit them. We welcome Amnesty International's efforts to highlight the obnoxious practices of political killings and disappearances.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have taken place in the procedures of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights since the Vienna declaration; and if he will make a statement.
  412
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been no changes because discussions on reform of the procedures of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights are still in progress. The Vienna declaration called for the work on reform to be completed, and a draft protocol amending the European Convention on Human Rights to be finalised, in time for the Council of Europe ministerial meeting in May 1994. The United Kingdom will contribute fully to this process.

  Chinese Regional Laws
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the texts of regional law in China are available to his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The texts of most Chinese regional laws are now published in Chinese and are freely available.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will support the United States resolution at the United Nations General Assembly calling for a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel mines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in touch with the United States about their draft resolution but we will not be able to take a final position on it until we see the final text.

  Israel Trade Boycott
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions with the Arab States on moves to rescind the secondary and tertiary aspects of the Arab trade boycott of Israel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the progress towards the relaxation of the secondary and tertiary boycotts. We hope that further progress can be made soon in light of recent developments in the peace process. We continue to urge Arab states to lift the boycott.

  European Union
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances and when the style European Community will be replaced by the style European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Communities, that is to say the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom, will remain in being after the Maastricht treaty enters into force. They are not replaced by the European Union. No decisions have yet been taken on where it may be appropriate to replace "European Communities" by "European Union" as a descriptive title.

  Fee-paying Schools
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department have(a) children in fee-paying schools for whom Her Majesty's Government meet the bill because the officials are posted abroad and (b) children in fee-paying schools for whom Her Majesty's Government meet the bill

  413
  after the officials have returned because their children remain in the school; and if he will detail the cost for the last 15 years for each of these two categories.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In the time available it has not been possible to retrieve all of the information requested. I shall write to the hon. Member in due course with the balance of the information.

  In academic year 1992–93:

  (a) 313 officials of the Diplomatic Service serving overseas had children in fee-paying schools in the United Kingdom, plus an unquantifiable number who had children educated locally at post. The cost was £3.9 million in the United Kingdom and £2 million overseas.

  (b) 182 diplomatic service officials serving in the United Kingdom had children in fee-paying schools. The cost was £3·93 million.

  The comparable figures for the three previous years, are as follows:

  1991–92

  (a) 340, £3·91 million, £1·78 million

  (b) 200, £3·75 million

  1990–91

  (a) 374, £3·88 million, £1·67 million

  (b) 223, £3·65 million

  1989–90

  (a) 390, £3·55 million, £1·57 million

  (b) 240, £3·54 million

  This breakdown does not exist for earlier years, in which the total cost for (a) boarding school allowance and (b) local education was:

  (a) Boarding school allowance (£ million)

  (b) Local education (£ million)

  1988–89

  7·08

  1·53

  1987–88

  7·03

  1·5

  1986–87

  6·81

  1·3

  1985–86

  6·44

  1·19

  1984–85

  6·24

  1·22

  1983–84

  5·94

  1

  The Overseas Development Administration has five officials serving overseas who have children in fee-paying schools in the United Kingdom. The cost in 1992–93 was £45,228·77. One official serving in the United Kingdom has children in a fee-paying school and the cost was £15,620·00. For earlier years the costs were:

  United Kingdom (£)

  Overseas (£)

  1991–92

  2,093

  63,170·81

  1990–91

  nil

  65,879·69

  1989–90

  38,694·67

  86,247·82

  We do not "meet the bill" for schools in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government make a contribution towards the basic fees, up to a ceiling which is based on the average fee of headmasters' conference schools.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement reached between Mr. Ekeus as special representative for the United Nations Security Council and the Iraqi Government on 22 July in regard to implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions in Iraq.
  414
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Security Council members, including the United Kingdom, have expressed support for Mr. Ekeus's actions. The Security Council, and UNSCOM, will continue to press for sustained Iraqi implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.

  Population Control, China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he expects the citizens of Hong Kong to be forced to comply with Chinese legislation implementing or specifying(a) the need to obtain permission to marry, (b) the one-child policy, (c) the legal obligation to have an intra-uterine device inserted in the woman after one child, (d) the obligation for one of the partners in a marriage to be sterilised after the birth of a second child and (e) the obligation to abort any subsequent pregnancy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No. The Sino-British joint declaration, a legally binding agreement registered at the United Nations, provides that Hong Kong's present rights and freedoms, including the freedom to marry and the right to raise a family freely, will be maintained. In general Chinese laws will not be applied to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if China is a signatory to any United Nations statement guaranteeing freedom to marry and the right to raise a family freely; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Yes. China has signed the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which is a legally binding document. We have consistently urged the Chinese authorities to sign other relevant conventions and covenants, including the international convention on civil and political rights (ICCPR) and the international covenant on economic and social rights (ICESR), and to improve their human rights performance generally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Bears
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many import permits have been allowed over the last three years for products derived from(a) Asiatic black bears, (b) any other bear listed under appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and (c) any bear listed under appendix 2 of CITES.

  Mr. Yeo
  No import permits have been issued in the last three years for products derived from the Asiatic black bear —Selenarctos thibetanus—or any other species of bear listed in appendix I of CITES. Seventy-four import permits have been issued for products derived from species of bears listed in appendix II of CITES.

  Living Space
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average domestic living space available for each individual in the United Kingdom; what are the comparable figures for other EC countries, for the latest year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures 10 years earlier.
  415
  Sir George Young
  Our most recent estimate, based on the 1991 census, the 1991 English, Scottish and Northern Ireland house condition surveys and the 1986 Welsh house condition survey, is that the average domestic living space available to each individual in the United Kingdom is 32 sq. m. Comparable figures for other EC countries and for 10 years earlier are not available.

  Landlords
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private sector landlords are approved landlords.

  Sir George Young
  None: my Department has no power to approve landlords.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call for a report from the National Rivers Authority as to how many staff are employed at its Northumbria office; what their functions are; what plans there are for reductions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. The questions raised by the hon. Member concern the internal management of the NRA, and are a matter for the board.

  PSA (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants, previously employed by the Property Services Agency, have now taken redundancy following the sale of PSA Noreast; and what was the cost of the redundancies.

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been eight redundancies to date as a result of the sale of PSA BM Noreast. The estimated cost of these redundancies is £212,000.

  A further seven members of staff employed by PSA BM Noreast, who had earlier agreed to leave on voluntary redundancy terms, have left since 1 October 1993 at an estimated cost of £378,000.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the environmental impact of wind-farms on beautiful landscapes; and if he will withdraw the subsidy for the generation of electricity by wind turbines situated on high ground.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's policy is to encourage the development of renewable energy wherever it has the prospect of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable. Planning policy guidance note 22 sets out the Government's planning policies on renewable energy in more detail and advises that local planning authorities must always weigh the desirability of exploiting a clean, renewable energy resource against the visual impact which wind turbines may have on the landscape. We believe it is better to leave it to the local planning authority to determine the suitability of different sites for wind turbines rather than to build site-related provision into the non-fossil fuel obligation arrangement.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice or guidance has been given to the Local Government Commission concerning the possible creation of new local authorities which straddle the commission's review areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  In drafting its final report to my right hon. Friend, in respect of a particular review, the Commission should make recommendations only in respect of the area specified by him in his direction to it.

  The procedure guidance issued to the Commission in July 1992 provides that:
  "where the Commission judges it necessary, at any stage of a review, to make recommendations concerning localities bordering on that area, it should make a formal request to the Secretary of State, with reasons, for a variation in the direction requiring the review to be conducted."

  Military Bases (Closures)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to local planning authorities on how to deal with the closure of large military bases in their areas; what plans he has to introduce a planning policy guidance not on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local planning authorities should take account of such bases in preparing their development plans, and consider producing site development briefs where appropriate. Circular 18/84 advises on the disposal of surplus Crown land.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by his Department to date in developing a national plan for waste.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have indicated the need for some form of national waste policy summary when the Environment Agency has been established, to replace the waste disposal plans currently drawn up by waste regulation authorities. We are considering the timing and content of such a policy summary.

  Ordnance Survey
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial profit or loss to the Ordnance Survey will arise from its three-year contract with Her Majesty's Land Registry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is commercial-in-confidence. However, the pricing of the bid complied with Her Majesty's Treasury and Cabinet Office guidance and was compiled on a fully commercial basis.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what permission has been given to interested foreign organisations and individuals to submit their response to the second consultation on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant authorisations in their native language, and on what dates; in what foreign languages submissions have been received; what arrangements have been made to
  417
  translate these submissions; how long this has taken; at what cost; and if he will summarise the foreign submissions in regard to whether they expressed support or opposition to Thorp.

  Mr. Yeo
  Foreign organisations or individuals have not sought permission to submit responses in their native language. Responses to the consultation are being counted and assessed. Information about the responses will be made available once they have all been considered.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each local authority in south-east Northumberland the number of persons accepted as homeless in each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  For the information for the years 1979 to 1991 inclusive, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 17 June 1992 at columns 569–70

  The information for 1992 for local authorities in south-east Northumberland is as follows:

  Households accepted as homeless in 19921

  Number

  Blyth Valley

  330

  Castle Morpeth

  224

  Wansbeck

  317

  1 Excluding intentionally homeless households.

  2 Castle Morpeth only reported figures for two quarters.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many current city challenge authorities have developed exit strategies.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22 July 1993 at column 347.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals are currently outstanding regarding the council tax.

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 30 September 1993, 580,721 proposals for the alteration of the valuation list were outstanding in England.

  Housing, Lancashire
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions have been made to assist authorities with clearance procedures for new housebuilding; and if he will list what help has been given to each local authority in Lancashire.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 22 October 1993]I shall write to the hon. Member following my meeting with him and other members of the Bishop of Burnley's delegation on Monday 25 October to discuss the Lancashire housing inquiry panel's recent report on housing in Lancashire.

  Sour Gas
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the power stations in England and Wales which have been authorised to use sour gas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Section 14(2) of the Energy Act 1976 requires that notice be given to me of any proposals to enter into contractual or other arrangements to obtain a supply of gas as fuel for a power station. I am empowered under section 14(3) to direct that any proposal of which I am notified should not be carried out, or should be carried out in accordance with specified conditions.

  There is no requirement for the notice to distinguish between sour and other gas. However, the following proposals have been notified under section 14(2) which may involve sour gas. I have not given any directions under section 14(3) preventing or modifying them.

  Peterhead (North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board)—1,550 Mw

  Kelt, Ryedale (Kelt (UK) Limited)—50 Mw

  Connah's Quay, Clwyd (PowerGen)—1,350 Mw

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position regarding humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 October 1993, c. 103 ]The total of Britain's financial commitments for humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia is £141 million, not £152 million as stated.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the judicial responsibilities currently performed by the holders of the office of justices' clerk.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Justices' clerks, or upon delegation, any court clerks, have certain quasi-judicial functions in relation to family cases. In criminal cases, some essentially administrative functions formerly exercised by a single justice have been delegated to justices' clerks or on their delegation to court clerks.

  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" on the independence of justices' clerks when advising magistrates in relation to their judicial duties otherwise than in individual cases;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effects of the White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" on the independence of justices' clerks in the performance by them of their judicial responsibilities.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I have considered carefully the implications of the White Paper,
  419
  studied the views put forward by various bodies, and taken note of the effects of the reforms in those areas where the changes have already been introduced. We are satisfied that the changes will not interfere with judicial independence and we shall emphasis this by including in legislation a provision which makes clear that justices' clerks and other court staff are not liable to direction in respect of the legal advice given to magistrates in court.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the legal position of Alzheimer's disease sufferers who are unable to grant power of attorney to relatives or who have no close relatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Law Commission is reviewing the law and procedures relating to decision-making on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults.

  Probate Registry
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Probate Registry, Cardiff-road, Llandaff, Cardiff, subsequent to the removal of the registry to the new county court complex.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to change in any way the status or operation of Llandaff district probate registry following its relocation at the new county court complex currently being built.

  Courts and Legal Services Act
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to bring into force section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is intended to bring section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 into effect at the end of 1994.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Whiskies
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people and/or jobs are involved directly or indirectly in(a) the whisky and (b) the whiskey industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  I regret the information is not available. The standard industrial classification does not separately identify the whisky or whiskey industries from other industries involved in spirit distilling and compounding.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage per capita consumption of(a) all alcoholic drinks and (b) whisky or whiskey has changed in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Sir John Cope
  The following figures relate to expenditure by domestic consumers and exclude business expenditure. Consumption per capita of all alcoholic drinks declined in real terms by 6 per cent. between 1979 and 1992. Figures relating to whisky and whiskey are unavailable for years prior to 1984. Consumption per 420
  capita for whisky and whiskey combined fell in real terms by 21 per cent. between 1984 and 1992. Separate figures for whisky and whiskey are unavailable.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the sale of whisky and whiskey in the United Kingdom at the last date for which figures are available expressed as a percentage of the figure for 1979.

  Sir John Cope
  Figures for sales of whisky and whiskey for years prior to 1984 are unavailble. Between 1984 and 1992 sales of whisky and whiskey combined rose from £1,561 million to £2,053 million at current market prices. This represents an increase of 32 per cent. Expressed in terms of constant 1990 prices, expenditure on whisky and whiskey combined fell by 19 per cent. from £2,105 million in 1984 to £1,704 million in 1992. These figures relate to expenditure by domestic consumers and exclude business expenditure.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average retail cost of a 70 cl bottle of Scotch whisky in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each of the other EC states and (c) the United States of America.

  Mr. Nelson
  In September 1993 the retail prices index sample gave an average price £10.94 for a 70 cl bottle of whisky in the United Kingdom. Scotch whisky is not specified in the RPI sample which is mainly made up of blended brands. The information for(b) and (c) can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total earnings from export of(a) whisky and (b) whiskey, distilled in Northern Ireland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  I regret that trade figures are not available for production from different parts of the United Kingdom, and whiskey distilled in Northern Ireland is therefore not separately distinguished. The value of exports of whisky from the United Kingdom as a whole in each year is as follows.

  £ million

  1979

  710

  1980

  748

  1981

  787

  1982

  875

  1983

  864

  1984

  937

  1985

  1,001

  1986

  1,075

  1987

  1,142

  1988

  1,298

  1989

  1,480

  1990

  1,727

  1991

  1,853

  1992

  1,981

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the actual and percentage change in the duty imposed on a 70 cl bottle of whisky since 1979.

  Sir John Cope
  The following is the information:

  Date of change

  Alcohol duty on 70 cl spirits (40 per cent. above)£

  Per cent. change from previous rate

  27 March 1980

  3·32

  13·7

  11 March 1981

  3·81

  14·6

  4·05

  6·4

  10 March 1982

  421

  Date of change

  Alcohol duty on 70 cl spirits (40 per cent·above)£

  Per cent· change from previous rate

  16 March 1983

  4·25

  5·0

  14 March 1984

  4·33

  1·9

  20 March 1985

  4·42

  1·9

  20 March 1990

  4·86

  10·0

  19 March 1991

  5·31

  9·3

  10 March 1992

  5·55

  4·5

  Total change in duty since 1979 is 90 per cent. as compared with 135 per cent. in the general RPI.

  Wine
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the volume of wines imported from(a) countries within the EC and (b) countries outside the EC at the last year for which figures are available, expressed as a percentage of the figure for 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  The available information on the physical volume of trade in wines, separately distinguishing countries which are now members of the European Community, is as follows:

  Volume in 1992 as percentage of volume in 1979

  EC members

  148

  Other countries

  225

  Alcohol Duties
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to basing the excise duty on wine, beers and spirits on alcohol content and not category of beverage; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  No Government have ever accepted that relative alcoholic strength should be the sole determining factor for setting duty rates. Unitary taxation would greatly limit my right hon. and learned Friend's room for manoeuvre on fiscal policy, by removing the flexibility to take account of other factors.

  Alcohol Contents
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the alcohol contents of(a) a single measure of whisky or whiskey and (b) a glass of wine as sold in public houses in England and Wales; and what is the excise duty imposed in each case.

  Sir John Cope
  Following is the information:

  Alcohol content (millilitres)

  Excise duty (pence)

  Spirits measure (1/6 gill at 40 per cent· abv)

  9·5

  18·8

  Glass of wine (12·5 cl at 11·5 per cent· abv)

  14·4

  16·5

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of contributions made to the Exchequer by companies involved in wheel clamping.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that information is not available. The classification of companies for direct and indirect taxation does not permit wheel clamping companies to be identified separately.

  VAT
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how his Department has calculated the effect on carbon dioxide emissions of the imposition of VAT on fuel; and what proportion of the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions will fall on(a) domestic fuel supplies and (b) industrial and other supplies.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury to the House of Commons Treasury and Civil Service Committee's inquiry into the March 1993 Budget—TCSC 4th Report, 1992–93 session, March 1993 Budget, Cmnd 5788.

  EC Contributions
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what provisions the United Kingdom is required to increase its gross national product percentage contribution to the EC; and by what date any necessary legislation is required to be passed.

  Sir John Cope
  The Edinburgh European Council agreed, as part of its conclusions on the Community's finances over the period to 1999, that the current ceiling of 1.2 per cent. of EC GNP on the Community's own resources should remain in force until 1994; and that the ceiling should then rise to 1.21 per cent. of EC GNP in 1995 and by gradual steps thereafter to 1.27 per cent. in 1999. In order to give effect to this agreement from 1 January 1995, it will be necessary to amend the Community's own resources decision—88/376/EEC, Euratom—and for the amended decision to be adopted by the member states. In the case of the United Kingdom, adoption would mean amending section 1(2) of the European Communities Act, 1972. The member states' actual contributions to the EC budget are determined in the annual budgetary procedure, within the ceiling in force.

  Income Tax
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue raised by(a) an increase of 1p on income tax across all bands of income tax and (b) the sums resulting from such an increase on each individual band of income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At 1994–95 levels of income and assuming statutory indexation of allowances and the basic rate limit with the lower rate band set at £3,000 as announced in the March 1993 Budget the full-year yields are as follows:
  423

  £ million1

  1p increase in the lower rate

  100

  1p increase in the basic rate

  1,800

  1p increase in the higher rate

  450

  1p increase in each rate

  2,350

  1 The figures include consequential effects on the yield from capital gains tax and the figure for the lower rate includes the effects of the change on advance corporation tax and on consequent liability to mainstream corporation tax.

  Taxation
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the sums of money actually collected by the Inland Revenue for the fiscal years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, in(a) capital gains tax, (b) inheritance tax, (c) corporation tax and (d) dividend withholding tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on tax receipts by head of tax can be found in table 1·2 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1993". There is no dividend withholding tax.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the sums of money reclaimed and paid to foreign trusts, persons and companies, from dividend withholding tax for the fiscal years(a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1990–91 and (d) 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The United Kingdom does not have a dividend withholding tax.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum of money owed to the Treasury as a result of personal and corporate bankruptcies and liquidations for each of the fiscal years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total sum of money owed to the Treasury as a result of personal and corporation bankruptcies and liquidations covering the fiscal years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 is as follows:

  (£ thousand)

  Year

  Inland Revenue

  Customs and Excise

  1988

  469,500

  173,800

  1989

  375,540

  151,800

  1990

  393,946

  190,300

  1991

  631,698

  514,200

  1992

  1,308,826

  751,700

  The figures for the Inland Revenue are for the accounts year which ends on 31 October each year and the figures for Customs and Excise are for the calendar year.

  Taxation
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department has taken to examine the tax position of unincorporated bodies receiving funds from bank accounts in offshore tax havens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An unincorporated body which is resident in this country is liable to United Kingdom tax on its 424
  worldwide income, on which it makes returns. The Inland Revenue subjects a proportion of total returns to detailed inquiry, which may involve the examination of foreign source income.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the number of United Kingdom persons, individual and corporate, who have set up trusts and companies offshore since 1980; and if he will place all such estimates in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases which have been investigated by the Inland Revenue and are currently being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and by the Metropolitan police and regional fraud squads, involve the use of offshore tax havens in the perpetration of the suspected fraud.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures are not available.

  Jet Engine Fuel
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to impose taxation upon jet engine fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  Decisions on changes in taxation are a matter for the Budget statement.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list, by date, each study into tax avoidance via offshore ownership made by the Inland Revenue or the Treasury, or on behalf of his Department, since 1984; and if he will place all such studies and reports in the Library;

  (2) what reports have been compiled by the Treasury and the Board of the Inland Revenue into tax avoidance and evasion via offshore trusts and companies since 1985; and if he will place those reports in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Whilst developments in this area are kept under constant review, no reports or studies have been produced for publication.

  Foreign Landowners
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's estimate of the acreage of land in England and Wales owned by foreign companies and trusts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No figures are held on which such an estimate could be based.

  Composting Plants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to offer tax incentives to encourage investment in commercial composting and anaerobic digestion plants.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The hon. Member would not expect me to make a statement on taxation matters at this time of year.

  Prime Ministers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to change the severance payments for Prime Ministers under the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Section 4 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 excludes Prime Ministers from receiving a severance payment under the Act.

  There are no proposals to change this arrangement.

  Foreign Trusts
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of persons, trusts or corporations resident in the United Kingdom, who are the beneficiaries of trusts set up abroad; and if he will place in the Library all reports by his Department into the above matter since 1983.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that information on which to base the estimate requested in the first part of the question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. No reports have been published on matters concerning the second part of the question.

  Offshore Sterling Deposits
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average level of sterling deposits, governmental and cash, held in(a) Switzerland, (b) Luxembourg, (c) Liechtenstein, (d) Monaco, (e) Jersey, (f) Guernsey, (g) the Isle of Man, (h) Bermuda, (i) Bahamas, (j) the British Virgin Islands and (k) the Cayman Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The most recent published figures for sterling deposits in Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands are as follows:

  £ billion

  Jersey

  21·9

  Guernsey

  9·2

  Isle of Man

  8·0

  British Virgin Islands

  nil

  Cayman Islands

  3·1

  Figures for Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Bermuda and the Bahamas are not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the volume of cash transferred to tax havens abroad from the United Kingdom which appears to be associated with fraud, for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Reliable estimates cannot be made.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has for capital remittances made for profits and gains in the United Kingdom, to companies and trusts in Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Bermuda, Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco and Switzerland, for each of the fiscal years since 1985.
  426
  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

  Jet Engine Fuel
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to impose taxation upon jet engine fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  Decisions on changes in taxation are a matter for the Budget statement.

  National Savings
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of national savings.

  Mr. Nelson
  I meet the Director of Savings regularly. National Savings continues to play an important role in the Government's funding programme, and in providing opportunities for the public to invest in savings products.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, for each privatised utility, he will publish information, for the latest year available, in respect of(a) total Government holding, expressed as a percentage of the utilities' share, and (b) the current value of the Government holding.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 22 October 1993]: The table shows the ordinary shares held by the Government in the privatised utility companies as a percentage of issued share capital and by market valuation.

  Government shareholdings in privatised utility companies

  Company

  Shareholding as a proportion Per cent

  Value of shareholding (£ million)

  British Gas

  0·0

  0·2

  BT

  1·1

  304·9

  Anglian Water

  0·9

  14·4

  Northumbrian Water

  0·4

  1·8

  North West Water

  0·8

  15·3

  Severn Trent

  1·0

  20·3

  Southern Water

  0·7

  7·4

  South West Water

  0·1

  0·7

  Thames Water

  0·9

  20·0

  Welsh Water

  0·7

  6·6

  Wessex Water

  0·5

  4·1

  Yorkshire Water

  0·8

  8·7

  Eastern Electricity

  1·7

  26·9

  East Midlands Electricity

  1·1

  14·6

  London Electricity

  1·1

  14·9

  Manweb

  1·8

  14·1

  Midlands Electricity

  1·4

  18·5

  Northern Electric

  1·7

  13·1

  Norweb

  1·6

  17·7

  Seeboard

  2·0

  17·0

  Southern Electric

  1·2

  20·4

  South Wales Electricity

  1·4

  9·2

  South Western Electricity

  1·9

  14·2

  Yorkshire Electricity

  1·3

  16·4

  National Power

  39·3

  2,063·9

  PowerGen

  40·7

  1,430·6

  Scottish Hydro-Electric

  3·4

  53·4

  Scottish Power

  3·6

  118·3

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  3·8

  20·0

  Note: Values of shareholdings calculated at close, 19 October.

  Low Incomes
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 October,Official Report, column 14, how many of the 23·2 million persons who have incomes of less than£100 per week are (a) students, (b) persons between 18 and 65 years of age, (c) pensioners and (d) males between 18 years and 65 years; and what is his estimate of the loss in revenue if none of these persons paid income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 22 October 1993]: of the estimated 23·2 million people who have incomes below £100 per week in 1993–94 about 1·2 million are aged 16 or 17, 15·7 million are aged between 18 and 65, of whom 5·2 million are males, and 6·3 million are aged 65 or over.

  The loss in revenue if none of these people paid income tax would be about £400 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Prime Minister 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.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  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.

  Cabinet Committees
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next proposes to issue the list of ministerial committees of the Cabinet.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  An updated list of the ministerial committees of the Cabinet, with their terms of reference and membership, will be published shortly.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has had with the sponsors of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and representatives of the all-party disablement group in the House about the Government's response to the Bill and their alternative proposals since the Prime Minister's meeting with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and supporters of his Bill on 23 February; what was the date and duration of each meeting; and if he will publish the papers tabled for discussion at the meetings.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been two meetings, on 25 March and 17 May, each lasting about an hour. No papers were tabled at either meeting.

  Child Migrant Scheme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider moving total responsibility for funding the Child Migrant Trust from the Department of Health in such a way as to ensure that the various Departments with present or previous responsibility for the child migrant scheme contribute towards to the cost of the trust's work.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for child welfare transferred in 1971 from the Home Office to the Department of Health and the territorial Departments. We can see no advantage in changing the Government's responsibilities for funding this kind of activity in the way suggested.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 20 October 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The expenditure by the Office of my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, on official hospitality in the financial year 1992–93 was £30,023. This is a reduction of £10,953 or 27 per cent. compared with 1991–92.

TRANSPORT

  Speed Control
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 175, when he now expects the village speed control working group to publish its final report and recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Monitoring results from the individual trial sites are all expected to be received before the end of the year, and analysis is under way. A final report will now be made in spring 1994. In advance of the report, valuable lessons are already being learnt as the trials progress. The messages in the report will be disseminated widely to local highway authorities and other groups who have an interest in this area. To follow on from the village speed working group—VISP—I am planning a further series of trials of traffic calming measures for villages on trunk roads next year, starting with Thorney in Cambridgeshire.

  Leasing Funds
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria were used in the decision to allocate £150 million of leasing funds to British Rail; and what were the reasons that the money was allocated to Network SouthEast.

  Mr. Freeman
  The purpose of the £150 million leasing concession was to encourage the development of a leasing market for passenger trains. The decision to lease trains for Network SouthEast was made by British Rail on the ground that the business case for doing so was superior to that for trains for the west coast main line.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has for any further financing or leasing deals for British Rail similar to that recently awarded to Network Southeast;
  429
  (2) if he will permit British Rail to seek private financing for the leasing of rolling stock for the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will support further leasing proposals for the west coast main line, or any other route, provided they meet the Treasury's criteria for classification as an operating lease and they are good value for money.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he will be taking, in conjunction with British Rail, to improve services on the west coast main line; and what plans he has for the modernisation of track and signalling on that route;

  (2) if he will guarantee the future of the west coast main line as a high-speed route between London, Warrington and Glasgow.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government fully appreciate the importance of modernising the west coast main line. British Rail has set aside funds for design work to renew the infrastructure. From April next year, following our reform of the railways, responsibility for infrastructure will pass to Railtrack. In the meantime, the Government have taken the initiative in appointing Hambros bank to devise proposals for a joint venture to renew the infrastructure on the west coast main line. This is a new departure in the private finance initiative for railways. Instead of waiting for the private sector to come forward with proposals which may or may not be acceptable to the Government, Hambros has been tasked to find a solution which meets the Government's guidelines and will be attractive to the private sector. Hambros will be reporting later in the autumn.

  Toll Roads
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will issue guidelines for the development of toll road proposals.

  Mr. Key
  Privately financed toll roads can be provided only in accordance with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, or by individual legislation. Guidelines on the Act were contained in a circular that was issued to local authorities by the Department of Transport and the Welsh Office in March 1992. Evaluation of a prospective concessionaire's proposals will be a matter for the highway authority, but under the 1991 Act, a statement must be published with a draft toll order, setting out the key points of a concession agreement.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that toll road proposals are subject to adequate consultations on and evaluation at all key stages.

  Mr. Key
  Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 the procedures for authorisation of a toll road are similar to those of the Highways Act 1980 that apply to publicly financed roads; there will therefore be a similar approach to public consultation and public inquiry. Any scheme which is taken forward by means of individual legislation would be subject to detailed scrutiny by Parliament.

  Birmingham North Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the results of the public consultation undertaken by Midland Expressway Ltd. in respect of the Birmingham north relief road.

  Mr. Key
  The results of the official public consultation exercise held in autumn 1991 are contained in the preferred route statement which was published on 3 March 1992, at the same time as the announcement of the signing of the concession agreement between the Secretary of State for Transport and Midland Expressway Ltd. The results of subsequent consultations with local authorities and other interested groups were included in the environmental statement which was published in June 1993.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he proposes with Staffordshire local authorities in respect of those parts of the concession relating to the Birmingham north relief road agreement which deal with non-tolling matters.

  Mr. Key
  As with all major highway schemes there has been and will continue to be regular consultation with all affected local authorities throughout the development of the scheme.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that the Birmingham north relief road would be available free of charge for traffic diverted to it.

  Mr. Key
  I have no such proposals. I see no possibility of road users being compelled to use the Birmingham northern relief road rather than the various alternative routes with which it will compete.

  Disposable Nappies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage parents to dispose hygienically of disposable nappies at lay-bys or motorway stops.

  Mr. Key
  My Department co-operates with the Tidy Britain Group in publicity to encourage the safe disposal of litter of all kinds.

  South Coast Road Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent over the last 10 years on maintenance and improvement of the A26 between Lewes and Newhaven, the A27 between Lewes and Polegate and the A259 between Newhaven and Seaford.

  Mr. Key
  Definitive figures for some elements of expenditure in the earlier part of the period in question cannot now be provided without substantial research of archived files. However, our records indicate that about £0.4 million was spent on maintenance and £0.3 million on improvement of this length of the A26. For the A27 trunk road between Lewes and Polegate, the figures are about £5.5 million for maintenance and £2.3 million for improvement. The A259 between Newhaven and Seaford is not a trunk road, and responsibility for it rests with East Sussex county council.

  Motorway Surfaces
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the results of studies into the effectiveness of porous asphalt for motorway surfaces.

  Mr. Key
  Compared with other road surfacings currently in use, porous asphalt offers lower traffic noise and less spray from vehicles in wet conditions. The material has not so far proved as durable as conventional surfacings, there is an increased maintenance requirement and at present its use on roads carrying large numbers of heavy lorries is not advised.

  Vehicle Safety
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances it is the policy of traffic examiners not to issue prohibition notices on vehicles with only one defect; and what is the rationale for this policy.

  Mr. Key
  The vehicle inspectorate (VI) is responsible for enforcing roadworthiness standards. Prohibitions are issued by VI examiners in accordance with a published categorisation of defects guide. There is no VI policy to waive a prohibition where only one defect has been found during an examination.

  National Travel Survey
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to include journeys of one mile or under within the national travel survey.

  Mr. Key
  Information on journeys of under one mile have been collected on national travel surveys since they began in 1965. Only a few tables in the 1989–91 report exclude such journeys.

  Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of heavy goods vehicles currently licensed in the 1·5 to 6 tonne range.

  Mr. Key
  For the purpose of vehicle excise duty (VED), a heavy goods vehicle is regarded as being a vehicle weighing more than 3·5 tonnes, VED rates for heavy goods vehicles are set in bands relating to the vehicle weight and axle configuration with the lowest band covering vehicles between 3·5 and 7·5 tonnes. At the time of the last vehicle census, in December 1992, there were 146,507 vehicles licensed in this band.

  A1, Northumberland
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to upgrade the A1 road in Northumberland to dual carriageway standard, giving the timetable for dualling each section, and the target date for completion of dualling the English section;

  (2) if he will make a statement on further schemes for dualling or improving overtaking opportunities on the A1 road north of Morpeth.

  Mr. Key
  Two sections of dual carriageway have been completed and opened to traffic at Marshall Meadows and Brownieside this year. Two schemes to complete the 432
  dualling of the Alnwick bypass are in preparation and a scheme to complete the continuous dualling between Newcastle and north of Alnwick is in the road programme.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a review of the road programme in August. Further progress on the upgrading of the A1 will depend on potential schemes meeting environmental, economic and safety objectives, the overall availability of resources, and the relative claims of potential schemes elsewhere in the county.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding has been allocated to date in upgrading the A1 in Northumberland; and if he will make a statement on the progress.

  Mr. Key
  Since 1970, in excess of £60 million at current prices has been spent on a comprehensive programme of upgrading the A1 in Northumberland. Currently there are three schemes in the programme valued at £25 million to complete the continuous dualling between Newcastle and north of Alnwick.

  In addition two sections of dual carriageway have been completed and opened to traffic at Marshall Meadows and Brownieside this year.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details and amounts of money paid by the DVLA to the vehicle inspectorate.

  Mr. Key
  In financial year 1992–93 DVLA paid £4,976 to the vehicle inspectorate, for inspections of vehicles involved in applications to transfer cherished vehicle registration marks.

  Overseas Staff and Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost for the current financial year of his Department having(a) premises and (b) personnel overseas; and what were the comparable figures for (a) 12, (b) 24, (c) 36 and (d) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not readily available in respect of personnel overseas before 1991–92 due to changes in the Department's accounting arrangements. The latest available figures are as follows:

  Costs arising from premises overseas

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  75,000

  1990–91

  73,000

  1991–92

  79,000

  1992–93

  84,000

  1993–94 outtum to September 1993

  47,000

  Costs arising from personnel overseas

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  421,700

  1992–93

  463,700

  1993–94 outtum to September 1993

  256,000

  In addition, some Department of Transport staff are on loan to the FCO to serve overseas, but the costs are borne by the FCO: others are seconded to overseas Governments, but the costs are covered by those Governments.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what forecast he has made of how many passenger operating companies will operate, under his proposals for the privatisation of British Rail, through Brixton, Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill, West Norwood, Tulse Hill and Gipsy Hill.

  Mr. Freeman
  Each of these stations will be served by one franchisee, except for Herne Hill and Tulse Hill which will be served by two.

  Lewes Link Lines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on maintenance and improvement over the last 10 years on the Lewes to London, Lewes to Seaford and Lewes to Eastbourne railway lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to decide priorities for expenditure on maintenance and improvements to the network. In addition to routine maintenance, in April 1991 re-signalling and track improvements were carried out around Eastbourne station at a cost of £2 million, and the station refurbished at a cost of £840,000. Other major projects on the Sussex coast line in the last 10 years have included the renovation of the preserved station buildings at Lewes at a cost of £245,000, which is nearing completion; the recently completed installation of a new electrical control room at Brighton at a cost of £342,000; and the relaying of track lost in a landslide at Glynde in April 1991 at a cost of £10,000.

  Bicycles (Carriage on Trains)
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the numbers of cycles carried by regional railways following the introduction of the £3 cycle fee.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. My Department does not hold detailed information of this nature.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mining Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how soon after the closure of the consultation period on the future of the mineworkers' pension scheme he will make a public statement as to that future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government will give very careful consideration to all responses received on the consultation paper on British Coal pensions after privatisation. It is too early to say how soon conclusions will be reached but Parliament will of course be informed as soon as possible of the Government's proposals.

  Nuclear Power Industry
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the timetable and terms of reference for the Government's review of policy for the future of the nuclear power industry; which Department will take the lead in this review; and what will be the role of the Scottish Office.
  434
  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Wednesday 20 October to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) at column 245.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the total amount of coal available for opencasting in Northumberland and Durham.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal has informed me that, as at March 1993, total reserves of coal estimated to remain unworked in approved opencast sites in Northumberland, Durham and Tyne and Wear were 16,696 million tonnes.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to require the nuclear installations inspectorate to publish full safety reports upon the Bradwell, Hinkley A, Dungeness A and Sizewell A power stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate's findings on the long-term safety reviews for Bradwell, Hinkley Point A, Berkeley, Hunterston A, Calder Hall, and Chapelcross have already been published. Reports of the principal findings of the LTSRs for the remaining Magnox power stations will be published in due course. The NII also intends to publish a report on the generic issues arising out of the LTSRs early in 1994.

  Coal Investment
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount of the £20 billion authorised investment by the Government in the coal industry since 1979 was invested in collieries which have since been closed or which are under threat of closure.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figure of £20 billion funding referred to represents deficiency and social grants to British Coal and payments under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme. The Government have authorised British Coal to spend nearly £8 billion on capital investment over the same period.

  Investment at individual collieries is normally a matter for British Coal although grant approval is needed where capital expenditure exceeds £50 million on a single project. In the period concerned the only projects which came into this category were Selby—capital expenditure to date is about £1,500 million—and Asfordby—capital expenditure to date is about £250 million.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount has been invested since 1979 in the collieries at(a) Taf Merthyr, (b) Deep Navigation, (c) Merthyr Vale, (d) Trelewis Drift and (e) Betws.

  Mr. Eggar
  Investment in individual collieries is a matter for British Coal.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants are working at the offices of his Department in Victoria street, London.
  435
  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has 2,215 civil servants working at our offices in Victoria street.

  Conversion Loans
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the continued appropriateness of his Department's covering of the exchange risks of companies that take European Coal and Steel Community conversion loans in foreign currencies rather than sterling.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have, in conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, thoroughly reviewed the exchange risk guarantee scheme, which is run jointly by my Department, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. This review has been based on the findings of independent evaluators who assessed the extent to which the scheme achieved its objectives at an acceptable cost. The evaluators found in the scheme no substantial benefits to set against its cost. The DTI, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office will therefore cease to offer exchange risk cover on any new global loans made by the Commission to United Kingdom financial intermediaries from today.

  Termination of the exchange risk guarantee scheme will not affect the availability of the ECSC conversion loans themselves, nor of the associated interest rate rebates related to job creation. The loans will continue to be available to United Kingdom firms, either in foreign currency at their own exchange risk or in sterling on similar terms. Existing global loans will continue to be eligible for cover to the extent that they are drawn down in foreign currencies.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of the independent evaluators' reports on the scheme.

  South Africa
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the EC code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa.

  Mr. Needham
  The EC Foreign Affairs Council announced on 4 October that the requirement for companies to report under the code has been discontinued. EC heads of mission will, however, be required to report annually on developments in the area of labour conditions with particular attention to equality of opportunity.

  British Coal (Redundancies)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to extend the present enhanced redundancy arrangements for British Coal employees beyond 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 October 1993:] I announced on 20 October that the Government had informed British Coal that they were prepared to extend its funding for the current redundancy terms for miners until 30 April 1994.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to establish an Anglo-Irish bilateral agreement with the Irish Republic for the transmission of information subsequent to a nuclear accident as proposed by European Commission opinion of 30 April 1992 on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities No. L138, 36–37, 21 May 1992.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  In addition to existing nuclear incident notification arrangements with the Irish authorities, a more formal bilateral agreement is being explored at regular meetings of United Kingdom and Irish officials.

EDUCATION

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from the Central Council of Physical Recreation on the impact of education reforms on local education authority outdoor education centres.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are now being educated in grant-maintained schools; what is the number of grant-maintained schools in England and Wales; what is the percentage of secondary schools in England and Wales that are grant-maintained; and how many applications for grant-maintained status are outstanding and being considered by his Department.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Grant-maintained schools in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The figures in this answer relate to England only.

  About 480,000 pupils are now being educated in 693 self-governing (GM) schools. Fourteen per cent. of secondary schools are now self-governing. A further 61 schools have been approved for self-governing status but are not yet operating.

  One hundred and thirty-six applications for self-governing status are under consideration in the Department, and proposals are awaited from a further 31 schools who have voted yes to self-governing status.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is(a) the total number of schools, (b) the number of county schools, (c) the number of voluntary-aided schools, (d) the number of grant-maintained schools which were formerly county schools and (e) the number of grant-maintained schools which were formerly voluntary-aided schools within the (i) primary and (ii) secondary sectors in each local education authority area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 21 October 1993]: The latest information on the status of maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England is shown in the table.
  437

  Maintained schools in each local education authority in England October 1993

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Self-governing

  Self-governing

  Local education authority

  All schools1

  County schools

  Voluntary aided schools

  Formerly County

  Formerly Voluntary aided

  All schools1

  County schools

  Voluntary aided schools

  Formerly County

  Formerly Voluntary aided

  Corporation of London

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  41

  20

  21

  0

  0

  12

  5

  5

  0

  2

  Greenwich

  79

  62

  17

  0

  0

  15

  10

  4

  0

  0

  Hackney

  70

  54

  16

  0

  0

  10

  6

  4

  0

  0

  Hammersmith

  39

  25

  14

  0

  0

  10

  4

  5

  0

  1

  Islington

  57

  41

  16

  0

  0

  9

  6

  3

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27

  12

  15

  0

  0

  5

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Lambeth

  77

  55

  21

  0

  1

  10

  4

  0

  1

  4

  Lewisham

  72

  50

  21

  1

  0

  14

  8

  4

  0

  0

  Southwark

  76

  52

  23

  0

  1

  14

  7

  3

  1

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  74

  53

  21

  0

  0

  15

  9

  3

  0

  1

  Wandsworth

  72

  51

  19

  2

  0

  11

  4

  1

  4

  2

  Westminster

  42

  15

  27

  0

  0

  8

  3

  4

  0

  0

  Barking

  55

  49

  6

  0

  0

  8

  7

  1

  0

  0

  Barnet

  89

  58

  29

  2

  0

  21

  10

  4

  4

  3

  Bexley

  65

  51

  10

  2

  0

  17

  12

  1

  1

  3

  Brent

  65

  45

  19

  1

  0

  14

  6

  0

  5

  1

  Bromley

  78

  61

  10

  1

  1

  17

  6

  0

  9

  2

  Croydon

  98

  80

  13

  0

  0

  22

  13

  5

  2

  2

  Ealing

  92

  78

  12

  2

  0

  13

  6

  2

  5

  0

  Enfield

  70

  52

  18

  0

  0

  17

  9

  3

  2

  2

  Haringey

  77

  56

  20

  0

  0

  9

  7

  2

  0

  0

  Harrow

  54

  46

  8

  0

  0

  11

  8

  2

  0

  1

  Havering

  74

  64

  9

  0

  0

  20

  12

  4

  2

  2

  Hillingdon

  74

  54

  10

  7

  2

  17

  5

  1

  10

  1

  Hounslow

  63

  54

  9

  0

  0

  14

  9

  1

  0

  2

  Kingston upon Thames

  36

  21

  14

  0

  0

  10

  6

  0

  1

  1

  Merton

  49

  39

  10

  0

  0

  12

  7

  3

  0

  0

  Newham

  67

  56

  9

  0

  0

  15

  11

  3

  1

  0

  Redbridge

  56

  47

  9

  0

  0

  14

  11

  1

  1

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  39

  24

  15

  0

  0

  8

  7

  1

  0

  0

  Sutton

  43

  34

  8

  0

  1

  14

  6

  0

  5

  3

  Waltham Forest

  61

  51

  8

  0

  0

  18

  15

  1

  2

  0

  Birmingham

  336

  251

  68

  0

  2

  84

  56

  10

  6

  6

  Coventry

  111

  81

  25

  0

  0

  19

  15

  3

  0

  0

  Dudley

  83

  64

  11

  1

  0

  23

  14

  2

  5

  1

  Sandwell

  112

  94

  13

  0

  0

  21

  18

  1

  1

  0

  Solihull

  70

  46

  19

  1

  0

  14

  12

  2

  0

  0

  Walsall

  106

  83

  13

  0

  0

  21

  13

  2

  3

  3

  Wolverhampton

  101

  71

  14

  0

  0

  20

  15

  3

  2

  0

  Knowsley

  68

  32

  35

  0

  0

  11

  7

  3

  0

  1

  Liverpool

  198

  105

  84

  0

  0

  37

  17

  18

  0

  2

  St. Helens

  73

  31

  33

  0

  0

  13

  8

  4

  0

  0

  Sefton

  94

  43

  45

  0

  0

  23

  16

  5

  0

  0

  Wirral

  106

  74

  27

  0

  0

  23

  18

  3

  2

  0

  Bolton

  105

  55

  38

  1

  0

  18

  11

  3

  1

  1

  Bury

  71

  34

  24

  0

  0

  15

  11

  4

  0

  0

  Manchester

  175

  103

  54

  0

  0

  31

  19

  11

  0

  0

  Oldham

  104

  62

  34

  0

  0

  16

  12

  4

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  76

  40

  22

  2

  0

  14

  10

  3

  1

  0

  Salford

  88

  44

  29

  0

  0

  21

  14

  6

  0

  0

  Stockport

  110

  81

  20

  0

  0

  18

  14

  3

  0

  0

  Tameside

  82

  50

  22

  0

  0

  20

  14

  3

  3

  0

  Trafford

  78

  54

  23

  0

  0

  16

  11

  1

  3

  0

  Wigan

  125

  38

  74

  0

  0

  23

  14

  6

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  96

  73

  15

  0

  0

  15

  13

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  128

  106

  17

  0

  0

  34

  32

  2

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  115

  96

  16

  0

  0

  19

  16

  1

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  165

  141

  19

  0

  1

  32

  30

  0

  0

  2

  Bradford

  167

  117

  32

  1

  0

  88

  72

  8

  5

  1

  Calderdale

  92

  61

  22

  1

  0

  16

  11

  1

  1

  1

  Kirklees

  160

  104

  23

  0

  0

  38

  31

  1

  2

  0

  Leeds

  249

  178

  49

  0

  1

  47

  38

  8

  0

  1

  Wakefield

  130

  102

  17

  0

  0

  39

  32

  3

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  82

  62

  19

  0

  0

  13

  11

  2

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  82

  59

  23

  0

  0

  22

  19

  3

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  61

  47

  14

  0

  0

  27

  26

  1

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  59

  40

  12

  0

  0

  11

  9

  2

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  106

  87

  18

  0

  0

  17

  14

  3

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  368

  234

  42

  0

  0

  61

  50

  5

  2

  0

  438 439

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Self-governing

  Self-governing

  Local education authority

  All schools1

  County schools

  Voluntary aided schools

  Formerly County

  Formerly Voluntary aided

  All schools1

  County schools

  Voluntary aided schools

  Formerly County

  Formerly Voluntary aided

  Bedfordshire

  218

  168

  28

  1

  2

  72

  54

  6

  8

  0

  Berkshire

  275

  172

  42

  4

  1

  59

  39

  6

  9

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  290

  203

  33

  6

  0

  45

  29

  2

  7

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  267

  182

  30

  6

  0

  46

  26

  1

  13

  2

  Cheshire

  455

  291

  106

  1

  0

  72

  56

  10

  3

  0

  Cleveland

  203

  148

  47

  0

  0

  53

  40

  11

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  249

  199

  41

  0

  0

  31

  31

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  311

  158

  81

  3

  2

  44

  27

  3

  5

  2

  Derbyshire

  451

  309

  54

  5

  1

  61

  39

  5

  11

  0

  Devon

  443

  292

  75

  0

  0

  65

  55

  4

  4

  1

  Dorset

  201

  97

  59

  0

  1

  56

  31

  5

  8

  1

  Durham

  298

  223

  52

  0

  0

  44

  39

  5

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  221

  130

  42

  0

  0

  38

  34

  3

  0

  0

  Essex

  582

  401

  83

  20

  7

  108

  46

  7

  48

  2

  Gloucestershire

  264

  140

  49

  3

  1

  43

  19

  1

  16

  2

  Hampshire

  584

  430

  57

  6

  3

  109

  86

  6

  12

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  288

  140

  64

  0

  0

  81

  58

  5

  1

  4

  Hertfordshire

  433

  308

  85

  1

  4

  94

  62

  11

  11

  5

  Humberside

  354

  259

  29

  1

  0

  64

  55

  5

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  46

  25

  9

  0

  0

  21

  17

  2

  0

  0

  Kent

  578

  361

  77

  5

  4

  151

  78

  8

  39

  8

  Lancashire

  605

  242

  300

  0

  1

  111

  69

  20

  2

  4

  Leicestershire

  335

  210

  42

  0

  0

  83

  69

  4

  5

  0

  Lincolnshire

  299

  159

  37

  9

  0

  67

  35

  3

  12

  2

  Norfolk

  398

  256

  43

  8

  1

  54

  38

  2

  10

  0

  North Yorkshire

  394

  201

  58

  0

  0

  61

  49

  8

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  274

  168

  35

  7

  0

  66

  46

  7

  12

  0

  Northumberland

  143

  99

  34

  0

  0

  62

  52

  4

  1

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  426

  339

  51

  0

  0

  85

  68

  10

  3

  0

  Oxfordshire

  241

  98

  51

  0

  1

  44

  37

  3

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  215

  106

  30

  0

  0

  41

  30

  2

  4

  1

  Somerset

  229

  101

  38

  1

  0

  40

  31

  1

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  415

  251

  74

  0

  0

  88

  69

  8

  3

  1

  Suffolk

  255

  153

  28

  0

  0

  77

  68

  4

  0

  0

  Surrey

  376

  243

  88

  6

  0

  58

  37

  6

  9

  3

  Warwickshire

  244

  132

  40

  0

  0

  39

  23

  6

  8

  0

  West Sussex

  246

  154

  44

  0

  0

  44

  31

  9

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  297

  131

  61

  3

  0

  49

  31

  2

  4

  1

  ENGLAND

  18,971

  12,232

  3,740

  121

  39

  3,831

  2,688

  418

  361

  97

  1 Includes county, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled, special agreement and self-governing (GM) schools.

  National Curriculum
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will give a breakdown of the membership of each of the committees which have been established to advise his Department about the national curriculum and associated matters; and if he will indicate in each case those representatives which have been appointed to represent the primary school sector;

  (2) if he will make a statement giving details of his policy in connection with the level of representation of (a) the primary school sector and (b) the secondary school sector upon those committees which provide advice to his Department about the national curriculum and associated matters.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, under the chairmanship of Sir Ron Dearing, has the main responsibility for advising my right hon. Friend on the national curriculum and associated matters.

  My right hon. Friend announced the authority's membership on 14 September. All 14 members have been appointed on the basis of their individual expertise and experience rather than as representatives. They include a
  440
  teacher and a headteacher from the primary school sector, a college principal with wide experience of primary education, the headmaster of a seven to 18 school, three secondary heads and the headteacher of a special school.

  Older Adult Learners
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to place specific obligations upon the further education funding councils, further education colleges and local authorities concerning provision for older adult learners.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the further education funding councils and local education authorities are between them responsible for securing the provision of all kinds of further education for adults. The educational opportunities secured by the new structure of duties are available to all adult learners, including older adults, and earlier this year the Department for Education was pleased to sponsor a conference on older adults as part of Adult Learners' Week.

  Primary Schools
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that the primary school sector is fully and adequately represented on all committees established to advise his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The main criterion for choosing the members of advisory bodies is the experience and expertise which they can contribute. When it is appropriate to do so my right hon. Friend will ensure that an advisory body includes members who have experience of primary education.

  Opting Out
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if his Department will fund the organisation, Parents Opposed to Opting-Out; and if he will make a statement.
  442
  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received an approach from Parents Opposed to Opting-Out, and will be responding shortly.

  Grant-maintained Schools Centre
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff are employed at the grant-maintained schools centre; and what plans he has to extend the size or role of the centre.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are currently 29 staff employed by the grant-maintained schools centre. The centre is a company limited by guarantee, which receives grant from the Department for certain specified purposes. The overall size of the centre is a matter for its directors. My right hon. Friend announced on 16 March at column 143 that additional grant would be made available to the centre to support the dissemination of factual information about grant-maintained status. For this purpose, regional advice centres are planned for Bolton, Kirklees, Birmingham and London, which will be grant-aided by the Department.

EDUCATION

  Social Science and Arts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students embarked on a higher education social science or arts course in 1992; and how many have done so in the current year.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the academic year 1992–93 there were 56,000 students commencing post-graduate arts courses and 13,000 social science courses in England. A further 244,000 embarked on undergraduate courses, of these 197,000 were studying an arts subject and 47,000 social science. Comparable figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the sum of money that each local authority spent on special educational needs in 1991–92 in the further education sector.

  Unit cost per pupil 1992–93 prices

  1978–79

  1991–92

  Nursery and Primary £

  Secondary £

  Nursery and Primary £

  Secondary £

  ILEA

  1,678

  2,280

  —

  —

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  2,609

  0

  Camden

  —

  —

  1,943

  2,432

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  1,830

  2,296

  Hackney

  —

  —

  2,176

  2,799

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  2,047

  2,739

  Islington

  —

  —

  2,328

  2,938

  Kensington

  —

  —

  2,287

  3,200

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  2,083

  2,978

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  1,717

  2,376

  Southwark

  —

  —

  1,828

  2,460

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  2,253

  2,946

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  2,212

  3,275

  Westminster

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  Barking

  1,175

  1,754

  1,550

  2,254

  Barnet

  1,180

  1,748

  1,674

  2,326

  Bexley

  1,018

  1,552

  1,371

  2,058

  Brent

  1,424

  1,919

  1,670

  2,490

  Bromley

  1,085

  1,659

  1,443

  2,442

  Croydon

  1,122

  1,639

  1,593

  2,373

  Ealing

  1,371

  1,818

  1,754

  2,836

  Enfield

  985

  1,385

  1,636

  2,321

  Haringey

  1,390

  1,793

  1,927

  2,650

  Harrow

  1,387

  1,863

  1,661

  2,373

  Havering

  1,116

  1,636

  1,396

  2,255

  Hillingdon

  1,127

  1,692

  1,661

  2,625

  Hounslow

  1,166

  1,653

  1,567

  2,161

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,136

  1,575

  1,543

  2,473

  Merton

  1,239

  1,564

  1,723

  2,622

  Newham

  1,393

  1,759

  1,671

  2,470

  Redbridge

  1,049

  1,656

  1,489

  2,308

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,169

  1,591

  1,738

  2,114

  Sutton

  1,040

  1,510

  1,437

  2,161

  Waltham Forest

  1,192

  1,894

  1,625

  2,622

  Birmingham

  1,007

  1,524

  1,370

  2,151

  Coventry

  1,068

  1,496

  1,300

  2,116

  Dudley

  881

  1,351

  1,411

  2,126

  Sandwell

  1,024

  1,533

  1,540

  2,277

  Solihull

  957

  1,435

  1,352

  2,126

  Walsall

  1,021

  1,485

  1,400

  2,108

  Wolverhampton

  1,099

  1,564

  1,554

  2,354

  Knowsley

  1,018

  1,600

  1,432

  2,296

  Liverpool

  1,164

  1,673

  1,386

  2,356

  St. Helens

  934

  1,499

  1,341

  2,104

  Sefton

  965

  1,421

  1,313

  2,017

  Wirral

  951

  1,440

  1,325

  2,113

  Bolton

  929

  1,415

  1,380

  2,132

  Bury

  973

  1,396

  1,302

  1,900

  444
  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Spending Statistics
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent per(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupil in each of the local authorities in England and, on average, in England as a whole in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79 at constant prices.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for expenditure on nursery and primary pupils are not collected separately. Spending per pupil by each English LEA and on average in nursery and primary schools combined and in secondary schools in 1978–79 and 1991–92 at 1992–93 prices is as shown in the table.
  445

  1978–79

  1991–92

  Nursery and Primary £

  Secondary £

  Nursery and Primary £

  Secondary £

  Manchester

  1,250

  1,846

  1,421

  2,285

  Oldham

  948

  1,393

  1,582

  2,261

  Rochdale

  1,057

  1,591

  1,310

  2,134

  Salford

  982

  1,505

  1,299

  2,192

  Stockport

  926

  1,398

  1,319

  2,135

  Tameside

  1,001

  1,466

  1,419

  2,100

  Trafford

  1,038

  1,396

  1,281

  2,107

  Wigan

  954

  1,485

  1,257

  2,288

  Barnsley

  1,082

  1,519

  1,374

  2,043

  Doncaster

  1,275

  1,382

  1,323

  1,997

  Rotherham

  1,001

  1,468

  1,465

  2,151

  Sheffield

  1,136

  1,589

  1,476

  2,181

  Bradford

  1,175

  1,387

  1,652

  1,796

  Calderdale

  1,043

  1,502

  1,570

  2,010

  Kirklees

  965

  1,343

  1,423

  2,056

  Leeds

  1,166

  1,225

  1,642

  1,979

  Wakefield

  1,052

  1,371

  1,494

  2,113

  Gateshead

  1,102

  1,496

  1,562

  2,117

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,326

  1,762

  1,646

  2,066

  North Tyneside

  1,130

  1,519

  1,402

  2,075

  South Tyneside

  1,253

  1,569

  1,435

  2,041

  Sunderland

  1,063

  1,522

  1,427

  2,047

  Isles of Scilly

  1,499

  3,133

  1,849

  4,161

  Avon

  1,068

  1,513

  1,435

  2,048

  Bedfordshire

  1,217

  1,541

  1,511

  2,036

  Berkshire

  1,021

  1,488

  1,506

  2,156

  Buckinghamshire

  1,018

  1,608

  1,358

  2,095

  Cambridgeshire

  1,001

  1,508

  1,417

  2,023

  Cheshire

  1,013

  1,527

  1,364

  2,106

  Cleveland

  1,060

  1,471

  1,271

  2,111

  Cornwall

  940

  1,496

  1,403

  1,957

  Cumbria

  1,049

  1,547

  1,460

  2,175

  Derbyshire

  976

  1,457

  1,452

  2,199

  Devon

  951

  1,452

  1,394

  2,004

  Dorset

  1,035

  1,471

  1,410

  1,922

  Durham

  1,113

  1,485

  1,386

  2,020

  East Sussex

  1,010

  1,550

  1,421

  2,018

  Essex

  948

  1,485

  1,261

  2,274

  Gloucestershire

  990

  1,449

  1,425

  1,757

  Hampshire

  943

  1,494

  1,457

  2,132

  Hereford and Worcester

  962

  1,421

  1,473

  1,961

  Hertfordshire

  1,105

  1,670

  1,482

  2,237

  Hurnberside

  1,057

  1,457

  1,422

  2,065

  Isle of Wight

  1,043

  1,393

  1,488

  1,937

  Kent

  957

  1,491

  1,263

  2,075

  Lancashire

  923

  1,452

  1,535

  2,225

  Leicestershire

  979

  1,496

  1,498

  2,253

  Lincolnshire

  979

  1,550

  1,348

  2,081

  Norfolk

  1,032

  1,513

  1,465

  2,116

  North Yorkshire

  1,063

  1,508

  1,442

  2,152

  Northamptonshire

  934

  1,432

  1,355

  1,970

  Northumberland

  1,088

  1,494

  1,477

  1,964

  Nottinghamshire

  985

  1,480

  1,625

  2,492

  Oxfordshire

  1,060

  1,485

  1,635

  2,108

  Shropshire

  934

  1,505

  1,497

  2,349

  Somerset

  926

  1,387

  1,349

  1,951

  Staffordshire

  1,068

  1,544

  1,397

  2,045

  Suffolk

  1,054

  1,373

  1,250

  1,698

  Surrey

  1,029

  1,659

  1,460

  2,202

  Warwickshire

  948

  1,466

  1,338

  2,090

  West Sussex

  934

  1,435

  1,338

  2,085

  Wiltshire

  965

  1,463

  1,408

  1,947

  ENGLAND AVERAGE

  988

  1,429

  1,469

  2,145

  Note:

  1. N/a—Figures currently being reviewed by City of Westminster local education authority.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average per-capita grant to grant-maintained schools in each year since 1989.
  446
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average per-capita recurrent grant to grant-maintained schools in each year since 1989 is as follows:
  447

  Financial year

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  1989–90

  Nil

  1,970

  1990–91

  Nil

  2,250

  1991–92

  1,800

  2,400

  1992–93

  1,900

  2,450

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the level of funding from his Department to the grant-maintained schools centre for each financial year from 1988–89 to 1993–94; and for what purpose this funding is intended to be used.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since the establishment of the grant-maintained schools centre in 1988 the following grant has been provided by the Department:

  Grant(£000's)

  1988–89

  25

  1989–90

  250

  1990–91

  425

  1991–92

  600

  1992–93

  577

  1993–94

  1198

  1 Grant paid to date in 1993–94.

  Grant is provided: to enable the GMSC to offer factual information and advice to schools about GM status (since March 1993); to support information and advice services for existing GM schools; and to underpin the work of the standing advisory committee for GM schools.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the aggregate budget for grant-maintained schools in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total amount of grants paid for grant maintained schools in 1991–92 and 1992–93 is as follows:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £181,900,000

  £482,500,000

  The bulk of this expenditure is annual maintenance grant which is recouped from the former maintaining authority.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to compensate grant-maintained schools for the extension of value added tax on fuel;

  (2) what is his Department's estimate of the proportion of the total budget for grant-maintained schools which will be spent on value-added tax after April 1994.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is the Government's policy that special purpose grant should compensate self-governing (grant maintained) schools for the VAT costs they incur. These are currently estimated at 2.5 per cent. of total annual maintenance grant. We will review the estimates in the light of any additional VAT costs placed on self-governing schools. If necessary we will adjust the rate of grant to ensure that self-governing schools are not disadvantaged in comparison with local education authority schools.
  448
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total amount spent on fuel by grant-maintained schools in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to fund regional offices of the grant-maintained schools centre; where these offices will be based; what criteria are to be used in deciding the location of regional offices; and how much is it proposed to spend on establishing them.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend is making grant available to the grant-maintained schools centre to establish and operate regional advice centres to disseminate factual information about grant-maintained status, in accordance with his reply of 16 March to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) at column 143. The first advice centres are planned for Bolton, Kirklees, Birmingham and London. These locations were identified by the grant-maintained schools centre as the most suitable for the purposes of ensuring access to an advice centre for a majority of schools. The cost of establishing and operating the advice centres in 1993–94 is exptected to be approximately £140,000.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total amount of value added tax paid to the Treasury by grant-maintained schools in the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Funding Cuts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment his Department has made of the effect which the Government's decision to cut section 11 funding will have on the education of children for whom English is a second language.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The assessment of local pupil needs is primarily a matter for schools and local education authorities although the Department continues to monitor, using the services of OFSTED, the education of children for whom English is a second language. Section 11 funding in 1993–94 should be sufficient to support existing projects in the 1993–94 financial year at the current grant rate of 75 per cent. of salary costs. For the subsequent two years, it will be a matter for local authorities and other grant recipients to decide to what extent the shortfall can be offset from within their budgets and where any reductions need to be made.

  National Curriculum Testing
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information his Department has gathered on what loss of pay or other consequences have been enforced by local education authorities against those head teachers, teachers, officials and school governors who supported the boycott last term of national curriculum testing.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has not gathered any such information.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many civil servants are working at his Department's offices at Sanctuary buildings, Great Smith street, London.

  Mr. Boswell
  At present, there are 1,123 civil servants located at Sanctuary buildings.

  Outdoor Activity Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he intends to make a statement about safety in outdoor activity centres following the Lyme bay canoeing accident.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Pupils1 in maintained primary and secondary schools in each Local Education Authority in England

  LEA

  Pupils in Primary Schools

  Pupils in Secondary Schools2

  All schools

  Self-Governing Schools3

  All schools

  Self-Governing Schools3

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Corporation of London

  221

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  10,515

  0

  0

  10,241

  2,314

  23

  Greenwich

  20,748

  0

  0

  13,955

  0

  0

  Hackney

  16,324

  0

  0

  7,788

  0

  0

  Hammersmith

  8,851

  0

  0

  6,001

  1,197

  20

  Islington

  14,533

  0

  0

  7,732

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,186

  0

  0

  3,150

  622

  20

  Lambeth

  18,727

  233

  1

  6,233

  3,325

  53

  Lewisham

  20,085

  198

  1

  10,525

  0

  0

  Southwark

  20,429

  413

  2

  9,065

  2,106

  23

  Tower Hamlets

  19,864

  0

  0

  10,941

  879

  8

  Wandsworth

  16,906

  530

  3

  8,803

  6,196

  70

  Westminster

  9,023

  0

  0

  7,240

  0

  0

  Barking

  15,370

  0

  0

  9,164

  0

  0

  Bamet

  23,442

  774

  3

  17,898

  6,594

  37

  Bexley

  18,091

  448

  2

  14,350

  2,850

  20

  Brent

  21,773

  583

  3

  11,675

  7,637

  65

  Bromley

  19,836

  878

  4

  16,021

  10,187

  64

  Croydon

  25,390

  0

  0

  14,228

  3,656

  26

  Ealing

  27,462

  512

  2

  11,102

  4,789

  43

  Enfield

  22,551

  0

  0

  16,739

  4,388

  26

  Haringey

  18,616

  0

  0

  8,779

  0

  0

  Harrow

  18,927

  0

  0

  7,640

  486

  6

  Havering

  19335

  0

  0

  15,114

  3,848

  25

  Hillingdon

  19,673

  2,502

  13

  13,394

  10,055

  15

  Hounslow

  19,225

  0

  0

  13,380

  2,090

  16

  Kingston upon Thames

  10,288

  0

  0

  7,324

  2,780

  38

  Merton

  14,802

  0

  0

  6,896

  0

  0

  Newham

  24,065

  0

  0

  13,621

  574

  4

  Redbridge

  18,300

  0

  0

  14,277

  1,090

  8

  Richmond upon Thames

  10,358

  0

  0

  7,171

  0

  0

  Sutton

  12,625

  2203

  2

  10,627

  6,293

  59

  Waltham Forest

  19,204

  0

  0

  10,740

  1,839

  17

  Birmingham

  107,102

  511

  0

  60,864

  11,253

  18

  Coventry

  29,353

  0

  0

  18,191

  0

  0

  Dudley

  27,538

  399

  1

  17,227

  4,291

  25

  Sandwell

  31,479

  0

  0

  17,839

  652

  4

  Solihull

  19,065

  495

  3

  12,870

  0

  0

  Walsall

  27,811

  0

  0

  18,696

  5,505

  29

  Wolverhampton

  24,139

  0

  0

  15,600

  1,777

  11

  Knowsley

  18,360

  0

  0

  8,906

  720

  8

  Liverpool

  50,325

  0

  0

  28,977

  1,452

  5

  St. Helens

  17,551

  0

  0

  11,549

  0

  0

  Sefton

  26,908

  0

  0

  18,159

  0

  0

  Wirral

  30,966

  0

  0

  20,313

  1,907

  9

  Bolton

  26,906

  441

  2

  16,335

  2,726

  17

  Bury

  16,500

  0

  0

  9,711

  0

  0

  Manchester

  46,141

  0

  0

  21,080

  0

  0

  Oldham

  24,113

  0

  0

  15,834

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  20,999

  903

  4

  12,539

  1,010

  8

  Salford

  22,666

  0

  0

  11,246

  0

  0

  Stockport

  24,507

  0

  0

  14,515

  0

  0

  Pupil Numbers
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is(a) the total number of pupils, (b) the number in grant-maintained schools and (c) the percentage in grant-maintained schools within (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in each local education authority area.

  Mr Robin Squire
  [holding answer 21 October 1993]: The number of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools and the number and percentage of pupils in schools currently operating as self-governing (GM) in each local education authority in England is shown in the table. However, pupil numbers shown relate to January 1992, the latest date for which final information is available. Pupils in sixth form colleges have been excluded from the secondary totals.
  451

  LEA

  Pupils in Primary Schools

  Pupils in Secondary Schools2

  All schools

  Self-Governing Schools3

  All schools

  Self-Governing Schools3

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Tameside

  22,414

  0

  0

  12,655

  2,309

  18

  Trafford

  19,634

  0

  0

  11,028

  2,822

  26

  Wigan

  29,619

  0

  0

  18,823

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  21,261

  0

  0

  12,091

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  29,364

  0

  0

  20,670

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  24,360

  0

  0

  17,256

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  45,763

  255

  1

  23,871

  1,802

  8

  Bradford

  39,598

  293

  1

  44,877

  4,876

  11

  Calderdale

  19,311

  76

  0

  12,806

  3,095

  24

  Kirklees

  35,563

  0

  0

  24,804

  1,192

  5

  Leeds

  56,027

  44

  0

  51,082

  1,138

  2

  Wakefield

  28,719

  0

  0

  20,238

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  18,090

  0

  0

  11,558

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  22,291

  0

  0

  16,498

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  16,160

  0

  0

  14,187

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  15,433

  0

  0

  9,052

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  29,598

  0

  0

  18,568

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  173

  0

  0

  112

  0

  0

  Avon

  77,726

  0

  0

  52,833

  1,455

  3

  Befordshire

  40,969

  666

  2

  43,043

  8,178

  19

  Berkshire

  59,999

  2,093

  3

  45,144

  7,280

  16

  Buckinghamshire

  60,985

  2,259

  4

  34,556

  8,468

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  57,696

  1,868

  3

  39,357

  14,781

  38

  Cheshire

  87,769

  73

  0

  61,760

  2,314

  4

  Cleveland

  64,699

  0

  0

  35,226

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  39,336

  0

  0

  28,397

  0

  0

  Clumbria

  42,304

  1,087

  3

  30,194

  7,860

  26

  Derbyshire

  82,860

  1,564

  2

  56,326

  13,893

  25

  Devon

  77,342

  0

  0

  56,161

  3,687

  7

  Dorset

  43,963

  391

  1

  39,103

  8,364

  21

  Durham

  55,446

  0

  0

  36,227

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  49,084

  0

  0

  31,851

  0

  0

  Essex

  120,648

  7,518

  6

  93,421

  50,443

  54

  Gloucestershire

  42,010

  1,330

  3

  31,849

  18,032

  57

  Hampshire

  127,473

  2,974

  2

  74,056

  12,398

  17

  Hereford and Worcester

  47,442

  0

  0

  46,168

  3,448

  7

  Hertfordshire

  81,379

  860

  1

  65,907

  15,807

  24

  Humberside

  82,367

  76

  0

  54,603

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  7,066

  0

  0

  10,194

  0

  0

  Kent

  123,557

  3,467

  3

  98,781

  42,991

  44

  Lancashire

  126,477

  270

  0

  81,133

  5,825

  7

  Leicestershire

  78,840

  0

  0

  57,712

  3,088

  5

  Lincolnshire

  47,909

  3,731

  8

  36,014

  15,242

  42

  Norfolk

  61,337

  2,268

  4

  39,257

  8,338

  21

  North Yorkshire

  56,951

  0

  0

  41,931

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  49,369

  2,758

  6

  43,906

  9,001

  21

  Northumberland

  21,019

  0

  0

  28,656

  597

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  89,724

  0

  0

  61,423

  1,814

  3

  Oxfordshire

  39,423

  75

  0

  33,274

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  34,552

  284

  1

  24,482

  3,430

  14

  Somerset

  34,620

  221

  1

  27,114

  391

  1

  Staffordshire

  91,015

  26

  0

  66,767

  4,191

  6

  Suffolk

  42,666

  0

  0

  46,845

  0

  0

  Surrey

  75,157

  1,524

  2

  38,035

  8,669

  23

  Warwickshire

  45,156

  0

  0

  24,049

  4,526

  19

  West Sussex

  50,685

  0

  0

  37,866

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  44,964

  987

  2

  32,931

  6,150

  19

  England

  4,089,536

  49,061

  I

  2,818,993

  424,985

  15

  1 Pupil numbers in schools in January 1992. Pupils in schools which are now self-governing appear in the self-governing columns of the table.

  2 Including pupils in schools operating as self-governing in October 1993.

  3 Excluding Sixth Form Colleges.

WALES

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consider collecting and holding centrally information on the number of industrial water disconnections made by water companies; and if he will make a statement.
  452
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. The collection of statistics on water disconnections is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hill farmers in Wales have not yet received their hill livestock compensatory allowances in respect of 1993.
  453
  Mr. Redwood
  Eight hundred and forty-six of the 14,662 claims remain to be paid. Most are held up while queries are resolved, or field inspections are carried out.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total central Government expenditure for the Welsh Office for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  Net central Government supply expenditure by the Welsh Office in 1992–93 was £5,973 million.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of applications in each county in Wales under the(a) main arable area payments scheme and (b) the simplified scheme in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Three hundred applications were made under the main arable area scheme and 2,177 applications under the simplified scheme in Wales. The following table indicates the counties in which the applicants had their main agricultural holdings, although it is possible that the land for which they claimed aid is spread between more than one county.

  County

  Main scheme

  Simplified scheme

  Total

  Clwyd

  36

  258

  294

  Dyfed

  85

  1,050

  1,135

  Mid Glamorgan

  16

  31

  47

  South Glamorgan

  28

  65

  93

  West Glamorgan

  2

  75

  77

  Gwent

  63

  197

  260

  Gwynedd

  18

  178

  196

  Powys

  52

  323

  375

  Total

  300

  2,177

  2,477

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Offences (Analysis)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he plans to publish his Department's research document "Analysing Offending"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when the document "Analysing Offending" was completed; and for what reason publication has been delayed.

  Mr. Maclean
  "Analysing Offending" was published in July of this year by HMSO and has been publicly available from HMSO bookshops and accredited agents since then.

  Mr. George Long
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received a submission from solicitors acting on behalf of George Long—B25147; and when he expects to reach a decision.

  Mr. Maclean
  Representations about Mr. Long's convictions for murder in 1979 were received from his 454
  solicitors on 24 June 1993. Further inquiries have been made, and my right hon. and learned Friend expects that he will soon be in a position to decide whether there is any action he should take in Mr. Long's case.

  Probation Committees
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary, of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about how probation committees are constituted; and who are the present members of those covering Kent and Suffolk.

  Mr. Maclean
  1 have been asked to reply.

  The regulations governing the constitution of probation committees are set out in schedule 3 to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, as amended.

  At present the Home Office does not maintain lists of probation committee members; and my hon. Friend may therefore wish to write to the secretaries of the Kent and Suffolk committees. With effect from this financial year, probation committees will be required to include in their annual reports the names of committee members and the official address at which they may be contacted.

  Rape
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to abolish the crime of rape.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide anonymity for men charged with rape unless and until they are convicted.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are currently reviewing the law relating to anonymity in cases involving sexual offences and will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Parole Board
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make public his full-time appointments to the Parole Board; and if he will make a statement on why full-time appointments are necessary.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  After full consideration, the Parole Board was informed on 3 August this year that six full-time members were to be appointed to the board. A press statement about the appointments was issued on 27 August, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Full-time members will bring valuable managerial and training experience to the work of the board and they will have the time to assist the chairman in long-term planning and the development of policy and procedures.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants are working in the Home Department offices at Queen Anne's gate, London.

  Mr. Howard
  On 21 October there were 1,455 civil servants working in the Home Office's Queen Anne's gate building.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long the disturbance at Blakenhurst prison on 17 October lasted; what was the cause; how many prisoners were involved; what damage to prison installations resulted from the protest; and what injuries to inmates or officers resulted from the protest.

  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 to Mr. Doug Hoyle from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the disturbance at Blakenhurst prison.
  Two prisoners on Houseblock 3 damaged the structure and fittings of their cell during the evening of 17 September 1993. There were no injuries to staff or prisoners. The incident lasted approximately thirty minutes. Houseblock 3 had restricted association that evening which may have been the cause of this incident.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of prison officers at Blakenhurst; and how many resignations of prison officers there have been since(a) the prison opened and (b) 17 October.

  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 to Mr. Doug Hoyle from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prison officers at Blakenhurst; and how many resignations of prison officers there have been since (a) the prison opened and (b) 17th November.
  There are now 271 certificated prisoner custody officers at Blakenhurst. Eleven officers have resigned since the prison opened on 26 May. I will write to you again once the figures for 17 November are available.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports have been made of the use of the drug LSD at Blakenhurst 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 to Mr. Doug Hoyle from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the use of the drug LSD at Blakenhurst prison.
  One small square of paper was found during a cell search on 17 September, which was believed to be LSD. It has been sent for police forensic examination, but the results of that examination are not yet available.
  On 3 September inmates reported that the drink of a staff member had been adulterated with LSD. The staff member concerned felt no ill-effects, but, as a precaution she was medically examined. It is doubted whether the report was true. I understand that a rumour about the alleged adulteration is circulating outside the establishment.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the role of the American employees of the prison operators at Blakenhurst.
  456
  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 to Mr. Doug Hoyle from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the role of the American employees of the prison operators at Blakenhurst.
  One American board member of United Kingdom Detention Services (UKDS) is based at Blakenhurst. He is the Operations Director for UKDS.
  One consultant on secondment from the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is working at Blakenhurst.
  In the past a small number of trainers from CCA have been used by UKDS at Blakenhurst.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers at Blakenhurst are fully trained in control and restraint procedures.

  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 to Mr. Doug Hoyle from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prison officers at Blakenhurst are fully trained in control and restraint procedures.
  All prisoner custody officers at Blakenhurst are trained in control and restraint techniques, 64 are trained to C & R level III.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work is carried out by the prisoners in Blakenhurst prison; what is the nature of the contracts under which they work; how much is paid to the prisoners; and what happens to the profits made.

  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 to Mr. Doug Hoyle from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to respond to your recent Question about work at HMP Blakenhurst.
  Prisoners are currently engaged in kitchen, wing servery, domestic cleaning, works, maintenance, garden, orderlies, light assembly and laundry work. Current pay scales average £6.50 per week, but rates vary according to the work undertaken. Revenue accruing from work is used for prisoner pay or to enhance facilities for prisoners.

  Liquor Licensing
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he has had to his consultation on the possible reform of the liquor licensing system in England and Wales; and if he will place in the Library the names of organisations submitting views.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  By 22 October, we had received 621 written responses to the consultation paper. That total excludes responses concerned only with the proposed abolition of the Welsh Sunday opening polls sent to the Welsh Office. A list of the organisations which have provided responses to the Home Office will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Criminal Law (Equal Treatment)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the criminal law to eliminate any instances of unequal treatment between men and women.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no general plans to amend the few areas of the criminal law in which there are differences in the way that men and women are treated. We are, however, reviewing the law relating to anonymity in cases involving sexual offences which in practice, although not in principle, may affect men differently from women.

  Prisoners (Esapes)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have escaped since 1 April while in the custody of(a) prison officers, (b) police officers and (c) Group 4 officers.

  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 to Mr. Martin Redmond from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners who have escaped since 1 April 1993 whilst in the custody of (a) prison officers; (b) police officers; and (c) Group 4 officers.
  The total number of prisoners who have escaped from prison custody since 1 April 1993 to date is 215. Of this 108 escaped from within establishments and 107 from escort.
  The following table shows in whose custody the prisoners were when the escapes took place:

  Number

  Prison officers (within prison service establishments)

  108

  Prison officers (escorts)

  92

  Group 4 custody officers (within HMP The Wolds)

  —

  Group 4 custody officers (escorts) (HMP The Wolds)

  1

  Group 4 custody officers (court escort service)

  13

  UKDS custody officers (within HMP Blankenhurst)

  —

  UKDS custody officers (escorts) (HMP Blankenhurst)

  1

  TOTAL

  215

  The number of prisoners who have escaped from police custody is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial penalty has been imposed on Group 4 in respect of prisoners who have escaped while in its custody; and if he will make a statement.

  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 to Mr. Martin Redmond from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about escapes of prisoners from the custody of Group 4.
  No financial penalty has been imposed on Group 4 in respect of such escapes. Past experience of both the police and the Prison Service has shown that it is not possible to eliminate escapes from escort, other than at unacceptable cost and with the use of unacceptable methods. Group 4 has faced the same difficulties.

  Asylum
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently being detained in Her Majesty's prison establishments awaiting the outcome of their asylum applications; what is the average length of time they are held in prison; and what are the comparable figures for (i) 12, (ii) .24, (iii) 36 and (iv) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, on 21 October 1993, 225 asylum seekers had been detained for one month or more in prison establishments including the Home Office holding centre, Haslar. Of these, 76 had been held for between one and three months; 70 for between three and six months; and 79 for over six months.

  Interview Tapes
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines or regulations are applicable to the police for the retention of tapes used to record routine interviews in the homes of people as to(a) where the tapes are to be stored and (b) for how long such tapes should be retained; and if he will make a statement ;

  (2) to what guidelines or regulations the police are subject in respect of first advising people, where discussions with the police are to be tape recorded, that such a recording is to be made; what specific provisions are applicable where the interview takes place in the interviewee's home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  These are operational matters which are the responsibility of chief officers.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of Her Majesty's prison establishments the key objectives reported by the Prison Service for the year 1993–94; and what they were for the year 1992–93.

  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 to Mr. Martin Redmond from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:

  KEY TARGETS FOR THE PRISON SERVICE
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about key objectives for prison establishments in 1993–94, and 1992–93.
  The Prison Service's key targets for 1993–94 are set out in its Business Plan, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The Service's objectives, targets and performance indicators for 1992–93 were set out in its Statement of Objectives and Resources, which is also in the Library. Local targets and objectives are agreed by prison governors and Area Managers in the annual establishment "contracts". These are internal management documents which it is not our practice to publish; and to extract from each the individual objectives and targets could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  Telephone Surveillance Warrants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone surveillance warrants have been signed in each of the past 24 months.
  459
  Mr. Howard
  Statistics on the number of interception warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland each year are published in the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. To give a more detailed breakdown would not be in the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of serious crime.

  Juvenile Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by Her Majesty's prison establishment the number of juveniles held in adult prisons currently and(a) 12, (b) 24, (c) 36 and (d) 48 months ago.

  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 to Mr. Martin Redmond from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:

  JUVENILES HELD IN ADULT PRISONS
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many juveniles are held in adult prisons currently and (a) 12, (b) 24, (c) 36 and (d) 48 months ago.
  I attach tables showing the population of untried, convicted unsentenced and sentenced juvenile inmates held in adult Prison Service establishments on 30 June in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and on 31 August 1993.

  Persons aged under 17 (remand) and under 18 (sentenced) held in adult prisons in England and Wales on 31 August 1993: by establishment

  Establishment

  Number1

  Gloucester

  1

  Holloway

  1

  New Hall

  1

  Pucklechurch

  1

  All adult prisons

  4

  1 Provisional figures.

  Persons aged under 17 held in adult prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 1992: by establishment

  Establishment

  Number1

  Lewes

  1

  Low Newton

  1

  New Hall

  1

  Askham Grange

  2

  All adult

  5

  1 Provisions.

  Persons aged under 17 held in adult prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 1991: by establishment

  Establishment

  Number1

  Birmingham

  2

  Holloway

  1

  Hull

  7

  Lincol

  1

  Pentonville

  1

  All adult prisons

  12

  1 Provisional figures

  460

  Persons aged under 17 held in adult prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 1990: by establishment

  Establishment

  Number1

  Askham Grange

  2

  Durham

  1

  Hull

  17

  Lincoln

  1

  All adult prisons

  21

  1 Provisional figures

  Persons aged under 17 held in adult prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 1989: by establishment

  Establishment

  Number1

  Askham Grange

  2

  Bedford

  1

  Birmingham

  3

  Chelmsford

  4

  Durham

  1

  Lincoln

  1

  Manchester

  6

  New Hall

  1

  All adult prisons

  19

  1 Provisional figures

  Isle of Man (Driving Disqualifications)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 October,Official Report, c.146, concerning enforcement of Isle of Man driving disqualifications in the United Kingdom, what consideration he has given to introducing such a policy; and for what reason he has decided not to do so.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None, but we understand that the Isle of Man authorities are considering whether the Isle of Man should seek a system of reciprocal recognition of driving disqualifications with the United Kingdom. We are ready to consider any proposals which they put to us.

  Overseas Staff and Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost for the current financial year of his Department having(a) premises and (b) personnel overseas; and what were the comparable figures for (a) 12, (b) 24, (c) 36 and (d) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Howard
  The estimated cost in the current financial year of the Department having premises overseas is nil. The estimated cost of having personnel overseas is £3 million.

  Detailed information for previous years is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Assaults
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults by staff on inmates were reported in 1991, 1992 and to date in 1993; and in which prisons they took place.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 October 1993]: 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.
  461
  Letter to Ms Joan Ruddock from Derek Lewis, dated 25 October 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many assaults by staff on inmates were reported in 1991, 1992 and to date in 1993.
  The following allegations of assault were reported to the Incident Management Support Unit at Prison Service Headquarters.

  1991

  One allegation at HMP Belmarsh

  1992

  One allegation at HMP Shepton Mallet

  1993 to date

  One allegation at HMP Manchester

  One allegation at HMYOI Onley

  One allegation at HMYOI & RC Feltham

  One allegation at HMP Belmarsh

  One allegation at HMYOI Northallerton

  Number of 15-year-olds sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for all offences England and Wales
  19921

  1 week or less

  Over 1 to 2 weeks

  Over 2 to 4 weeks

  Over 4 to 8 weeks

  Over 8 weeks to 3 months

  Over 3 to 6 months

  Over 6 to 12 months

  Over 12 months

  Total

  Magistrates Court

  Indictable

  Males

  1

  —

  19

  37

  136

  171

  —

  —

  364

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Summary Non-MOTG

  Males

  —

  —

  1

  7

  42

  31

  —

  —

  81

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Summary MOTG

  Males

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  5

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All Offences

  Males

  1

  —

  21

  44

  179

  205

  —

  —

  450

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Crown Court

  Indictable

  Males

  1

  —

  5

  2

  6

  19

  36

  —

  69

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Summary Non-MOTG

  Males

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Summary MOTG

  Males

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All Offences

  Males

  1

  —

  5

  2

  6

  19

  36

  —

  69

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  All Courts

  Indictable

  Males

  2

  —

  24

  39

  142

  190

  36

  —

  443

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  4

  Summary Non-MOTG

  Males

  —

  —

  1

  7

  42

  31

  —

  —

  81

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Summary MOTG

  Males

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  5

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All Offences

  Males

  2

  —

  26

  46

  185

  224

  36

  —

  519

  Females

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  4

  1 Provisional

  Young Offenders
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many 15-year-olds sentenced to prison in 1993 to the latest date available received terms of(a) up to one week, (b) one to two weeks, (c) two to four weeks, (d) four to eight weeks, (e) eight weeks to three months, (f) three to six months, (g) six to. 12 months and (h) over 12 months;

  (2) how many 15-year-olds sentenced to prison in 1992 received terms of (a) up to one week, (b) one to two weeks, (c) two to four weeks, (d) four to eight weeks, (e) eight weeks to three months, (f) three to six months, (g) six to 12 months and (h) over 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 October 1993]: The table shows for 1992 in England and Wales the number of 15-year-olds sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for all offences by sex, type of court and type of offence. 1993 data will not be available until the autumn of 1994.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which residential homes the Eastern health and social services board proposes to close down; what is the reason; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Eastern health and social services board's four community units of management are currently in the process of consulting publicly on proposals which involve the closure of nine residential homes for elderly people. The homes are Warren house and Drumlough house, Lisburn; Ardview house, Ardglass; The Banks,

  Statutory residential homes registered with the Eastern health and social services board

  Name and address of home

  Category of care

  Number of places

  South and East Belfast unit of management

  Brae Valley Residential Home, 23 Breda Terrace, Belfast

  Elderly Mentally

  30

  Infirm

  Breda Park Hostel, 6–12 Breda Park, Belfast

  Mental Handicap

  30

  Enter House, Craiglieth Drive, Dundonald

  Old and Infirm

  47

  100 Holywood Road, Belfast

  Mental Disorder

  10

  James Dixon House, Rugby Parade, Belfast

  Old and Infirm

  30

  Elderly Mentally

  10

  Infirm Respite

  Killynure House, Church Road, Carryduff, Belfast

  Old and Infirm

  34

  Elderly Mentally

  10

  Infirm Respite

  Laird House, 7 Glenluce Walk, Belfast

  Elderly Mentally

  33

  Infirm

  80 Malone Road, Belfast

  Mental Handicap

  14

  Marlborough House, 80 Marlborough Park South, Belfast

  Elderly Mentally

  27

  Infirm

  Mertoun Park Hostel, 17 Mertoun Park, Knocknagoney, Holywood

  Mental Handicap

  14

  Minnowburn House, 61 Old Milltown Road, Belfast

  Old and Infirm

  49

  Trauma Counselling
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many trauma counselling specialists are currently employed by the Department of Health and Social Services;

  (2)if he will make a statement on the availability of immediate and expert post-trauma counselling services for people affected by terrorism.

  Mr. Ancram
  No counselling specialists are currently employed by the Department of Health and Social Services. However, in each of the four health and social services boards, social work staff are available to provide immediate and post trauma counselling services for people affected by terrorism. These counselling services are mainly provided by volunteer social workers with special skills and training. The Voluntary Bereavement Counselling Agency—CRUSE—also offers help to people affected by terrorism.
  464
  Bangor; and Cairns house, Old See house, Enler house, James Dixon house, and Marlborough house, all of which are in Belfast.

  The Government's strategy is to build up domiciliary services so that a greater proportion of elderly people can remain in their own homes if they so wish. The Government also wish to achieve a new balance between services provided directly by the statutory sector and those offered by independent providers.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what locations there are residential homes controlled by the Eastern health and social services board; and how many residents each of these homes accommodate.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans has he to introduce respite care for multiple sclerosis sufferers in the Down section of the Down and Lisburn unit of management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  This is primarily a matter for the Eastern health and social services board. Respite care for multiple sclerosis sufferers in the Down area is provided at the multiple sclerosis centre in Dalriada hospital, Ballycastle, and at Thompson house in Lisburn. In addition, the Down and Lisburn unit of management intends to purchase a locally provided package of respite care for multiple sclerosis sufferers and I understand that negotiations to procure this are presently under way.

  Armagh Health Centre
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many offers have been received for the purchase of Armagh health centre; and if he will now consider offering the public the opportunity to purchase it.

  Mr. Ancram
  The general medical practitioners working in Armagh health centre have expressed an interest in buying the premises, and their proposal is being considered by the Southern health and social services board.

  A separate offer has been received from the private sector. This is not being pursued, nor is the property being advertised on the open market, because Armagh health centre is not surplus to the requirements of the health and personal social services.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what capital expenditure has been allocated for the Armagh health centre for the present financial year by the Southern health and social services board.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Community Care
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the implementation of the Government's community care policy in the constituency of South Down; and what further action he proposes to take to improve the provision of care in the community.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Health and Social Services and health and social services boards have put in place comprehensive arrangements for the monitoring of the community care reforms, introduced on 1 April 1993, with the three local units of management of the Eastern and Southern boards, which together serve the constituency of South Down, monitoring their community care activity and expenditure on a monthly and quarterly basis. This information contributes to the Department's overall evaluation of the implementation of community care policy and will inform decisions on the provision of community services within the constituency. 'The Department is currently undertaking the first six month performance review of the new community care arrangements which will be completed later this year.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of Housing Executive properties(a) demolished and (b) replaced in each of the Province's district electoral areas for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 October 1992 at cols. 290–92. The chief executive of the Housing Executive has advised me that the information which is readily available for 1992–93 is as follows:

  District Council Area

  Demolished

  Replaced

  Antrim

  17

  —

  Ards

  —

  16

  Armagh

  7

  2

  466

  District Council Area

  Demolished

  Replaced

  Ballymena

  —

  9

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  1

  —

  Belfast

  514

  322

  Carrickfergus

  69

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  54

  20

  Deny

  3

  63

  Down

  —

  13

  Dungannon

  2

  —

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  Larne

  59

  3

  Limavady

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  4

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  15

  Newtownabbey

  152

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  7

  Strabane

  1

  —

  Note:

  This does not cover the Housing Executive's total new-build programme but relates mainly to the replacement of dwellings in redevelopment areas and of unfit dwellings in housing action areas. It also includes replacement dwellings for obsolete purpose-built stock such aas Orlit dwellings, aluminium bungalows and rural cottages.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the closing date for applications for decommissioning payments for fishing vessels; how many applications were received; when the applicants will receive a decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The closing date for receipt of applications under the Fishing Vessel (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 was 31 July. Sixty-eight applications were received from Northern Ireland, of which 28 were successful. All applicants were informed on 22 September of the outcome of their applications.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many undergraduates there were at each of the campuses of the Ulster university in the academic year 1992–93; and how many were from the Republic of Ireland at each location.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Campus

  Total Number of Undergraduates1

  Number of Undergraduates from Republic of Ireland

  Belfast

  667

  55

  Coleraine

  3,485

  614

  Jordanstown

  7,028

  508

  Magee

  1,576

  329

  TOTAL

  12,756

  1,506

  1 includes part-time undergraduates.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what matters in regard to Sellafield and the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant were raised at the intergovernmental conference on Ireland held on 10 September.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The areas of discussion at meetings of the intergovernmental conference are listed in the communiqués issued afterwards; copies of which are placed in the Library. Details of these discussions are confidential between the two Governments.

  Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of Her Majesty's prison establishments in the Province the key objectives reported for the year 1993–94; and what they were for the year 1992–93.

  Sir John Wheeler
  All prison establishments in Northern Ireland operate from year to year with the following key objectives:

  (a) to keep in custody, with the degree of security and control considered appropriate by staff, each individual person committed to custody by the courts and to produce or release them as required;

  (b) to provide for all prisoners the necessities of life; including accommodation, food, exercise, health care and freedom to practice religion, and to provide them with the opportunity to engage in constructive activities, such as work, education, training, hobbies and sport, to fill at least the working day;

  (c) to enable all prisoners to retain links with their families and to assist sentenced prisoners in their preparation for release into the community;

  (d) to treat prisoners as individuals regardless of their religious beliefs or political opinions and to offer them the opportunity to serve their sentences free from paramilitary influence, and

  (e) to manage resources economically and efficiently and, in particular, to enhance the morale and abilities of staff by providing the appropriate conditions of service, management structures and training.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will itemise the cost of establishing national health service trusts;

  (2) how much has been spent in each health and social service board on (a) printing and publication costs, (b) publicity and public relations costs, (c) consultation and public meetings and (d) other costs connected with the proposed establishment of NHS trusts in 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what is the expected spending in 1993–94.

  Mr. Ancram
  Health and social services boards are not required to meet costs of this nature. The Department of Health and Social Services has set aside additional resources to meet the cost of mounting applications for trust status and, where they are successful, other neccesary transitional expenses. Approximately £185,000 is set aside for each successsful applicant to cover the cost of developing and publishing a formal application, remuneration of non-executives during the shadow period and a range of measures to prepare the trust for operational independence.
  468
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the revenue grant to national health service trusts during their shadow running period is calculated.

  Mr. Ancram
  The financial assistance which the Department of Health and Social Services gives to trusts during their shadow period is a one-off payment calculated to meet expenditure on areas essential to the trust becoming operationally independent. The level of assistance is based on that available in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be his Department's total expenditure on the establishment of national health service trusts since their first introduction to the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Ancram
  To date a total of around £1.9 million has been spent on the establishment of health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland. Decisions are awaited on two further applications for trust status. Were both of these applications to be successful, this figure would increase by £370,000 making the total expenditure to the end of the current financial year £2,270,000.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of employing management consultants and private agencies to assist in the preparation of national health service trust applications in the Province, and in each health and social services board.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Health and Social Services has employed consultants from the Institute of Health Services Management to assist in its assessment of applications for trust status. The average cost of this consultancy for each application has been £2,000. Information on other consultancy is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much each national health service trust has spent on(a) shadow board costs, (b) legal expenses, (c) employment of staff and (d) miscellaneous expenses; and if he will define what costs are included under miscellaneous expenses.

  Mr. Ancram
  During the shadow period between establishment and operational independence trusts do not have funds of their own to meet these expenses and therefore costs are covered directly by the non-recurring assistance made available by the Department of Health and Social Services. Shadow board costs will vary from trust to trust depending on turnover but the average figure is around £20,000 per trust. Legal services for conveyancing etc. are provided by the Department at no cost to the trust. Details of individual costs for the employment of staff are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Miscellaneous expenses might include such items as new signs for buildings and vehicles, new stationery, organisational and management development, induction of chairmen and non-executive directors and consultants fees. Details of spending under individual headings are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of applications in each county in Northern Ireland under the(a) main arable areas payments scheme and (b) the simplified scheme in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of applications by county under the arable area payments scheme are as follows:

  County

  Main scheme

  Simplified scheme

  Antrim

  12

  678

  Armagh

  8

  251

  Down

  66

  1,050

  Fermanagh

  —

  2

  Londonderry

  33

  671

  Tyrone

  7

  335

  Total

  126

  2,987

  Advance payments for oilseed applications have already been made and payments for cereals, proteins and set-aside will be made during the months of November and December.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on how local communities can help provide recreational facilities for their communities under the national lotteries provisions.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is our hope that the national lottery will provide new recreational facilities right across the country. Local communities with projects or schemes in the fields of charities, sports, arts and the heritage will be able to apply to the appropriate distributors of lottery funds.

  Built Heritage
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what role is played by English Heritage in the conservation of the built heritage.

  Mr. Brooke
  English Heritage is the Government's principal expert adviser on the historic environment. In addition to maintaining an historic estate of some 400 properties, it gives advice to the general public on conservation issues and gives grants for the repair of buildings of outstanding architectural and historic interest.

  Anti-doping Controls
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to intensify the anti-doping controls for all sports in the United Kingdom and introduce common penalties for all offenders following the recent recommendations of the International Olympic Committee.

  Mr. Sproat
  I welcome the decision taken in June by the IOC and the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations to accelerate the unification of their anti-doping rules and procedures. The Sports Council 470
  requires all governing bodies in receipt of grants and services to implement acceptable anti-doping regulations and the council will continue to work with the governing bodies to achieve greater harmonisation.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the funding of the council.

  Mr. Brooke
  I meet the chairman of the Arts Council from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Tourism
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the signposting of tourism sights.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Mr. Rowe).

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had regarding the Coopers and Lybrand report on the English tourist board.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have had meetings with the chairman, some board members and senior staff of the English tourist board to discuss this report. I have also sought the views of the regional tourist boards and other industry representatives.

  Television
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had from the chairman of the Independent Television Commission over the workings of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since January 1993, when the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 came fully into effect, I have had four exchanges with the chairman of the Independent Television Commission, mainly to explain how the commission intended to carry out its responsibilities under the Act.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to discuss regulation of the industry.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no present plans for a further meeting with the chairman of the Independent Television Commission whom I last met on 19 October.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to discuss programme quality.

  Mr. Brooke
  I last met the chairman of the ITC on 19 October, but I would not plan to meet him to discuss programme quality, since this is a matter for the ITC, not for me.

  Arts Spending
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State: for National Heritage by how much Government spending on the arts has changed since 1979.
  471
  Mr. Brooke
  Government funding for the arts has increased by over 45 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The Arts Council's grant-in-aid this year is £225.6 million.

  Sports Grounds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for visiting the new Den to discuss safety of sports grounds.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans at present to visit the new Den. But I congratulate Millwall football club on being among the first clubs to meet the Government's deadline of August 1994 for all-seating stadia in the top two divisions.

  Heritage Buildings (Insurance)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on representations about costs of insurance for heritage buildings, including churches, in the City of London.

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend has received various representations about the cost of insuring listed churches against terrorist damage. Officials are investigating whether there is any practical way of easing the position.

  BBC
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when his Department expects to make a statement regarding the future funding of the BBC.

  Mr. Brooke
  I announced on 21 June at column 27 the appointment of Touche Ross to assess the BBC's progress in achieving efficiency and revenue gains; to advise on the scope for further gains; and to advise whether RPI linkage was appropriate for the licence fee increases due in the next three years. I have received and am considering the Touche Ross report, and I plan to announce the Government's conclusions later this autumn. The longer-term funding of the BBC will be considered as part of the review of the BBC's royal charter.

  South East Arts
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last discussed with South East Arts encouragement of local performing arts, including music; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brook
  I met the chairman of South East Arts along with the chairmen of the other regional arts boards on 27 September, when a number of matters were discussed.

  Old Monuments
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to preserve old monuments.

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend has a duty to compile and maintain a schedule of monuments the purpose of which is to provide them with statutory protection. English Heritage's monuments protection programme is identifying monuments of national importance and it is expected that within the next 10 years 70 to 80 per cent. of the monuments identified by the programme will have been 472
  scheduled. English Heritage also intends over the next two to three years to carry out work to identify those monuments most at risk, so that they can be given priority for scheduling during the remainder of the programme.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress his task force has made on the future of hospitals which are listed buildings.

  Mr. Sproat
  The task force was established by the Department of Health and English Heritage in autumn 1992 to provide a forum to identify and assist in resolving problems concerning historic buildings and conservation matters in the NHS. It has reviewed a number of specific cases, commissioned the preparation of good practice guidance for NHS managers in respect of both listed hospitals that will continue in use, and those that will close, and is embarking on a review of the listing of redundant NHS institutions.

  Regional Theatres
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from regional theatres fearing closure following the Arts Council decisions on the distribution of funding for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received a large number of representations from the staff and supporters of regional theatres. Decisions on the allocation of funding are a matter for the Arts Council.

  Brodsworth Hall
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the. Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what will be the location of the marble statues, greyhounds and urns to be temporarily removed from Brodsworth hall, Brodsworth, South Yorkshire, by English Heritage; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the original estimate given by English Heritage of the restoration of Brodsworth hall, near Doncaster, South Yorkshire; what is the current estimate; when it will be fully open to the public; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list the items that have been stolen or lost to date during the restoration by English Heritage of Brodsworth hall, near Doncaster, South Yorkshire; how many have been recovered; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he has visited Brodsworth hall, near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, or intends to visit during the next 12 months in connection with its restoration by English Heritage.

  Mr. Brooke
  The original estimate by English Heritage of the cost of the restoration of Brodsworth hall was £3 million, at 1991 prices. The current estimate is £3.5 million at 1993 prices. The house is expected to be fully open to the public during the summer of 1995.

  One of the notable features of the house and gardens is the Italian marble statuary which was placed in the main areas of the house, and also in the garden. Two of the garden statues, valued at £2,000 each, were stolen around the time of English Heritage's acquisition of the house and

  473
  since then the garden statuary, which includes large numbers of greyhounds, has been stored at a secret location for security reasons. The stolen statues have never been recovered. The garden statuary will be replaced in situ, with suitable security precautions, when the hall is opened to the public.

  I have not yet visited Brodsworth hall, although I should like to do so at some stage in the future to see the restoration work carried out by English Heritage.

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what joint consultation procedure exists between the police committee of the Royal Parks constabulary and that force's Police Federation, and the representative bodies of other ranks, at which matters relating to police pay and conditions of service are discussed; what is the membership of the joint body; and on how many occasions it has met in the past five years;

  (2) who serves on the police committee of the Royal Parks constabulary; and how often it has met over the past five years;

  (3) to what extent Home Office police regulations are applied to members of the Royal Parks constabulary;

  (4) if a Minister from his Department will meet representative organisations of constables, sergeants, and inspectors of the Royal Parks constabulary to discuss the ramifications of (a) the Sheehy report, (b) the White Paper on police and (c) matters of general concern to Police Federation members which are not operational matters reserved for the chief constable.

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

  Letter to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay from David Welch, dated 18 October 1993
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Iain Sproat, has asked me to reply to your Written Parliamentary Questions asking:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what joint consultation procedure exists between the Police Committee of the Royal Parks Constabulary and that force's Police Federation, and the representative bodies of other ranks at which matters relating to police pay and conditions of service are discussed; what is the membership of the joint body; and on how many occasions has it met in the last five years."
  "To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who serves on the police committee of the Royal Parks Constabulary; and how often has it met over the past five years."
  "To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what extent Home Office Police Regulations are applied to members of the Royal Parks Constabulary."
  "To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if a Minister from his Department will meet representative organisations of constables, sergeants and inspectors of the Royal Parks Constabulary to discuss the ramifications of (a) the Sheehey Report (b) the White Paper on Police and (c) matters of general concern to federation members which are not operational matters reserved for the chief constable."
  Prior to the inauguration of the Royal Parks Agency, the Department of the Environment and subsequently the Department of National Heritage, ensured the management of an efficient and effective Royal Parks Constabulary by a Police Committee. No arrangements existed for consultation between that Committee and the Staff Association.
  Following the formation of the Royal Parks Agency and the appointment of a Chief Executive, an Advisory committee was formed to generally oversee the running of the Agency. One of its
  474
  members is Sir Peter Imbert, Q.P.M., ex Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The Chief Executive has, nonetheless, retained the services of the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner as professional consultant on policing matters.
  In Home Department Forces the Staff Association ie Police Federation and Superintendents Association, meet with their Chief Constables to discuss welfare and other issues. To the best of my knowledge these Associations do not meet directly with their Police Committees. In the Royal Parks Constabulary identical arrangements prevail.
  The membership of the Royal Parks Constabulary Police Committee comprised the Director of Heritage and Royal Estate (Grade 3) as Chairman, with the Head of Division (Grade 5) as his Deputy, a representative from the Parks Management, a Councillor from Westminster and Richmond, together with a professional police consultant. The Home Office were also represented.
  The Committee met three times each year over the past five years. The Chief Officer and his Deputy also served as members and reported at each meeting.
  The Royal Parks Constabulary is a non-Home Department Police Force and is therefore not subject to the Police Act 1964. Nonetheless, it has an agreement under Section 96 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, with the Home Office and Police Complaints Authority, for the handling and supervision of the police complaints and discipline procedures. In a similar manner, although the Police Regulations do not apply, the spirit of the Regulations—with particular reference to overtime etc., entitlements—are applied in a like manner to Home Department Forces.
  The Chief Officer and his Deputy have met with the Assistant Secretary of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants to provisionally discuss the recommendations of the Sheehy Report, and they will meet again once the Government announces its plan of implementation. No discussion has yet taken place or been asked for on the White Paper on Police. The Chief Officer and his Deputy are always available to the Staff Association to discuss matters of general concern to its members. The Chief Executive is likewise available to discuss similar issues with the Chief Officer or the membership as desired.

  Licence Fees
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if it is his policy that the retail prices index formula for adjusting the BBC licence fee will continue in the years immediately ahead; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Brooke
  I announced on 21 June that I had commissioned Touche Ross to review the BBC's progress in achieving the efficiency and revenue gains identified by Price Waterhouse in 1990, and to advise whether the licence fee should remain linked to the retail prices index until the renewal of the BBC's royal charter. I have now received Touche Ross's report, and will announce the Government's conclusions shortly.

EMPLOYMENT

  Smoking
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 56, if he will publish the independent legal advice that his Department has received on which he based his statement that section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provides legal protection for employees at risk from passive smoking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department is advised on matters relating to health and safety at work by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE's advice on the application
  475
  of health and safety law to passive smoking in the workplace is set out in its guidance booklet, "Passive Smoking at Work", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 56, if he will publish the results of the recent surveys which indicate progress towards realising the aim of having the large majority of employees covered by a no smoking policy by 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Summaries of surveys carried out in 1992 for the Health Education Authority and for the Health and Safety Executive have already been published. Further analysis of data from the HEA survey indicated that 52 per cent. of employees worked for organisations which took some action on smoking, and that 49 per cent. of the work force are in workplaces with a formal written smoking policy.

  EC Social Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when plans for the operation of European social fund objectives 3 and 4 will be submitted to the EC.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following a round of consultation we expect to submit the final version of the European social fund objective 3 plan by the end of this month. A copy will be placed in the Library. The use of objective 4 is still being considered.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to implement objective 4 of the European social fund for January 1994 in respect of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A final decision on the use of objective 4 has yet to be taken. Meanwhile, we are waiting to hear from the European Commission how much money will be allocated to each member state, including the United Kingdom, under objectives 3 and 4. It remains our view that the European social fund should continue to focus first and foremost on helping unemployed people.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much European social fund resourcing the United Kingdom is expected to receive from(a) objective 3 and (b) objective 4 under the new European structural funds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are waiting to hear from the European Commission how much money will be allocated to each member state, including the United Kingdom, for the European social fund under objectives 3 and 4.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants are working in the Employment Department offices in Caxton house, Tothill street, London.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are currently 736 civil servants working in Employment Department offices in Caxton house.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to develop a code of practice for public sector employers concerning age discrimination in employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Age discrimination is wasteful and short sighted. Our policy is to persuade employers in both the public and private sector to recruit and develop staff on merit regardless of age.

  The civil service abolished age limits on recruitment to service-wide grades in 1990.

  Recently I launched "Getting On"—a drive to combat ageism which offers employers a five point plan to do just this. It urges all employers to follow the lead of the best and drop age bars from job adverts; welcome applications from older people; select on ability; offer flexible arrangements; develop and train all staff, regardless of age.

  Wages
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average(a) public sector and (b) private sector weekly wage for each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Over this period, there have been changes in the composition of the public and private sectors due to privatisations and the contracting out of some jobs. The information available from the new earnings survey given in the table is for the sectors as constituted in April of each year.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full time employees on adult rates— pay unaffected by absence: at April

  Public Sector £

  Private Sector £

  1979

  90.9

  87.9

  1980

  114.2

  106.8

  1981

  131.7

  118.7

  1982

  142.6

  131.5

  1983

  154.3

  143.1

  1984

  163.2

  157.0

  1985

  172.1

  170.3

  1986

  186.1

  183.9

  1987

  197.3

  199.7

  1988

  216.0

  219.5

  1989

  235.6

  241.4

  1990

  256.4

  265.8

  1991

  283.0

  285.4

  1992

  307.8

  303.3

  1993

  321.0

  315.3

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Training
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to require training and enterprise councils to set targets for training those aged over 50 years and monitor their implementation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to do so. The Government remain committed, through their contract with training and enterprise councils, to equality of opportunity for all eligible people on training and enterprise programmes.

  Pay Rates
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to require the Employment Service to retain information on rates of pay for job vacancies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 25 October 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 Employment Service retaining information on rates of pay for job vacancies. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Jobcentres do have information on rates of pay in their area. This is taken from details given by employers when they notify vacancies and from vacancies advertised in local newspapers. The information, which is rather generalised in nature, is used to advise employers and jobseekers who seek guidance on prevailing pay rates in a locality.
  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.

  Wages Underpayments
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions for underpayment of wages were made in each year since 1979; and what number of employees were involved.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 October 1993]: The information requested is provided in the table. The policy of the wages inspectorate under all Governments has been to seek compliance with wages council orders by advice and persuasion. Prosecution is usually considered only where an offence is deliberate or repeated and the evidence is considered sufficient.

  Year

  Number of prosecutions for underpayment

  Number of workers involved

  1979

  9

  26

  1980

  8

  43

  1981

  8

  40

  1982

  4

  4

  1983

  2

  8

  1984

  2

  5

  1985

  2

  2

  1986

  2

  6

  1987

  4

  10

  1988

  10

  23

  1989

  9

  21

  1990

  7

  15

  1991

  15

  31

  1992

  12

  41

SCOTLAND

  Parliamentary Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the locations of the television sets in his Department which can receive the live television feed from the Chamber of the House; and what is the total cost to his Department of this service.

  Mr. Lang
  Dover house, Whitehall is the only Scottish Office building which can receive the live television feed from the Chamber of the House. The total cost of the service is £17,600 per annum, including VAT and maintenance.

  Toll Roads
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidelines for the development of toll road proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Privately financed toll roads can be provided only in accordance with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, or by individual legislation. Guidelines on the Act were contained in a circular that was issued to Scottish local authorities by the Scottish Office in March 1992. Evaluation of a prospective concessionaire's proposals is a matter for the roads authority, but a statement is published with a draft toll order, under the 1991 Act, setting out the key points of an assignation agreement.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to ensure adequate consultations on and evaluation of toll road proposals at all key stages.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 the procedures for authorisation of a toll road are similar to those of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 that apply to publicly financed roads; there is therefore a similar approach to public consultation and public inquiry. Any scheme which is taken forward by means of individual legislation is subject to detailed scrutiny by Parliament.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to arrangements for the appointment, operation and co-ordination of justices of the peace in his plans for reorganisation of local government in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend intends to maintain the present arrangements for justices of the peace in the context of any amendments to the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 required to transfer responsibility for the district courts to the new local authorities proposed in paragraph 3.38 of "Shaping the New Future—The new Councils" (Cm 2267, July 1993).

  Transport, Stranraer
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to improve transport links from Stranraer to the main road and railway routes in the vicinity of Scotland's border with England.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The recent review of Scotland's key roads confirmed that the upgrading of the
  479
  A75, linking Stranraer to the A74, has substantially eliminated the operating difficulties on the route. However, there are minor schemes within the trunk roads programme for further improvements which emphasise safety and overtaking opportunities. The financing of these schemes will begin once projects of greater priority have been completed. With regard to rail links I understand that ScotRail and Dumfries and Galloway regional council are investigating the possibility of restoring a short section of track at Ayr to allow the Stranraer-Carlisle service to run via Mauchline. This could reduce the present journey time between Stranraer and Carlisle by around 25 minutes.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the setting up of a staff commission and a property commission to make recommendations in relation to the transfer of staff and property to the new authorities in his local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Stewart
  I have already announced that an independent staff commission will be set up to oversee the transfer of staff to the new councils. The Scottish Office will shortly be consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and staff representatives on the remit and membership of such a body. My right hon. Friend also proposes to take powers to enable him to establish a property commission to oversee the transfer of property to the new councils. It is intended that the need for such a body should be the subject of discussions with local government in due course.

  Scottish Cancer Trials Office
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future of the Scottish Cancer Trials Office.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what functions are performed by the Scottish cancer trials office; what funding has been available since 1980; what funding will be available in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement regarding the future of the Scottish trials office.

  Mr. Stewart
  None. The Scottish Cancer Trials Office is an independent organisation which, faced with withdrawal of funding by the Medical Research Council, is closing in August next year. The chief scientist office of the Scottish Office is, through its Scottish cancer therapy network, in close contact with the trials office about its closure arrangements. In addition the chief scientist office itself is always prepared to consider applications for the funding of soundly based research projects in this as in other health-related subjects.

  Tourism
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value of(a) local authority and (b) other public contributions made in 1993 to (i) the East Lothian tourist board and (ii) the Scottish Borders tourist board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total value of contributions to be made by(a) local authorities and (b) the
  480
  Scottish tourist board to East Lothian tourist board and Scottish Borders tourist board during 1993–94 is set out in the table.

  SBTB £

  East Lothian £

  Local Authorities

  204,500

  271,200

  Scottish Tourist Board

  85,000

  54,000

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tourists visited(a) East Lothian and (b) Berwickshire, and how many visitor bed-nights were recorded, in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Estimates of tourism volume are available only at the Scottish regional level and relate only to overnight stays of one or more nights. The information in respect of Lothian region and Borders region is as follows:

  United Kingdom residents

  Overseas residents

  Bednights in Lothian (1992)

  4,200,000

  5,500,000

  Bednights in Borders (1992)

  1,000,000

  300,000

  Sources: The United Kingdom Tourism Survey (UKTS) 1992.

  International Passenger Survey (IPS) 1992.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in(a) the Haddington travel-to-work area and (b) Berwickshire are employed in the tourism and leisure industries; and what proportion of the total work forces those figures represent.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures indicating employment in the tourism and leisure industries alone are not available. The information set out in the table incorporates the categories of tourism, leisure, distribution, hotels and catering and repairs.

  TTWA

  Year

  Number Employed

  Percentage of TTWA Workforce

  Haddington

  1991

  2,540

  22.5

  Berwickshire

  1991

  1,194

  23.0

  Source: Census of Employment.

  Travellers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to review the current policy on travelling people in respect of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The advisory committee on Scotland's travelling people will be consulted in reviewing current policy on travelling people during the course of 1994.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the target number of caravan pitches set by central Government for each local authority in
  481
  Scotland for use by travelling people together with the number of pitches provided in each local authority area to date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The pitch targets set for each district and the pitches provided are listed in the table.

  Pitch Targets

  No. of pitches provided

  Region and District

  Target

  Local Authority

  Private

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  15

  —

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  6

  —

  6

  Roxburgh

  10

  —

  —

  Tweeddale

  10

  10

  —

  Central

  Clackmannan

  20

  16

  —

  Falkirk

  28

  15

  —

  Stirling

  42

  *13

  —

  (temp)

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  12

  —

  12

  Nithsdale

  18

  18

  —

  Stewartry

  3

  —

  3

  Wigtown

  17

  —

  3

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  8

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  18

  —

  —

  North East Fife

  20

  20

  —

  Grampian

  City of Aberdeen

  36

  20

  —

  Banff and Buchan

  20

  20

  —

  Gordon

  —

  —

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside

  —

  —

  —

  Moray

  20

  20

  —

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  7

  —

  —

  Inverness

  24

  24

  —

  Lochaber

  27

  27

  —

  Nairn; Caithness Ross and Cromarty, Skye and Lochalsh, Sutherland

  20

  —

  20

  Lothian

  City of Edinburgh

  40

  20

  —

  East Lothian; Midlothian

  20

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  43

  23

  20

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  38

  32

  6

  Cunninghame

  24

  24

  —

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  12

  —

  —

  Kyle and Carrick

  8

  8

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  6

  6

  —

  Dumbarton

  20

  20

  —

  Clydebank

  —

  —

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  12

  —

  —

  Strathkelvin; Cumbemauld and Kilsyth

  20

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  50

  30

  —

  Monklands

  32

  16

  —

  Motherwell

  56

  14

  36

  Hamilton

  42

  22

  20

  East Kilbride

  6

  6

  —

  Clydesdale

  15

  —

  —

  Eastwood

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrew

  16

  16

  16

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  Angus

  37

  15

  7

  City of Dundee

  20

  20

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  85

  20

  45

  482

  No. of pitches provided

  Region and District

  Target

  Local Authority

  Private

  Total-Scotland

  983

  495

  194

  There is no identifed demand for travellers' sites in the areas of the Islands Councils.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of all pitches available to travelling people are now provided by local authorities in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Seventy-two per cent.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current membership of the advisory committee on travelling people setting out the qualifications of each existing member; when each member's term of service ends; and what is the level of remuneration paid to each member who receives any remuneration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The committee's membership and qualifications are listed in the table. Their current term of office expires on 31 December 1994. The chairman and members are unpaid but they are eligible for travel and subsistence expenses.Mr. H. M. Garland MBE—Chairman—Retired. Former Director of Social Work, Central Regional Council.
  Mr. J. E. D. Cornie OBE—Deputy Chairman—Recently retired
  Chief Executive, Perth and Kinross District Council.
  Mrs. J. Cameron JP MBE—Councillor, Bearsden and Milngavie District Council. Former Provost.
  Mr. P. Collier MBE—Retired. Former Environmental Health Adviser in the Communicable Diseases Unit at Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow.
  Mr. C. Douglas MBE—A founder member of the Committee in 1971 and a leader of Scotland's travelling people.
  Mr. A. Harper BEM—Former manager of local authority travelling people's site at Double Dykes, Perth.
  Miss M. Hendry—Project Manager of the Signpost project at Woodlands Teachers Centre, Glasgow which is involved in traveller education. Settled traveller.
  Mr. R. A. J. Moodie—Recently retired Depute Director of Planning, Lothian Regional Council.
  Mr. J. Pollock—Part-time Housing Consultant and former Director of Housing Services, Dumbarton District Council.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the statutory authority for the: setting up of the advisory committee on travelling people; and what plans he has to review its remit.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The advisory committee on Scotland's travelling people is a non-statutory body. Its remit will be reviewed before the current: three-year term of office expires at the end of 1994.

  Sheep
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the situation facing sheep producers who have been denied quota following the recent changes in the EC sheepmeat regime.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Until all the allocations of sheep annual premium quota have been completed, including those from the national reserve, I will not be in a position to say whether any producers will be left without quota. Quota is, however, transferable and it is open to sheep producers, including newcomers, to buy or lease quota within the prescribed transfer periods.
  483
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the size of the national sheep reserve available for distribution under the new EC sheepmeat regime.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The legislation provides for separate national reserves in the less-favoured and non less-favoured areas of the country. In both cases the size of the reserve depends in part on the amount of quota siphoned from sales of quota in the 1993 marketing year, since that quota is added to the respective reserve. As transfers of quota are still being processed, a final figure for the size of the reserves is not yet available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 October 1993]: My Department spent £94,385 on official hospitality during 1992–93. This figure includes expenditure on official hospitality in connection with events in Scotland arising from the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the percentage of ambulances in each service in Scotland that responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) the first half of 1993–94;

  (2) what was the number of ambulance staff in Scotland employed by the NHS in each year since 1990, using whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 October 1993]: There is only one ambulance service for the whole of Scotland. The information is as follows:

  Performance

  Responses

  0–8 minutes Per cent

  14–20 minutes Per cent

  1992–93

  51

  95

  April to August 19931

  53

  96

  Range

  Equipment

  Ammunition

  Remarks

  M1A

  Mortars

  Illumination

  Up to 120mm

  1A

  Guided Weapons

  Swingfire TOW

  Limited

  30mm Aircraft Helicopter

  30mm APDS

  Up to 120mm

  Milan

  150C

  Mortars

  Up to 120mm

  IC

  30mm

  All types

  3

  30mm

  All types

  Arc restrictions

  5A

  120mm, 30mm

  Practice only

  No HESH

  5B

  120mm

  Practice only

  5C

  120mm

  No HESH

  6

  120mm

  No HESH

  7A

  120mm

  All types

  7B

  120mm

  All types

  No HESH

  7C

  120mm

  All types

  Limited use

  8A

  120mm

  All types

  Limits Range 9

  8B

  120mm

  All types

  484

  Number of staff2

  Year

  Ambulance-men/Women

  Ambulance Officers and Control Assistants

  Total

  1990

  1,802.7

  220.0

  2,022.7

  1991

  1,963.9

  223.0

  2,186.9

  1992

  2,093.6

  221.0

  2,314.6

  Notes:

  1 The latest dates for which information is available.

  2 The figures exclude administrative and clerical staff and other support staff employed by the Scottish Ambulance Service.

  Plastic Cigarettes
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policy his office has regarding the sale of simulated plastic cigarettes to children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 October 1993]: It is understood that simulated plastic cigarettes are occasionally sold as novelties. Their intrinsic safety is a matter for trading standards officers to assess. The Government deplore any activity which encourages children to think that smoking is a safe or desirable habit.

DEFENCE

  Menwith Hill Monitoring Station
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current arrangements with the United States National Security Agency for the operation of the Menwith Hill monitoring station in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Hanley
  Menwith Hill station near Harrogate is a Ministry of Defence site which has been made available to the US Department of Defence for use as a defence communications facility. It operates with the full knowledge and agreement of Her Majesty's Government.

  Bergen-Hohne Firing Ranges
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of(a) weapon and (b) ammunition which are authorised for firing by British Army units on each of the firing ranges of the Bergen-Hohne ranges.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following types of weapon and ammunition are authorised for firing on each of the Bergen-Hohne ranges:
  485

  Range

  Equipment

  Ammunition

  Remarks

  8C

  30mm

  APDS

  Stops Range 9

  9

  120mm

  All types

  No HESH

  10

  30mm

  APDS

  Stops Range 9

  10A

  10B

  Anti Tank

  Practice only

  Limited use

  10C

  Anti Tank

  Live

  Limited use

  11

  120mm

  Reduced use

  11A

  Hand Grenade

  Limited use

  11B

  Rifle Range

  7.62mm 5.56mm

  11C

  12

  120mm

  No HESH

  No night fire

  13

  Demolitions

  PE4 ANFO

  Max 30 Kgs

  Anti tank mine

  19

  120mm

  APFSDS

  Limited use

  20

  120mm MLRS

  No HESH

  21

  120mm

  Not used

  22

  7.62mm

  ETR

  HESH —High Explosive Squish Head.

  APDS —Armour Piercing Discarded Sabot.

  APFSDS —Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarded Sabot.

  PE4 —Plastic Explosive 4.

  ANFO —Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil (plastic explosive).

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrangements for clearance of expended and unexploded ordnance on the Bergen-Hohne ranges.

  Mr. Hanley
  Clearance of expended and unexploded ordnance is the responsibility of the Bundeswehr who administer the ranges.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types and amounts of ammunition expended by British Army units on each firing range on the Bergen-Hohne ranges in 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The types of ammunition fired by the British Army on the Bergen-Hohne training ranges are as follows:

  120mm MBT ammunition

  a. High Explosive Squish Head

  b. Squish Head Practice

  c. Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarded Sabot

  d. Discarded Sabot Trace

  30mm Scimitar Warrior Fox

  a. Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarded Sabot

  b. Practice

  c. High Explosive

  Miscellaneous Ammunition

  a. Inert Giant Viper

  b. Swingfire Anti-Tank Missile Practice

  c. 7.62mm Ball and Trace

  d. 81mm illuminating mortar

  e. MILAN

  f. 3kg Aircraft bombs

  g. MLRS

  h. TOW

  Details of the actual quantities expended could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide figures showing the extent of use made by British Army units of the Bergen-Hohne ranges in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  British Army units have made use of the Bergen-Hohne ranges as follows since 1985:
  486

  Year

  Weeks

  1985

  8

  1986

  8

  1987

  4

  1988

  12

  1989

  9

  1990

  9

  1991

  10

  1992

  5

  1993

  110

  1 Planned

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on informing(a) hon. Members and (b) local media when changes are made in the directional flow control measures in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  When significant changes are made to the United Kingdom low flying systems, hon. Members whose constituencies are affected are given appropriate notification as are the local media. The United Kingdom low flying system is, however, under continuous review and changes to arrangements such as directional flow control measures are made when necessary. It is not our practice to notify hon. Members and the local media of all such changes.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the map showing the general structure of the night low flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  A copy of a map of the United Kingdom night low flying system is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which aircraft types in British military service are classified as light propellor-driven aircraft for the purposes of the low flying regulations.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft types in British military service which are classified as light propellor-driven aircraft for the purposes of the low flying regulations are the Bulldog, the Chipmunk and the Islander aircraft.
  487
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if light propellor-driven aircraft and helicopters flying at altitudes between 500 and 2,000 ft above ground level are obliged to comply with the directional flow regulations in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  All military aircraft, including helicopters and light propellor-driven types, flying at altitudes between 500 and 2,000 ft above ground level are required to comply with the directional flow arrows in the United Kingdom low flying system, whether they are booked into the system or not.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum authorised altitude for Nimrod aircraft flying over the sea.

  Mr. Hanley
  The minimum authorised altitude for Nimrod aircraft flying over the sea within three nautical miles of the United Kingdom coastline is 250 ft. Beyond three nautical miles from the coastline, the Nimrod is authorised to fly down to 200 ft during the day.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if low flying military jet aircraft seeking permission to enter class D airspace during the course of a low flying sortie are required to meet the regulations for such airspace in respect of(a) not exceeding an indicated airspeed of 250 knots and (b) maintaining a vertical separation from cloud of 1,000 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  Low flying military jet aircraft seeking permission to enter class D airspace are not required to comply with the airspeed limit of 250 knots, which applies only to civil aircraft. They do, however, have to maintain a vertical separation from cloud of 1,000 ft if flying under visual flight rules.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which commanders in the Royal Air Force currently hold the authority to approve or decline unit requests to fly at less than 250 ft over the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the procedures in force for requests for and authorisations of such flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  Commanders-in-chief or officers of equivalent status may authorise flying at less than 250 ft, but not less than 100 ft in the tactical training areas in the United Kingdom. In practice, this authority is delegated to the air officer commanding of the group concerned. Units wishing to carry out operational low flying submit requests to group headquarters where they are scrutinised to ensure the activity represents the minimum necessary before authorisation is given.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used in determining whether an environmentally sensitive location is granted Provost Marshal Prohibited or Provost Marshal Restricted area status, as opposed to low flying avoidance area status; and what are the differences between Provost Marshal areas and other types of low flying avoidance area, in terms of available sanctions on aircrew breaching these areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the majority of cases where it is agreed to grant avoidance status, a permanent, seasonal, or temporary low flying avoidance area will be declared, thus providing protection from military aircraft conducting low flying training. Exceptionally, if it is necessary to exclude 488
  all military aircraft including, wherever possible, those on operational tasks, a provost marshal prohibited or restricted area will be created. There is no difference between a provost marshal area and a low flying avoidance in terms of the available sanctions on aircrew breaching these areas.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the radius of provost marshal prohibited area PMP 103.

  Mr. Hanley
  Provost marshal prohibited area PMP 103, which applied to the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust, is no longer in force. It was replaced in April 1987 by a seasonal avoidance which is in effect between 1 September and 15 April each year. It is not our practice to release detailed information on the dimesions of such avoidances.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if individual Royal Air Force flying units maintain their own lists of features for use as simulated targets; and what is the procedure for pre-surveying the areas surrounding these locations in order to ensure their suitability on environmental and safety grounds.

  Mr. Hanley
  Royal Air Force units maintain locally produced simulated target lists and these are reviewed regularly. Targets are carefully selected and account is taken of the location of nearby habitation and the environmental and safety factors involved.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities for overland low flying at less than 250 ft were made available to (1) Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilots and (2) Royal Air Force Harrier pilots prior to deploying to the south Atlantic for combat operations during the Falklands war.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1979 fixed-wing flying below 250 ft in the United Kingdom low flying system has been restricted to three sparsely populated areas in northern Scotland, central Wales and the Borders which are designated as tactical training area. There is no record of any aircraft having been authorised to fly training sorties below 250 ft outside these areas in preparation for deployment to the Falklands.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to authorise fixed-wing low flying at night at less than 250 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no such plans.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the towns specified for avoidance in the United Kingdom Military Low Flying Handbook are also marked as locations requiring avoidance on the pre-printed low flying charts used by aircrew.

  Mr. Hanley
  Military pilots are instructed to avoid flying low over major conurbations and towns and to avoid all other populated areas wherever possible whether they are listed for avoidance in the United Kingdom Low Flying Handbook or not. The boundaries of the avoidance areas around major conurbations are shown on the low flying charts used by aircrew. In addition, towns sufficiently large to qualify for formal avoidance status are shown as built up areas on the charts, together with some smaller towns, and aircrew will therefore be reminded of their location when planning sorties. The only towns specifically marked as
  489
  sites to be avoided are a number of small communities within tactical training areas, which are too small to show as built up areas but are to be avoided by aircraft carrying out operational low flying.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the low flying areas in which there is an upper limit on the number of aircraft which can operate within the area at one time; what is the numerical limit in each case; and what was the date of introduction of the limit in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Low Flying Area

  Number of aircraft

  Date of Introduction

  LFA 7

  30

  October 1987

  LFA 12

  15

  November 1990

  LFA 17

  20

  October 1987

  These limits apply to military fixed-wing aircraft, and do not include helicopters.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many formed Royal Air Force Vulcan flight crews held qualifications to fly at 100 ft above ground level in each year from 1977 to 1982.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to carry out a radar surveillance of low flying by military jet aircraft in the Barnsley/ Doncaster/Rotherham/Sheffield low flying transit area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans at present to carry out a radar surveillance of the transit area.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of low-flying sorties conducted by each type of Royal Air Force aircraft from Canadian forces base Goose Bay during the 1993 flying season.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of low flying sorties carried out by Royal Air Force aircraft at Canadian forces base Goose Bay during the 1993 season was as follows:

  Sorties

  Tornado GR1

  574

  Harrier GR7

  5

  Tornado F3

  2

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the highest speed achieved by the USAF F-16 aircraft during noise measurement runs at RAE West Freugh in June 1990; and what plans he has for further measurements of the noise levels generated by this type of aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The highest speed the F-16 achieved during the noise measurement trials at RAE West Freugh in June 1990 was 453 knots. There are no plans at present for further noise trials of the F-16 aircraft, which is not based in the United Kingdom.
  490
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 July, Official Report, column 466, what was the result of the rearranged tests analysing the noise generated by the F-15E aircraft at low level; at what location the tests were held; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The trial to measure the noise generated by the F-15E rearranged for July did not take place, again due to the poor weather conditions. The trial was however conducted successfully at RAE West Freugh during September. The results are at present being analysed.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current status of the conventionally armed stand-off missile programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are currently revising and updating our requirement paper. We expect to issue a formal request for proposals against a cardinal points specification to interested United Kingdom and overseas companies early in the new year.

  Tornado
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft will be converted to GR1b for the maritime role; and how many of that number will be on the front-line strength of operational squadrons.

  Mr. Hanley
  We plan to modify a total of 26 Tornado aircraft to GR1b standard for the maritime role. Of these, 24 will be on the front-line strength of operational squadrons.

  Ministry Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements will be made for providing substantive answers to parliamentary questions relating to the Ministry of Defence police after it becomes an agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  All chief executives of defence agencies are encouraged to reply to Members of Parliament direct, where the parliamentary question covers matters falling within their area of responsibility. The same will be true for the chief constable, Ministry of Defence police. In such cases, the MP will receive a standard reply from the Minister which states that the chief executive will be replying. The Minister's reply, together with the chief executive's letter, will be published in Hansard.

  Goose Bay
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amounts paid to the Canadian Government each year since 1987 for Royal Air Force use of Canadian forces base, Goose Bay.

  Mr. Hanley
  The amounts paid to the Canadian Government for the Royal Air Force use of the Canadian forces base, Goose Bay are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1987–88

  4,269,000

  1988–89

  5,262,000

  1989–90

  5,482,000

  491

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  9,468,000

  1991–92

  12,309,000

  1992–93

  15,492,000

  Jobs
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs are dependent on defence exports(a) as reported in this year's statement on the defence estimates and (b) according to the United Kingdom defence statistics in 1993; how the two sets of figures are calculated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993" gives a figure of in excess of 100,000 jobs directly or indirectly dependent on defence exports. The 1993 edition of "UK Defence Statistics" gives in table 2.24 for the 1991–92 financial year figures of 75,000 for direct employment, and 70,000 for indirect employment dependent on defence exports. There is only one set of figures, which are those given in "UK Defence Statistics". These are calculated by comparing estimates of the value of defence exports based on data provided by HM Customs and Excise and the Society of British Aerospace Companies, with estimates of sales per employee for the main industries concerned based on data provided by the Central Statistical Office. More details of the methods used to obtain these employment estimates are given in an article in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", volume 2.

  RAF Sea Kings
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when RAF Sea Kings dedicated to search and rescue will begin to use a satellite-based navigation system; and when he expects all search and replace aircraft to be using the system.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is planned to equip Mk3 RAF Sea Kings with a global positioning system—GPS—a satellite-based navigation system. The Sea King Mk3a helicopter scheduled to be delivered to the RAF in 1996 will be fitted with GPS, and it is expected the whole RAF fleet will be equipped with GPS by late 1997. Royal Navy search and rescue helicopters are expected to be fitted with GPS within the next two years.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what navigation system is currently used by RAF Sea Kings dedicated to search and rescue.

  Mr. Hanley
  The main navigation systems used by the RAF search and rescue Sea Kings comprise a Decca Mk19 hyperbolic navigation system, a doppler radar, an air data system and a tactical navigation system. These are supported by VHF omni-range, instrument landing system equipment, a VHF and UHF homing system and automatic direction finding equipment. In addition, a horizontal situation indicator at each pilot station displays navigational steering information.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed within the Defence Export Services Organisation; and what is the breakdown of those posts.

  Mr. Aitken
  The following is a breakdown of the staff employed within the Defence Export Services Organisation:

  Office

  Staff numbers

  London Based

  263

  Overseas

  25

  Directorate General Saudi Armed Forces Projects (1)

  221

  Malaysian Project Office (1)

  33

  Kuwait Programme Office (1)

  21

  Directorate of Sales (Disposals) British Forces Germany

  43

  Army Sales Team

  60

  Total

  666

  (1) Self funding.

  Personnel Statistics
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of(a) uniformed personnel and (b) MOD civil servants on 1 Janaury 1988; and what are the latest figures.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  1 January 1988

  1 September 1993

  United Kingdom Regular Forces

  317,300

  267,200

  MOD Civil Servants (Full-time equivalents)

  144,800

  (1) 128,000

  Note:

  (1) Of these some 33,000 are in the administration group, some 54,000 are specialist non-industrial staff and some 41,000 are industrial staff.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants are working at his Department's offices in Whitehall.

  Mr. Aitken
  On I September 1993, there were some 3,400 full-time and part-time MOD civil servants working in the Whitehall area.

  Pregnancy (Dismissals)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the negotiations on subsidiarity with the EC will enable him to adopt a policy of not paying compensation to women dismissed from the services on account of pregnancy.

  Mr. Hanley
  Liability of the Government to pay compensation to women dismissed from the armed forces on account of pregnancy between August 1978 and August 1990 was established following an agreed order of the High Court applying EC directive 76/207—the equal treatment directive. The Government believe that this directive is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
  493
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women were dismissed from the services as a result of pregnancy between 1978 and 1990; and on what authority the policy of dismissing such women was based up to 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  Some 5,600 women were dismissed from the services on pregnancy between August 1978, when the EC equal treatment directive came into force, and August 1990, when the services discontinued the practice of dismissing women on pregnancy and introduced maternity leave.

  The basis for the policy of dismissing service women on pregnancy prior to August 1990 was the exemption granted to the armed forces in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated amount to be spent in 1993–94 in rent and other associated costs with the offices of his Department in Whitehall.

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated amount to be spent in 1993–94 in rent and other associated costs on MOD headquarters offices in Whitehall will be about £58 million. This includes £30 million in rental charges payable to the Department of the Environment under the property repayment services scheme.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Freemasons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received regarding disclosure by freemasons in public life; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. David Davis
  Apart from representations by the hon. Member, my office has received six letters on this subject. The civil service management code has been amended to identify freemasonry as a possible conflict of interest. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  "Realising Our Potential"
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about action so far implemented following publication of his White Paper on science technology and engineering "Realising Our Potential".

  Mr. David Davis
  Progress in implementing the White Paper has been excellent. We have established a new Council for Science and Technology to provide high-level advice. We have embarked on a technology foresight programme, aimed at achieving new working partnerships between industry, academia and Government. We have made preparations for the new research council structure, including appointing the first of the new part-time chairmen. We have announced a number of initiatives to promote public understanding of science, engineering and technology.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the effect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on market testing in the civil service.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government issued guidance in March this year which set out a framework for considering questions raised by the regulations. I am happy to say that Departments have made good progress in their market-testing programmes.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what analysis his Department has made regarding the likely outcome of a subsequent review of market testing within a given department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Departments have made good progress in their market-testing programmes. My officials in the efficiency unit are currently undertaking an analysis of the outcome of the market-testing programme for 1992–93, ending on 30 September. They will be reviewing their findings with Departments. I shall report on the results of their analysis when it has been completed.

  Wildlife
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research he has commissioned into development of natural wildlife in pocket parks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. For my part, I have not commissioned any research on this topic. I understand, however, that the Ground Work Foundation and English Nature, bodies funded by his Department, are active in the development of such schemes.

  Science White Paper
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to implement plans outlined in his White Paper on science published earlier this year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since the White Paper was published, I have established the new Council for Science and Technology which meets for the first time on 9 November, launched the technology foresight programme and appointed the first of the new part-time chairmen of research councils. I will shortly be appointing the director general of research councils and the remaining chairmen and chief executives. We have launched a new grants scheme to aid small-scale initiatives in the public understanding of science. Finally, the first Forward Look on publicly funded science and technology will be published next April.

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those charters and the specific targets where financial compensation is a remedy for failure to meet the charter's standards.

  Mr. David Davis
  There are seven charters containing provision for financial compensation. They are the British Rail passengers charter; London Underground customers
  495
  charter; Northern Ireland railways passengers charter; Contributions Agency contributors charter; Contributions Agency employers charter; and the Benefits Agency customer charter.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the effectiveness of the citizens charter.

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend has received numerous representations about the effectiveness of the citizens charter, most recently at a series of regional forums where local public service managers have been discussing how they are putting charter principles into practice.

  Nuclear Test Programme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has, following his recent statement on open government in relation to documents which continue to be withheld from public scrutiny beyond 30 years, to release documents having a bearing upon the health and safety of participants in Britain's nuclear test programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The White Paper on open government (Cm 2290) published on 15 July 1993 states, in paragraph 9.28, that all Departments will, as resources can be made available:

  Trust applications in the South East Thames region

  Applications

  Approved

  Rejected

  Deferred

  Withdrawn

  1st wave

  5

  1

  3

  0

  1

  2nd wave

  13

  10

  3

  0

  0

  3rd wave

  13

  11

  2

  0

  0

  4th wave

  12

  7

  0

  15

  0

  1 Secretary of State will announce her decisions on these five applications at the turn of the year.

  Medical Complaints Appeals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to ensure equality of access to appropriate legal advice for patients and practitioners at medical complaints appeals; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Professor Alan Wilson of Leeds university is chairing a full review of national health service complaints systems. He is due to report at the turn of the year.

  Non-urgent Surgery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the names of hospitals and health authorities who had ceased non-urgent surgery on 30 September.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. Early evidence indicates that most hospitals are managing their workload effectively. Guidance was issued by the national health service management executive to ensure that effective monitoring systems are in place so that local managers can identify problems early and take action to maintain a balanced activity throughout the year. A copy of the guidance EL(93)10 is available in the Library.
  496
  "re-review all material currently withheld for longer than 30 years to see whether its sensitivity has passed and to release it if possible".

  Records relating to Britain's nuclear test programme are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who will be arranging for these records to be reviewed as part of this undertaking.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for trust status have been made to the South East Thames regional health authority; how many have been approved; how many rejected; and what evaluation has been made of the performance of the trusts which have been approved against the prospectuses issued at the time of their applications.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table. The business planning process and financial performance of national health service trusts are monitored by the NHS management executive outposts. The main accountability tools for this purpose are a business plan, a strategic direction, annual accounts and an annual report.

  Fund Holding
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances fund-holding general practitioner practices are permitted to pool budgets for extra-contractual referrals with their local district health authority so as to ensure equity of treatment for patients of fund-holding and non-fund-holding general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fund holders do not have a separate budget for extra-contractual referrals. All purchases made by general practitioner fund holders are subject to contracts. In their budgets, fund holders receive only their patients' fair share of national health service resources.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what criteria funds are awarded to fund-holding general practitioner practices(a) in their initial year of operation and (b) in subsequent years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The criteria for awarding funds to general practitioner fund holders are set out in "General Practice Fundholding: Guidance on Setting Budgets for 1993–94", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, geographically by district health authority area, the name and address of each fund-holding general practitioner practice, the date upon which the practice achieved fund-holding status, the amount of money awarded to the practice in 1993–94 for the purchase of
  497
  services covered by the fund-holding regulations, the number of patients on the practice's list on the day that its funding was allocated, and the amount of funding per capita awarded to each practice for services covered by the fund-holding regulations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what average level of funding per capita was allocated in 1993–94 to fund-holding general practitioner practices in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority area and (c) each district health authority area to enable fund-holding practices to purchase those services covered by the fund-holding regulations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average level of funding allocated to general practitioner fund holders per capita in England in 1993ߝ94 was £152.

  The average level of funding allocated to GP fund holders per capita by regional health authority in 1993–94 is shown in the table.

  £

  Northern

  166

  Yorkshire

  163

  Trent

  141

  East Anglia

  156

  North West Thames

  156

  North East Thames

  128

  South East Thames

  154

  South West Thames

  139

  Wessex

  153

  Oxford

  134

  South Western

  169

  West Midlands

  156

  Mersey

  163

  North Western

  143

  The average level of funding allocated to GP fund holders per capita by district health authority is not available centrally.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider holding centrally information of bed numbers in newly registered private nursing homes and residential care homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no plans to do so.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she is currently considering for changing the name of community health councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is currently considering in respect of the future status and influence of community health councils in respect of NHS trusts; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The role of community health councils is to represent the interests of the public. Many CHCs have developed effective working relationships with trusts which they use to carry out this role. We are interested in the spread of this good practice.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by(a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority the number of extra-contractual referrals that were refused for (i) the last 12 months and (iii) 24 months; on what grounds each was refused; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. The grounds on which an extra-contractual referral can be refused are clearly laid out in "Guidance on Extra-Contractual Referrals" (EL(92)60), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Overseas Staff and Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost for the current financial year of her Department having(a) premises and (b) personnel overseas; and what were the comparable figures for (a) 12, (b) 24, (c) 36 and (d) 48 months ago.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department does not hold data relating to the cost of staff based overseas for the financial years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92. However, during 1992–93 the Department spent a total of £215,362 on overseas personnel. During the current financial year the Department has spent a total of £118,386 to date. These figures relate to the salary and travel and subsistence costs of staff to overseas postings. The Department does not have seconded premises overseas.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to monitor the provision of community care services for homeless people.

  Mr. Bowis
  The social services inspectorate is currently carrying out a study in a sample of local authority areas on the way in which community care and housing policies are being co-ordinated. This will specifically address the provision of services for homeless people.

  Patients (Spending)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the revenue spending on in and out-patients by each authority in England in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally on a purchaser basis.

  Assessment Process
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to provide new guidelines to local authorities on their duties under the assessment process outlined in section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidance setting out the legal framework within which authorities work has already been issued. Copies of the guidance, CI(92)34, are available in the Library.

  Deaths (Inquiry)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now set up a public inquiry into the mismanagement of patients at Birmingham orthopaedic, Stafford and Doncaster maternity hospitals and the resultant deaths.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Services
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish monitoring information collected during her Department's review of drug and alcohol rehabilitation services.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report carried out for the Department by Goldsmith's college was published on 28 July and a copy was placed in the Library.

  Caesarean Operations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider having the numbers of caesarean operations to deliver babies collated centrally; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of caesarean operations have been collected centrally since 1973. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) on 1 March at columns 29–30 for the latest available figures.

  Charitable Trust Funds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she intends to take to ensure that the charitable trust funds held by regional health authorities by reason of the distribution of the national fund in 1974 are passed over to hospitals for the benefit of patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. This is a matter for the trustees of the charitable funds concerned.

  Family Planning Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of the costs of family planning services in England in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  Estimated total expenditure on national health service family planning services in England was £109.2 million in 1990–91 and £136.2 million in 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available. The two figures are not directly comparable because of new reporting arrangements following the national health service reforms.

  Rampton Hospital
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement in respect of the conditions and environment of patients at Rampton special hospital after her visit to the hospital on 3 August.

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not visit Rampton hospital on 3 August but I did so on 30 September. I was impressed with the advances which have been made in the care and treatment of patients and 500
  with the commitment and dedication of the members of the staff and management whom I met. The refurbished ward which I opened, providing accommodation for 20 mentally ill men in individual rooms with their own washing and toilet facilities, represents a significant improvement in the living conditions of these patients.

  With the Special Hospitals Service Authority we are committed to achieving and maintaining the highest standards of care at Rampton and the other two special hospitals, and to strengthening their professional links with local and regional national health service psychiatric services. Staff education has a key part to play in this and I was glad to have the opportunity following my visit of speaking at the signing of the agreement between Ashworth and Rampton hospitals and Sheffield Hallam university to designate the hospitals as joint colleges of the university.

  Hospital Treatment (Bosnia)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what central Government funds were used for the cost of hospital treatment of Bosnian war victims; what is the total cost to date; what other uses the funds have been put to during the current financial year; what is the total amount of the reserves left; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  These costs have been met from moneys voted by Parliament for the national health service, out of the Department of Health budget for paying provider units the costs of treatments to all overseas visitors exempt from NHS charges. The total budget, the use of which is restricted to this specific purpose, is £12 million for this financial year of which about £6.1 million has been spent. To date, costs of treating Bosnians amount to £517,000 in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Top Ten Hospitals
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the top 10 hospitals in Britain measured by their success rate in(a) general surgery and (b) heart surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on surgical success rates in hospitals is not available centrally. A system of medical audit is in place in every hospital, which provides confidential peer review by doctors of clinical standards and practices.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is her policy to receive delegations from community health councils which have formally objected to hospital closures.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Formal objections to hospital closures should be made to the district health authority.

  Where the regional health authority supports the district health authority, it will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a final decision.

  Whether we receive a delegation from the community health council will depend on the view we take of the particular closure, taking account of all the relevant facts.

  Capital Allocation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to change the system of capital allocation.

  Mr. Sackville
  A steering group has been developing a new system for allocating captial to respond to changes in the new national health service. The group's proposals will need further development in the light of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement on 21 October. Allocations for 1994–95 will be based on existing arrangements.

  Anencephaly
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of preventable cases of anencephaly and spina bifida caused by insufficient folic acid in the diet.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available. An expert advisory group report on folic acid and the prevention of neural tube defects, published in December 1992, confirmed evidence that women who increase their intake of folic acid when planning a pregnancy can significantly reduce the risk of having a baby with neural tube defect. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Hearing Loss
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which units in this country provide psychiatric services for people with hearing loss; and what plans she has to continue supraregional funding for these units.

  Mr. Bowis
  Mental health services for deaf people are provided at Springfield hospital, London, Prestwich hospital, Manchester and Queen Elizabeth psychiatric hospital, Birmingham. The units at Springfield and Prestwich hospitals have received supraregional funding for seven years through to 1994 to give the units time to establish referral patterns for subsequent years.

  "Patients Charter News"
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of production and circulation of the "Patients Charter News"; and if she will list its print total and number of editions each year; what is its purpose; to whom it is circulated; and who is responsible for its content.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The patients charter has stimulated many innovative ideas and much good practice throughout the national health service. The patients charter news, published every other month, aims to share ideas with NHS staff to stimulate improved performance on the charter.

  Forty-four thousand copies are printed of each edition. Copies are distributed to all parts of the NHS, including health authorities and hospitals.

  The estimated annual cost of patients charter news for this financial year is £30,000. The patients charter unit of the NHS management executive has responsibility for the content of the newsletter.

  NHS Premises (Tobacco Sales)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 618, if she will publish the data on which she based the statement that the ending of sales of tobacco products on NHS premises has now largely been achieved.

  Mr. Sackville
  The reply was based on advice from regional health authorities. As the information provided varied in format, publication is unlikely to prove useful but the results showed that, on all but a handful of sites, sales of tobacco products had ceased. Action continues to ensure the remaining outlets comply with the policy as soon as possible.

  South and East Cheshire Health Authority
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement setting out the conditions of service and remuneration of the appointment as executive directors of the South and East Cheshire health authority of Mr. Simon Cussons, Christine Hannah, Hilary Blumer, Neil Campbell, Paul Harvey, Dr. Leslie Klein and Mr. Gary Lucking.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Simon Cussons is the non-executive part-time chairman of South and East Cheshire health authority, and was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a term of office commencing 1 October 1993 until 31 March 1997. Chairmen of health authorities are remunerated within the range £15,125 to £19,285 per year, according to the district revenue budget. The appointment of non-executive members to district health authorities is a matter for regional health authorities. The annual remuneration of non-executive members of district health authorities is £5,000. The chief executive of a district health authority is appointed by the chairman and non-executive members, and the other executive members are appointed by the chairman, non-executive members and the chief executive of that authority. The remuneration and conditions of service of the chief executive and other executive members are a matter for the authority, within guidelines laid down centrally, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the burns and plastic surgery units will remain at Queen Victoria hospital, East Grinstead; and whether she will be able to attend the opening ceremony for the new burns unit at that hospital early in 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  The burns and plastics services provided by Queen Victoria hospital were included in the specialty reviews which were carried out following the Tomlinson report and "Making London Better". The recommendations of the specialty review are available to inform the South East Thames regional health authority together with the Kent and Sussex purchasing agencies when deciding upon the provision of burns and plastic services for their residents. The Queen Victoria Hospital will become an independent national health service trust in April 1994, a decision which reflects the hospital's justified reputation as a centre of excellence.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision her Department is making over the next five years for the younger sufferers from Alzheimer's disease; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The arrangements for assessing and meeting the needs of younger sufferers from Alzheimer's disease are decided by local health and social services authorities.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the aims and methods of assessing Alzheimer's disease sufferers' needs; and if she will make it her policy to allow more weight in assessment to be given to the views of family carers.

  Mr. Bowis
  The introduction of the health checks on patients aged 75 and over in general practitioners' contracts provides an opportunity for the cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer's disease to be detected. Under the new community care arrangements care managers are responsible for assessing the needs of sufferers from Alzheimer's disease and for arranging for their needs to be met. Guidance emphasises that carers views' should be taken into account and, where appropriate, carers should be offered a separate assessment.

  Child Migrants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she had during her recent visit to Australasia on her policy towards British child migrants; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) pursuant to the announcement of the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Yeo) of 19 May regarding the Child Migrants Trust, what progress has been made in discussions with the Australian Government regarding the child migrant scheme.

  Mr. Bowis
  Correspondence between myself and the Australian Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was already in train before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's visit to Australia in September. It was not therefore a matter for my right hon. Friend to raise during her visit.

  Officials in Australia have, through the British high commission in Canberra and the consular department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, written to officials in my Department providing details of the activities, to date, of the Child Migrants Trust in Australia. Both Governments are funding the Child Migrants Trust in support of their record tracing and advisory activities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to arrange financial assistance and retrospective payments to former child migrants who have incurred expenditure in returning to Britain to locate and be reunited with their natural families.

  Mr. Bowis
  The migration schemes for children from the United Kingdom in the care of voluntary and statutory agencies, were run mainly by voluntary bodies. The Government are funding the Child Migrants Trust to assist it in record tracing and in providing an advisory service,504
  and continue to support constructive contacts between the trust and the voluntary bodies which ran the schemes. The Government did not deal with individual cases. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to provide financial assistance directly to former child migrants.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each family health services authority since July 1992(a) the number of patients seeking emergency dental treatment from their general practitioners, (b) the number of courses of dental treatment given by general practitioners and (c) the number of patient referrals of dental emergency cases referred to accident and emergency departments.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 October 1993]: Information about the number of patients seeking emergency dental treatment from their dentists and the number of patients referred to accident and emergency departments for emergency dental treatment is not available centrally.

  The number of courses of dental treatment for England for the period July 1992 to September 1993 is shown in the table. Since October 1990, the majority of treatment for children has been carried out under capitation arrangements where courses of treatment are not identified separately. Figures for adults and children, therefore, are not comparable.

  General Dental Service—England

  Number of courses of dental treatments July 1992—September 1993

  FHSA

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  Cleveland

  369,555

  73,630

  443,185

  Cumbria

  338,625

  36,281

  374,906

  Durham

  337,890

  51,994

  389,884

  Northumberland

  184,219

  23,283

  207,502

  Gateshead

  120,675

  12,995

  133,670

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  166,550

  24,226

  190,776

  North Tyneside

  131,660

  13,003

  144,663

  South Tyneside

  82,757

  10,490

  93,247

  Sunderland

  160,977

  19,461

  180,438

  Humberside

  542,782

  72,620

  615,402

  North Yorkshire

  541,998

  51,774

  593,772

  Bradford

  324,423

  34,536

  358,959

  Calderdale

  143,770

  13,557

  157,327

  Kirklees

  252,634

  27,671

  280,305

  Leeds

  537,280

  66,272

  603,552

  Wakefield

  216,434

  27,187

  243,621

  Derbyshire

  575,467

  66,015

  641,482

  Leicestershire

  609,115

  65,521

  674,636

  Lincolnshire

  413,594

  34,405

  447,999

  Nottinghamshire

  719,506

  90,378

  809,884

  Barnsley

  124,232

  15,911

  140,143

  Doncaster

  186,843

  29,499

  216,342

  Rotherham

  137,179

  22,534

  159,713

  Sheffield

  378,459

  42,302

  420,761

  Cambridgeshire

  465,092

  43,629

  508,721

  Norfolk

  568,956

  49,615

  618,571

  Suffolk

  539,891

  44,508

  584,399

  Bedfordshire

  275,019

  30,472

  305,491

  Hertfordshire

  671,651

  80,738

  752,389

  Barnet

  123,839

  27,158

  150,997

  Brent and Harrow

  244,065

  38,931

  282,996

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  321,604

  36,907

  358,511

  Hillingdon

  149,341

  16,970

  166,311

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminster

  150,662

  9,032

  159,694

  Essex

  872,921

  112,339

  985,260

  Barking and Havering

  197,066

  26,323

  223,389

  Camden and Islington

  204,662

  13,547

  218,209

  505

  FHSA

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  City and East London

  244,619

  39,207

  283,826

  Enfield and Haringey

  221,331

  29,543

  250,874

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  228,490

  36,775

  265,265

  East Sussex

  541,721

  40,802

  582,523

  Kent

  846,171

  96,875

  943,046

  Greenwich and Bexley

  237,794

  38,914

  276,708

  Bromley

  107,670

  25,650

  133,320

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  384,435

  29,593

  414,028

  Surrey

  676,006

  71,844

  747,850

  West Sussex

  555,669

  51,331

  607,000

  Croydon

  201,671

  28,365

  230,036

  Kingston and Richmond

  137,557

  24,103

  161,660

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  305,412

  37,063

  342,475

  Dorset

  577,023

  41,248

  618,271

  Hampshire

  1,200,796

  93,460

  1,294,256

  Wiltshire

  401,007

  33,612

  434,619

  Isle of Wight

  104,149

  5,867

  110,016

  Berkshire

  434,168

  51,775

  485,943

  Buckinghamshire

  364,331

  39,991

  404,322

  Northamptonshire

  374,080

  35,003

  409,083

  Oxfordshire

  332,881

  31,362

  364,243

  Avon

  779,511

  70,834

  850,345

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  324,227

  25,192

  349,419

  Devon

  788,370

  67,626

  855,996

  Gloucestershire

  385,755

  32,351

  418,106

  Somerset

  406,295

  34,695

  440,990

  Hereford and Worcester

  509,949

  52,321

  562,270

  Shropshire

  303,768

  31,680

  335,448

  Staffordshire

  634,179

  74,833

  709,012

  Warwickshire

  337,708

  30,487

  368,195

  Birmingham

  630,222

  77,623

  707,845

  Coventry

  173,549

  19,402

  192,951

  Dudley

  201,674

  18,780

  220,454

  Sandwell

  177,813

  13,620

  191,433

  Solihull

  120,997

  13,558

  134,555

  Walsall

  137,287

  19,251

  156,538

  Wolverhampton

  162,244

  10,732

  172,976

  Cheshire

  696,882

  79,348

  776,230

  Liverpool

  277,480

  47,775

  325,255

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  187,891

  26,659

  214,550

  Sefton

  208,859

  21,530

  230,389

  Wirral

  230,016

  26,954

  256,970

  Lancashire

  879,956

  112,147

  992,103

  Bolton

  179,255

  20,511

  199,766

  Bury

  118,302

  15,275

  133,577

  Manchester

  291,239

  33,669

  324,908

  Oldham

  139,932

  21,931

  161,863

  Rochdale

  123,937

  14,882

  138,819

  Salford

  138,175

  20,060

  158,235

  Stockport

  249,835

  25,285

  275,120

  Tameside

  130,644

  21,181

  151,825

  Trafford

  179,255

  22,745

  202,000

  Wigan

  196,855

  28,142

  224,997

  ENGLAND

  31,160,435

  3,469,176

  34,629,611

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the health detriment to the United Kingdom population of the BNFL proposal of retaining intermediate and low-level wastes and return of high-level wastes.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1976, all BNFL's contracts for reprocessing overseas spent fuel included provision for the return of wastes. Under its proposals for waste substitution, BNFL would offer to return to customers, with whom it has such
  506
  contracts, an equivalent amount in radiological terms of high-level radioactive waste in place of intermediate and low-level waste arising from reprocessing.

  We have asked the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee for further advice on the integrated radiological toxic potential system, which BNFL proposes as the basis for determining radiological equivalence.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the lone parents claiming one-parent benefit are aged(a) under 16 years, (b) 16 to 19 years, (c) 20 to 24 years, (d) 25 to 29 years, (e) 30 to 34 years, (f) 35 to 39 years or (g) 40 years and over; and what percentage of mothers in each of those age groups are married or have previously been married.

  Mr. Burt
  Information about the age of one-parent benefit recipients is not held in all cases and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on recipients' marital status is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the lone parents claiming family credit benefit are aged(a) under 16 years, (b) 16 to 19 years, (c) 20 to 24 years, (d) 25 to 29 years, (e) 30 to 34 years, (f) 35 to 39 years or (g) 40 years and over; and what percentage of mothers in each of those age groups are married or have previously been married.

  Mr. Burt
  The numbers of lone parents in receipt of family credit analysed by age are in the table.

  Age band

  Number of lone parents in receipt of family credit

  Under 16 years

  n/a

  16 to 19 years

  1,240

  20 to 24 years

  17,820

  25 to 29 years

  37,040

  30 to 34 years

  48,360

  35 to 39 years

  46,840

  40 years and over

  54,520

  Total

  205,820

  Notes:

  1. These figures include both lone mothers and lone fathers.

  2. Information is not available on the marital status of lone parents receiving family credit.

  Source: 5 per cent, of sample of family credit recipients at 30 April 1993.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the lone parents claiming income support benefit are aged(a) under 16 years, (b) 16 to 19 years, (c) 20 to 24 years, (d) 25 to 29 years, (e) 30 to 34 years, (f) 35 to 39 years or (g) 40 years and over; and what percentage of mothers in each of those age groups are married or have previously been married.

  Mr. Burt
  The figures requested are in the tables. The figures in both tables include both female and male lone parents.
  507

  Table 11

  Income Support Recipients: Lone Parents by age group2

  Age of Recipient

  Number of Cases3

  Under 164

  Nil

  16 to 19

  42,000

  20 to 24

  201,000

  25 to 29

  248,000

  30 to 34

  201,000

  35 to 39

  136,000

  Table 21 Lone Parents2 receiving Income Support by Age and Marital Status

  Never Married

  Marital Status Previously Married4

  Currently Married3

  Total Cases3

  Age of Lone Parent

  Cases

  Per cent.

  Cases

  Per cent.

  Cases

  Per cent.

  Under 16

  Nil

  0·0

  Nil

  0·0

  Nil

  0·0

  Nil

  16–19

  38,000

  91·0

  Less than 500

  0·5

  4,000

  8·6

  42,000

  20–24

  162,000

  80·9

  7,000

  3·2

  32,000

  15·9

  201,000

  25–29

  139,000

  56·2

  32,000

  13·0

  76,000

  30·8

  248,000

  30–34

  67,000

  33·1

  57,000

  28·1

  78,000

  38·8

  201,000

  35–39

  31,000

  22·5

  53,000

  38·7

  53,000

  38·8

  136,000

  40 and over

  21,000

  13·1

  81,000

  51·0

  57,000

  35·9

  158,000

  Total

  458,000

  46–5

  229,000

  23–2

  299,000

  30–4

  985,000

  1 Source: Income support statistics annual enquiry, May 1992.

  2 Includes both male and female lone parents.

  3 Numbers may not sum due to rounding. All numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  4 "Previously Married" refers to lone parents who are widowed or divorced.

  5 "Currently Married" refers to lone parents who are separated from their partners, or prisoners' partners.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents claiming housing benefit are aged(a) under 16 years, (b) 16 to 19 years, (c) 20 to 24 years, (d) 25 to 29 years, (e) 30 to 34 years, (f) 35 to 39

  Lone parents in receipt of Housing Benefit by age and marital status:

  With Income Support

  Never Married

  Previously Married4

  Currently Married3

  Total 000s

  Age

  Cases

  Percentage

  Cases

  Percentage

  Cases

  Percentage

  Under 16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16–19

  16

  89

  *

  1

  2

  10

  18

  20–24

  122

  81

  5

  4

  23

  16

  151

  25–29

  115

  57

  27

  14

  58

  29

  200

  30–34

  54

  34

  47

  30

  54

  35

  155

  35–39

  24

  24

  39

  39

  37

  37

  100

  40 and over

  15

  14

  54

  51

  37

  35

  105

  Total

  345

  47

  173

  24

  211

  29

  729

  Lone parents in receipt of housing benefit without income support—details of marital status not available

  Age

  Total (000s)

  Under 16

  —

  16 to 19

  *

  20 to 24

  7

  25 to 29

  18

  30 to 34

  21

  35 to 39

  18

  40 and over

  22

  Total

  87

  Source:Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample, May 1992

  Notes:

  1. Total number of lone parents includes men, but 95 per cent. are female.

  2. * indicates more than zero but fewer than 500.

  3. "Married": indicates that the recipient has a partner.

  4. "Previously Married": refers to recipients who are widowed or
  508

  Age of Recipient

  Number of Cases3

  40 and over

  158,000

  Total

  985,000

  1 Source: Income support statistics annual enquiry, May 1992.

  2 Includes both male and female lone parents.

  3 All numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4 Young persons aged less than 16 cannot claim income support.

  years or (g) 40 years and over; and what percentage of mothers in the above age groups are married or have previously been married.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  divorced.

  5. "Currently Married": refers to recipients who are permanently separated from their partners because their partner is in prison.

  Maxwell Pensioners
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the Maxwell pensioners trust on arbitration on disputes between pension funds and financial bodies, as a means of reducing legal and accountancy fees; and if he will make a statement on developments to date.

  Mr. Hague
  The trustees of the Maxwell pensioners trust have taken an initiative to promote an overall settlement to the many disputes relating to missing Maxwell pension scheme assets. The Government welcome this initiative, which is being taken forward on behalf of the trust by Sir Peter Webster, a retired High Court judge.
  509
  Although the details of Sir Peter's work must necessarily remain confidential to him and those directly involved, I and my right hon. Friend stay in touch with overall progress through Sir John Cuckney, chairman of the trust.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of beneficiaries, and the total amounts paid, for housing benefit among(a) income support claimants, (b) family credit claimants and (c) others.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Table 1

  Housing benefit recipients

  Number of cases (thousands)

  With Income Support

  2,593

  With Family Credit Others

  197

  Others

  1,645

  Total

  4,334

  Notes:

  1. 1Due to the 26 week entitlement of family credit, approximately 12,000 customers are in receipt of both family credit and income support.

  2. Figures show housing benefit recipients in Great Britain in May 1992.

  Source: Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample.

  Housing Benefit Expenditure

  £ million

  Estimated outturn 1992–93

  7,348

  Notes:

  It is not possible to apportion expenditure between income support, family credit and other recipients.

  Source: Departmental report.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of reducing the taper for withdrawal of housing benefit from 65p in the pound to 50p in the pound.

  1988–89 Per cent.

  1989–90 Per cent.

  1990–91 Per cent.

  1991–92 Per cent.

  1992–93 Per cent.

  Income Support

  1·6

  1·5

  1·6

  2·0

  2·4

  Invalidity Benefit

  0·7

  0·7

  0·8

  0·9

  1·0

  Attendance Allowance

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·2

  Disability Living Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  Notes:

  1. The information requested on item c is not a matter that is dealt with by this department.

  2. Disability living allowance commenced in April 1992.

  Adjudication Cases
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases are considered by adjudicating officers in an average month; and what number of cases is considered by each officer during an average working day.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.
  510
  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 13 July 1993 at column 478.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many successful claims have been made for disability working allowance; what is the total number of applications made; and if he plans to amend the current regulations governing this benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  By 30 September 1993, 34,958 applications had been received and 7,917 claims had been successful. We have commissioned the Policy Studies Institute to carry out research to help us evaluate disability working allowance. Until we have completed the evaluation, we do not envisage making any major structural changes to the benefit.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures for waiting times from application for appeal to appeal hearing for(a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility component disability living allowance, (c) care component disability living allowance and (d) disability working allowance.

  Mr. Burt
  In the year ending December 1992, the last period for which figures are available, the average time taken from application to clearance was:

  (a) attendance allowance—33·2 weeks

  (b) disability living allowance—17·9 weeks

  Figures for disability living allowance are not broken down into the components.

  No appeals on disability working allowance were received.

  Source: Annual Social Security Appeal Tribunal Statistics 1992, published by the Government Statistical Service.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of gross domestic product, annually, was spent on(a) income support, (b) invalidity benefit, (c) mortgage interest tax relief, (d) attendance allowance and (e) disability living allowance, for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested on items,a, b, d and e is given in the table.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants are working at the Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam street, London.

  Mr. Burt
  There were 758 staff working for the Department at the Adelphi on 1 October 1993, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for industrial disablement benefit for a prescribed industrial disease were received by the Benefits Agency in the period since January 1991; how many of those claims resulted in medical examinations; what were the outcomes of the medical examinations; how many appeals were received from claimants against the examinations; and what were the results of any subsequent medical appeal tribunal hearings.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is the responsibility of 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. Michael Bichard to Mr. David Clelland, dated 26 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many claims for industrial disease were received by the Benefits Agency in the period since January 1991; how many of those claims resulted in medical examinations; what were the outcomes of the medical examinations; and what were the results of any subsequent medical appeal tribunal hearings.
  Information on the number of prescribed claims and the outcomes of such claims since January 1991 is not available in the format requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, it may be helpful if I set out such information as is available below.
  Information on Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit—Prescribed Disease new awards is only available from October 1992, prior to this date new awards were not identified separately. In the period October 1992 to June 1993 there were 3,354 new awards. The information is based on a 100 per cent. count of the number of new awards of Disablement Benefit in benefit offices and is subject to amendment.
  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit—Prescribed Disease new claims for the same period were 35,324. However some claims made during this period will not have been assessed yet and therefore the figures are not directly comparable. The information is again based on a 100 per cent. count of claims received in benefit offices and is subject to amendment.
  I hope you find this information helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sweeteners
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish the annual review of the markets for intense and bulk sweeteners as considered by the Food Advisory Committee in November 1992.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This would not be appropriate since the commercially sensitive data for this review were obtained on assurances of confidentiality. However, some information on the development of the United Kingdom market in recent years has been made available by my Department in food surveillance paper No. 37 "Dietary Intake of Food Additives in the UK" and in papers presented by my officials in the course of scientific proceedings.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals her Majesty's Government intend to put forward at the convention of contracting parties on the sea disposal of wastes, to be held in London on 8 to 12 November, in regard to the permanent ban on disposal of radioactive wastes at sea.

  Mr. Jack
  Any proposals the United Kingdom may make to the 16th consultative meeting of the London convention 1972 on the sea disposal of radioactive wastes will be made in the light of discussions at that meeting on the final report of the convention's intergovernmental panel of experts on radioactive waste disposal at sea (IGPRAD).

  Lobster Creels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on damage done to lobster creels by seals.

  Mr. Jack
  I am not aware of any proven instances of damage to lobster creels by seals. If the hon. Member has any such evidence I would be glad to receive it.

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will support the German proposal in the Council of Agricultural Ministers working group that an overall limit be placed on the journey time of animals being transported for slaughter.

  Mr. Soames
  In submitting proposals for further rules to protect animals in transport, the Commission drew attention to the difficulties of enforcing overall journey limits for particular categories of animals. In the negotiations we are seeking strong and enforceable welfare safeguards for all types of animals, including appropriate feeding and watering intervals, based on the high standards which we are applying in this country.

  Coppice Schemes
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has for supporting short-term coppice schemes for alternative fuels; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Short-rotation coppice has the potential to become an important alternative crop as a source of renewable energy. The Government are supporting it already. Short-rotation coppice is eligible for establishment grants of between £975 and £1,575 per hectare under the woodland grant scheme and for the better land supplement of £600 per hectare except when grown on land under the arable area payments scheme.

  We have, however, secured agreement in Brussels that short-rotation coppice can be grown on non-rotational set-aside land, where it will be eligible for annual set-aside payments of around £320 per hectare in England from 1994. We are pressing for changes to facilitate its establishment on set-aside land. Electricity generated from short-rotation coppice will be able to benefit from the provisions of the third Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order, announced by my hon. Friend the

  513
  Minister for Energy on 21 July 1993, and the Government are funding work on the growing of short-rotation coppice and its conversion to energy.

  Set Aside
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make it her policy to include trees in set-aside schemes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have been pressing for the EC rules of the arable area payments scheme to be amended to enable land which is taken out of production under forestry schemes to count against set-aside. My right hon. Friend the Minister raised this most recently at the Council of Agriculture Ministers this week, and we will continue to argue in favour of establishing this important link between set-aside and forestry.

  Seed and Plant Breeders
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the future of farm-sowed seeds, royalties, older United Kingdom seed varieties and plant breeders' rights for the next five years.

  Mr. Jack
  I touched on most of these issues in my scrutiny debate speech on EC plant variety rights on June 23 this year—Official Report of European Standing Committee A of 23 June 1993. In particular, we are anxious to promote a healthy and competitive United Kingdom plant breeding industry which will provide farmers with a flow of new, improved plant varieties. We are therefore anxious to see a Community solution to the farm-sowed question which balances the breeders' and the farmers' interests and will provide breeders with the necessary funding to develop new varieties. We fully support the introduction of Community plant variety rights which will not only simplify the process of obtaining protection for new plant varieties across the whole EC, but will also propose some controls on farm-sowed seed. This aspect is under debate at the moment. We intend to ratify the revised UPOV convention at the earliest opportunity to provide breeders with the increased protection this affords. We are also pressing the Community to reduce the regulation of traditional vegetable varieties used by the amateur gardener.

  Brucellosis
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long it took to discover the link between the Cheshire and Anglesey brucellosis infected herds; what was the reason for the time taken; and if she will make a statement on difficulties which may have arisen in the training exercise to obtain comprehensive information as early as possible on livestock movements affecting the herd where the outbreak was first discovered.

  Export refunds expenditure

  £ million

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Cereals

  2,271

  2,091

  1,742

  1,774

  2,612

  2,323

  Rice

  71

  52

  39

  27

  63

  72

  Sugar

  1,090

  1,062

  950

  657

  878

  929

  Olive oil

  17

  43

  61

  97

  78

  34

  Oilseeds

  46

  17

  4

  0

  0

  0

  514
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Brucellosis was officially confirmed on a farm in Anglesey on 1 October on the basis of preliminary laboratory tests completed on 30 September. Also on 30 September the herd in Cheshire was restricted and testing set in hand. This is normal procedure and there was no delay nor particular difficulty in tracing the animals concerned.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has on the original source of the recent outbreak of brucellosis; and what assessment has been made of whether it is likely to have been imported from overseas.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Some of the cattle now affected with brucellosis were imported. Investigations are under way to determine the source of infection and it would be premature to speculate at this stage. The last confirmed case of brucellosis in Great Britain was in 1990.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the recent outbreaks of brucellosis in herds in Anglesey and Cheshire.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  On 1 October brucellosis was confirmed in a dairy herd on a farm in Anglesey. All animals in that herd were slaughtered by 5 October with compensation. All the cattle which had left that herd since 26 June are being traced and slaughtered.

  All the animals which came on to the premises since 26 June have been traced back to the place of origin arid testing undertaken there. This has shown a further three positive reactors to brucellosis in a herd in Cheshire. These three animals have been slaughtered. All other animals on these premises have been tested and are negative at this time but the herd remains under restriction and will be retested in due course. We are currently tracing all the animals, over 500 on 130 premises, which have left these premises since 17 June and the animals which were in contact with the three reactors before they came on to the premises. Further action may be necessary as the investigations continue.

  Levies and Refunds
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the amounts in pounds sterling paid in the EC for(a) import levies and (b) export refunds since 1987 by product up to the latest available date; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The following table provides details of EC expenditure on export refunds by product, and the total amount of agricultural import levies, from 1987 to 1992. No breakdown by product is available for the agricultural import levies.
  515

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Fruit and vegetables

  48

  43

  51

  58

  66

  83

  Wine

  14

  30

  29

  39

  39

  54

  Tobacco

  31

  29

  41

  44

  45

  40

  Milk

  1,746

  2,091

  1,913

  1,382

  1,622

  1,499

  Beef

  632

  522

  879

  788

  897

  943

  Sheepmeat

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pigmeat

  81

  117

  130

  123

  139

  92

  Eggs and poultry

  109

  132

  153

  126

  118

  137

  Fisheries

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-Annex II products

  424

  408

  361

  363

  493

  495

  TOTAL

  6,580

  6,637

  6,353

  5,478

  7,050

  6,701

  Import levies collected

  1,170

  1,021

  840

  833

  1,134

  969

  Sources:

  Export refunds; 1987–1991: Financial reports on the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund.

  1992: Draft financial report.

  Import levies; 1987–1991: 1991 European court of auditors report.

  1992: 1993 Budget.

  Beef Premium Scheme
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has had regarding the administration of the beef special premium scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  I have received correspondence from hon. Members and others: representations have declined as the new arrangements have become more familiar to the livestock industry.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans she has to review the beef special premium scheme to make it simpler to operate, fairer to rearers and finishers without distorting the market and capable of securing the existing compensation for reduced intervention support;

  (2) what discussion she has had regarding the National Farmers Union proposals to simplify and improve the beef special premium scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  My officials have had two meetings with representatives of the livestock industry, including the National Farmers Union, to review the beef special premium scheme. We are continuing to examine ways of simplifying the scheme in consultation with the industry within the constraints of the European Community legislation.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of applications in each country in England under(a) the main arable area payments scheme and (b) the simplified scheme in 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  A total of 27,705 applications were made under the main arable area payments scheme and 18,789

  Third country export refund expenditure 1987 to 1992

  19871

  19882

  19893

  19904

  19914

  19924

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  Cereals

  296,299,293

  3,919,160

  201,966,824

  3,129,304

  202,628,790

  4,861,005

  199,980,565

  5,470,636

  134,543,908

  1,589,879

  206,383,276

  3,080,216

  Sugar

  26,519,571

  97,533

  48,018,765

  153,770

  28,986,981

  117,264

  26,290,260

  145,837

  37,656,947

  122,953

  46,610,553

  146,895

  Processed fruit and vegetables

  960,933

  16,372

  1,848,406

  23,587

  1,309,927

  20,935

  821,434

  24,381

  2,706,192

  33,198

  2,694,951

  31,453

  Milk and milk products

  106,444,089

  171,020

  88,876,550

  123,610

  97,080,697

  163,824

  83,637,776

  179,361

  97,906,686

  159,290

  108,987,872

  164,433

  516
  applications under the simplified scheme in England. Because applicants had to submit a single area aid application in respect of all their land, some applications will cover a number of holdings which may be situated in more than one county. In such cases the application will be linked to the county in which the applicant's main holding is situated. I will publish information on this basis as soon as it is available.

  Export Refunds
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the amounts in pounds sterling paid out in the United Kingdom on export refunds in each of the last six years by product; what were the amounts exported in each case; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Intervention Board Executive Agency and I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter to Mr. Eric Martlew from Guy Stapleton, dated 25 October 1993:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your priority written Parliamentary Question tabled for answer on 25 October 1993:
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if she will list the amounts in pounds sterling paid out in the United Kingdom on export refunds in each of the last six years by product, and what were the amounts; and if she will make a statement.
  The export refunds paid out in the United Kingdom and quantities exported in respect of those refunds paid are detailed in the attached schedule. The figures have been obtained from the EAGGF Accounts, for the last six available years, which are submitted to the EC Commission on an annual basis to support the funding claim.
  I am sending a copy of this letter to the House of Commons Library and the Public Information Office.
  517

  19871

  19882

  19893

  19904

  19914

  19924

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  £

  Tonnes

  Beef and veal

  21,508,927

  33,400

  22,456,333

  29,045

  21,455,967

  23,459

  23,743,843

  22,921

  13,913,038

  13,655

  29,797,349

  22,801

  Pigmeat

  962,125

  4,708

  809,419

  3,555

  1,475,978

  5,683

  2,646,176

  10,330

  2,201,868

  8,399

  1,725,045

  6,767

  Eggs5

  406,652

  1,593

  554,021

  2,126

  529,491

  1,923

  651,964

  3,455

  387,740

  2,513

  412,416

  2,462

  Poultry5

  1,977,596

  8,613

  2,702,788

  12,182

  2,874,545

  18,398

  2,441,917

  18,071

  2,571,468

  20,900

  2,220,936

  16,522

  Whisky

  34,621,910

  678,347

  30,386,772

  378,255

  19,702,438

  982,522

  29,626,579

  1,105,847

  50,622,074

  1,133,763

  39,484,203

  1,013,320

  Processed goods

  45,374,159

  288,216

  32,153,843

  210,146

  51,815,158

  404,370

  38,976,367

  429,889

  49,664,432

  377,141

  54,186,929

  457,642

  Other commodities6

  53,504

  367

  35,342

  276

  70,046

  433

  113,478

  1,773

  103,987

  1,292

  88,404

  1,138

  Total

  535,028,659

  5,219,329

  429,809,063

  4,065,856

  427,930,018

  6,599,816

  408,830,359

  7,412,501

  392,278,340

  3,462,983

  492,591,934

  4,943,649

  1 The EAGGF year for 1987 ran from 1 January to 13 November 1987.

  2 The EAGGF year for 1988 ran from 14 November 1987 to 15 October 1988.

  3 The EAGGF year for 1989 ran from 16 October 1988 to 16 October 1989.

  4 The EAGGF years 1990, 1991 and 1992 ran for the same duration as 1989.

  5 The quantity figures for eggs and poultry do not include eggs for hatching or live chicks, which are recorded as numbers rather than tonnage.

  6 Includes rice, olive oil, oil seeds, fresh fruit and vegetables, wine and fish.

  Forestry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution the United Kingdom has made to the steering committee of the joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/Economic Commission for Europe/International Labour Organisation committee on forest technology, training and management in 1993.
  518
  Sir Hector Monro
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Forestry Commission has been an active participant in the work of the joint committee on forest technology, management and training, although the United Kingdom is not currently represented on the steering committee. The objectives and operation of the joint committee are being reviewed at present by the parent bodies, including the European Forestry Commission of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, one of whose vice-chairmen is an official of the British Forestry Commission.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich

Lord Attenborough
Sir Richard Samuel Attenborough, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Attenborough, of Richmond upon Thames in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Lord Walton of Detchant.

Tributes to the Late Lord Grimond
2.47 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I know that it will be the wish of the whole House that I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the memory of Lord Grimond, who died yesterday. Tribute has already been paid outside this House to his role in the Liberal Party. His leadership perhaps ensured its survival. However, he was far from being solely a party man. He was someone who was regarded with admiration and warm affection by members of all parties.
On his retirement from another place, his distinguished record made it natural that he should be made a Member of this House. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that he was naturally suited to this House. It was not surprising that he became and remained an active participant in our proceedings. Indeed, his last speech in this House was made the last time the House sat, only last Thursday.
The noble Lord's presence will be much missed on all sides of the House. I know that I can speak for all of your Lordships in sending our sincere condolences to his widow and family.
Lord Richard: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches perhaps I may echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House on behalf not only of his party but of us all.
Lord Grimond was a somewhat rare figure in our recent political life. He was pre-eminently a man of deep conviction and deep principles. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, probably more than any other single person he was responsible for the survival of the Liberal Party. Although we were political opponents, all of us will wish to pay tribute to those qualities of leadership, determination, foresight and vision which he showed, particularly in his lifelong advocacy of the two great causes of European unity and Scottish self-government.
He was a regular attender in your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House reminded us,
708
he was in his place as recently as Thursday of last week. Therefore the news of his death came as a shock to us all.
Lord Grimond was cultivated and humorous. He had a mildly self-deprecating air which proved extraordinarily popular with the British voter. He had little time for the pompous or over-pretentious. His views on the intricacies of our bureaucracy were never concealed and were expressed pungently and with great force. In short, he was a man who gave politics a good name. We shall all miss him greatly, and I should like to join in the expressions of sympathy to his immediate family.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, with the sudden death of Jo Grimond, the House arid the nation have lost an unusual figure of high natural distinction. It is rare for a political figure who never held office to achieve such a clear place in the hearts and minds of the public as did Jo Grimond. It is perhaps rarer still to retain it with, if anything, growing affection and respect over 25 years of retirement from fully active leadership. It was partly because he inspired a generation, as David Steel put it so felicitously last night. It was also because of the quality of his private personality which, because it was all of a piece with his political image, somehow managed to communicate itself to a wider public.
He was an immensely funny man with a deflating, and as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, self-deprecating wit of which I have rarely seen the equal. He had dazzling charm, which was saved from ever being cloying because he could not see a balloon with even a touch of pomposity in it—his own as much as anyone else's—without desiring to prick it.
In this House for the past 10 years he was perhaps a little insulated by growing deafness. However, once he had got onto the wavelength of a conversation he had all his own lightness of touch, as I rediscovered as recently as Wednesday of last week.
He had an exceptional unforced dignity and distinction. He was not perhaps the most glossily turned out of Members of your Lordships' House, but however old the suit, however shaggy the appearance, no one in any company could ever doubt his inherent quality. He will be much missed in many circles.
Our sympathy goes to his wife, who, after many years in which they constituted a most notable couple, has herself been sorely afflicted for the past year, and also to his three children.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is a privilege to have been asked by our convenor, my noble friend Lady Hylton-Foster, to speak from these Benches. Lord Grimond was Leader of the Liberal Party when I first entered the other place in 1964. In those days it was not considered good form to call senior Members by their Christian names. So it was not until 1967, when I joined that most discreet and exclusive of all the secret societies, the Whips' Office, that I came to know him as Jo.
The highest accolade in the Commons is to have the respect of the House. Those Members of your Lordships' House who were previously in the other place will know exactly what I mean. I refer to those Members who, when they rise to speak, bring other

709
Members into the Chamber rather than send them out. It is an accolade achieved only by those of the highest integrity. Therefore, if I were rationed to one word in describing the outstanding quality of Lord Grimond, it would be his integrity. I would, however, wish to mention also his great courtesy and charm.
I shall never forget, on a visit to northern India some years ago, seeing an obelisk which had been erected by the villagers in memory of a young, honourable East India Company collector. I forget his name but I well remember the inscription. It was,
"He was trusted absolutely".
That is a fitting epitaph to our much respected and much loved colleague and friend, Jo, Lord Grimond.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I endorse all that has been said in tribute to the memory of Lord Grimond. From these Benches we face, not political opponents, but those with whom we share a commitment to a certain independence of political spirit. No one did more in his generation than Lord Grimond to foster the spirit of independence that is so profoundly important to the health of our political institutions. His example will be missed, not least by those on these Benches. We had very great respect for Lord Grimond. I join your Lordships in expressing sincere sympathy to his widow, his family and his many friends.

Parliament: Health Act Provisions
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now take steps to improve the health and safety at work of all who work in the Palace of Westminster, and unambiguously apply the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to the Palace and its outbuildings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is the policy of authorities in both Houses of Parliament to comply fully with the provisions of the 1974 Act, as if they were binding on them in the same way as on the Crown. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater made clear in March, Her Majesty's Government hope to extend its scope to the Palace of Westminster at the first suitable opportunity.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, when will that be? As the Minister said, I was assured on 30th March that the Palace authorities had agreed in principle to the extension. We have been waiting some time for that agreement to be put into effect? When can we expect the extension to take effect?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness no advice other than that it will be at the first suitable opportunity. It has been agreed to by this House; it still has not been finally and formally agreed
710
to by another place. Obviously, we have to have the formal agreement of another place before we can go ahead.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in contrast with most other establishments where people finish work between 5 and 6 o'clock in the evening, most of the staff of the Palace of Westminster, most honourable Members in another place, and most of your Lordships more often than not work until midnight or even later? From the point of view of health and safety, is it right that there should be no nursing sister on duty in the Palace of Westminster after 6 p.m.?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate that we sometimes work hours somewhat later than other places of work. As I said, we try to comply with the provisions of the health and safety legislation so far as possible.
There is a nursing sister on duty until 6 o'clock each working day, as the noble Lord states. As to later hours, I can only say that I shall pass on the remarks that the noble Lord has made to the appropriate authorities.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Members of another place have far better medical facilities than Members of your Lordships' House? Many noble Lords travel long distances from all parts of the country to attend here. Should there not be facilities for medical checks to guard, for instance, against the possibility of strokes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should not like to comment on whether the facilities in another place are superior to those in our own House. I am satisfied that what we are doing in this House is satisfactory as regards the health and safety at work legislation. What the noble Baroness asks goes somewhat beyond that. Again, I shall pass on the remarks she has made to the appropriate authorities.

EH 101 Helicopter: Order Delay
3 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has happened to the RAF order for EH 101 helicopters, and whether they are aware that the delay is causing damage to other potential export orders of this helicopter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we are not yet in a position to make a Statement, but we shall do so as soon as we can. In the meantime, we have made clear to potential export customers, in particular the Government of the Netherlands, our strong support for the EH 101.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. First, will he confirm that this is a very successful joint Anglo-Italian project? It has already cost this country £1.6 billion. Secondly, that the trial flights of the RAF version have proved exceptionally good for all-weather capability and very suitable for Bosnia and Northern Ireland? Is the

711
Minister aware that the continuing delay is causing deep concern in one of our most successful exporting industries and that those concerned in the RAF deserve our finest British technology?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very happy indeed to confirm to my noble friend that this is an extremely successful project. I can also confirm from personal experience that it is a remarkable aircraft in which to fly. The delay in the orders for the utility version is nevertheless, to some extent, contradicted by the faith which we have shown in the airframe itself, which is the key part of the project, by virtue of the fact that we have ordered 44 of the Merlin version for the Royal Navy and that the trials for that version are now two-thirds complete.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the decision to order the project was taken six years ago by the Government? Is it not also the case that the EH 101 is the only helicopter offering all-weather capability which is essential in potential trouble spots such as those which we have seen recently? Is it not further the case that the EH 101 development programme is two-thirds complete? A great deal of money has already been spent on the project. Are the Government now considering buying secondhand Puma helicopters and more Chinooks? Is that really what they are considering, or will they get a move on and order the EH 101 for the RAF?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can confirm that, as the noble Lord knows well, an announcement was made six years ago about our intention to purchase the helicopter. That announcement was in the context of strategic considerations prevailing at the time. We have looked again at the requirement in view of the changed strategic position and I can certainly confirm to the noble Lord that we have an enhanced requirement for support helicopters. From his own military history, the noble Lord will be aware that there are two considerations here. One is lift and the other is the consideration which he mentioned. There are a number of possibilities which we are examining, including a mixed force of Chinooks and EH 101s. I believe that the noble Lord used the words "two-thirds complete". That refers to the Merlin programme which, as he well knows, is the naval version of EH 101.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is it not time that the Ministry of Defence explained to the Treasury that every time it makes a cut in our defence projects we lose billions of pounds in foreign orders? At the moment, this year alone, our foreign exports of weapons have amounted to £5.6 billion. If the Treasury knocks that off, it will make a horrible hole in our balance of payments. Therefore, it would be wise not to proceed with a project for cuts worth £1 million because we shall suffer in the long run.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, pays tribute to the export performance of British defence manufacturers. As he well knows, it is second only to that of the United States in world performance. That is a tribute to the
712
policies of procurement which we have pursued over many years. It ensures that the quality of what we procure is not falsely subsidised and that operational requirements are not graded downwards in order to satisfy the lower standards which some foreign manufacturers are able to satisfy. I point out to the noble Lord that this helicopter has been bought by the Canadians. That is a tribute to the quality of the beast concerned.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, will my noble friend accept from me that I have spoken about the plane to parliamentarians, particularly in the Western European Union? While they understand that Her Majesty' s Government have made clear their strong support for the project, the parliamentarians use such varying phrases as: "Fine words butter no parsnips", and "It would be as well to put one's money where one's voice is". Will my noble friend accept that if we are to get into the export business with this aircraft, a quick decision is needed?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am the first to agree that one of the principal supports which Her Majesty's Government and, in particular, the Ministry of Defence can give to our export efforts in the defence field is that we should buy British equipment. I also feel, paradoxically, that the quality of British equipment is much improved by a rigorous procurement process. The balance between those two things is a fine art of which I am sure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, are well aware. I merely say to my noble friend that the purchase of the helicopters which the Canadian Government have made is evidence enough that the trust we have shown by ordering the naval version has been helpful in that regard.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if that is the case, why do not the Government get on and order the utility version for the RAF? Why do they persist in thinking about a Chinook replacement, which is, after all, old technology? Everyone recognises that the EH 101, an advanced technology helicopter, is superior to anything else available on the market at the moment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I yield to no one—least of all to the noble Lord, Lord Williams—in my admiration for the technology of the EH 101 helicopter. It is a fine example not only of British industrial capability but also of European co-operation. The noble Lord and I agree about that. What we must also realise is that the Armed Forces of the Crown deserve the best and most cost-effective solution. In view of the changed. climate, that is what we are endeavouring to procure. In defence of the Chinook, I would say that, as with the. C-130 aeroplane, the fact that, apparently, an airframe: has been continuing in the same shape for more than 20 years does not necessarily mean that the inside works are exactly the same as they were when it was first produced.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, while I accept the remarks about the admirable nature of the EH 101, is it not true that at this very moment, with the defence industry and defence budget in such a precarious state,

713
the important issue is value for money? Will the Minister agree that what is needed here is the right decision, not just a quick one?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who echoes my sentiments precisely. Nevertheless, the right decision does not necessarily mean that we shall procure an aircraft other than the EH 101. We are anxious that the operational requirement should be satisfied, which may be by the purchase of one aircraft or a mixture of aircraft. I ask your Lordships to give us a little more time. We are as anxious as anyone else to come to a decision on this matter.

NHS Supplies Authority: Audit Provisions
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the interest of public expenditure, there are any audit provisions in place in the management and running of the National Health Service Supplies Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): Yes, my Lords. The NHS Supplies Authority has appointed KPMG Peat Marwick as its internal auditors and has agreed to establish an audit committee. The authority is subject to external audit by the Audit Commission's district audit service and the National Audit Office. Oversight of the authority's business plans and performance is provided by the NHS management executive.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. Am I right in saying that the latest figures show that that part of the National Health Service had a turnover last year of £4 billion? That is an enormous sum of money. Bearing in mind some of the financial mistakes and blunders that have taken place over the past 10 years involving substantial sums, can the Minister give us an absolutely copper-bottomed guarantee that the audit will take place totally independent of the department? We should bear in mind that five out of six of the non-executive directors are already employed in the National Health Service as chairmen of various component parts, such as the district health authorities and other bodies.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. To take the noble Lord's first point, I believe that he is quoting from an article in the Sun newspaper. I am aware that C. P. Snow (I believe it was) said that comment is free but facts are precious. The Sun newspaper is right to be free with its comment, but I have to say that in this instance it should have been more careful with its facts.
714
The NHS Supplies Authority has a budget of £1.7 billion a year which it contracts with the NHS. The remaining sum of money is contracted directly from hospitals for goods and services that they require.
With regard to independent audit, the noble Lord can rest assured that the National Audit Office, which undertook a study two to three years ago that resulted in the setting up of the NHS Supplies Authority, has now set in train a follow-up study to review the implications of its recommendations. That study will, of course, be absolutely independent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while I do not wish to quote anything that appeared in the Sun newspaper, is the noble Baroness aware that some of the transactions that were reported as being undertaken by this body give rise to some queries as to the application of the term "value for money" as regards this particular organisation? Will she give an undertaking that the audit report undertaken by the private auditor to whom she referred, together with the review by the National Audit Office, will be made public as quickly as possible?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. The National Audit Office publishes all its findings. With regard to "value for money", this organisation has done a great service to the National Health Service. Between 1992 and March of next year, the NHS Supplies Authority will have saved the NHS at least £84 million by better purchasing, and a further £20 million by reducing operating costs. The organisation does give effective value for money.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while I fully understand and support the principle that savings can be made across the board by the purchasing authority, will the Minister say whether the Statement made on Thursday about the further reorganisation at a regional level will in any way affect the task of the supplies authority?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords, it will not affect it in any way. The NHS Supplies Authority is a special health authority, directly accountable through the management executive to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree on second thoughts that the axiom that opinions are free but facts are sacred should be attributed to C. P. Scott of the Guardian—in those days it was the policy of the Guardian so to behave—and not to C. P. Snow?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I know the National Health Service brief fairly well; I stand corrected on the literary quotes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, bearing in mind the shock that we must all feel at this wholly unprovoked attack on an unsuspecting, unprotected organ like the Sun, will the Minister recognise that there is very deep concern about the scale of waste in these public services: £63 million in the Wessex health authority; and a claimed £100 million in the authority that is presently the subject of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick? Accepting what the Minister has said about the independent audit and its

715
publication, is it within the contemplation of the Government that those who mismanage these organisations shall be subject to a disciplinary sanction such as dismissal?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that that is the case. Where there is any waste, we root it out. In the case of Wessex and the West Midlands, action has been taken and people have left their posts.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I accept the correction that the Minister made regarding the figure published in the Sun; but will she cast her mind back to about 12 months ago, when I put down my first Question regarding this organisation, and when, I believe, her Answer included the fact that then the budget was expected to reach £3 billion in a short time? Does she agree that either she was badly out then, or she has the figure, £1.7 billion, wrong now?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no doubt that the NHS Supplies Authority saves the National Health Service money—as I have already stated, £84 million between 1992 and March 1994, and a further £20 million through its better operating cost. I believe that that is a great tribute to this organisation. What is more, the money saved will go towards providing more patient care.

Television Contracts: Ownership
3.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals for changes in the ownership rules for commercial television contractors under the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is continuing to consider the points made to him during discussions he had with the Independent Television Commission and the ITV companies.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that there is a good deal of pressure from some ITV companies for premature action to change the rules relating to takeover bids within ITV, although the system has been operating for less than a year? Would it not be wiser for the Government to take a long view of this problem, wait for 1996, when the BBC charter has to be renewed, and reshape British broadcasting—terrestrial and satellite, BBC, ITV and Mr. Murdoch—as a whole?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is one of the options put to us for consideration.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that existing rules are able to prevent undue dominance by particular shareholders?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is no monopoly, if that is the expression that the noble Lord seeks to get from me. The ITC has licensed over 70
716
cable and satellite channels so far, with many different ownerships. This is my first appearance answering for the department to which the Question is addressed. I had been worried that I might get my knickers in a twist; the noble Lord would be the one.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall continue to resist the many temptations that the Minister puts before us. While I am impressed by the relaxed approach that she takes to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will she confirm that there are only nine weeks to go until the end of the moratorium which protects British regional television companies from takeover by continental predators, although there is no practical possibility of reciprocal British takeover of the Europeans? Does she agree that this is an intolerable situation; that the industry needs a further period of stability; and that she should cease dithering and make an announcement of long-term policy?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, it is perfectly true that the ownership rules have been in operation only since January. They were very carefully considered and extensively debated in both Houses. The rules are intended to allow a range of ownership while allowing economies of scale to provide diversity and choice for viewers and listeners. EC member states should not treat their own nationals more favourably than those from other member states. We believe that such action is contrary to the Treaty of Rome. Our ownership rules do not discriminate against other EC states.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, do I take it that that answer means that the Government intend to do nothing about the moratorium?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is not at all what I said. I said that the matter is still under consideration.

Business
3.19 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Business of the House
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Windlesham set down for 26th October shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The House may wish to have a brief explanation of these proposed amendments to Private Business Standing Orders.
The amendments to Standing Order 27 have been requested by the Association of County Archivists. The Standing Order requires that plans relating to Private Bills be deposited in duplicate with the proper officer of each county, metropolitan district or London borough, and includes the provision that one copy,
"shall be sealed up and retained in the possession of the proper officer or chief executive with whom it was deposited",
until called for by order of this House or the House of Commons.
While the archivists would be happy to maintain their obligation to keep a copy for public inspection, they regard the retention of a sealed copy, which by definition cannot be unsealed for inspection, as an uneconomic use of scarce shelf space to nobody's benefit. The Chairman of Ways and Means and I agree with them.
The amendment to Standing Order 39 would have the effect of substituting for the Department of Energy, which no longer exists, the Department of National Heritage in the list of those departments at which copies of all new Private Bills must be deposited.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows—

Standing Order 27

Line 14, leave out ("in duplicate")

Line 18, leave out ("in duplicate")

Line 64, leave out paragraph (5)

Standing Order 39

Line 9, leave out ("Energy") and insert ("National Heritage") (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Steel Industry: ECC Report
3.22 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Restructuring the EC Steel Industry (24th Report, HL Paper 111).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to present to the House the Report of the European Communities Committee on Restructuring the EC Steel Industry. The European steel industry is at present going through a major crisis. That is due not only to the recession, which has caused it a great deal of harm, as it has other major industries, but also to the import of low cost steel from eastern Europe where the markets for steel have not been as large as they were before recent events and to the difficulty that there has been in renewing the multilateral trade agreement with the United States which is inhibiting the export of steel to traditional markets for European steel in America.
But a much larger issue than any of those is the overcapacity of the European steel industry. It is that
718
overcapacity which has very largely created the present crisis. It is on the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, who I am glad to see will speak in this debate, that we decided to look at the issue in Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee. Members of the committee decided that it would have to be done quickly and so our report has been prepared in quite a short space of time. This is a matter for urgent attention by the Council of Ministers and the Commission.
I should like to express appreciation to the distinguished witnesses who appeared before us at short notice, in particular Mr. Tim Sainsbury, the Minister for Industry, who presented us with a detailed written report, then answered our questions as a witness and subsequently provided us with further information which was most helpful, and Mr. Brian Moffat, Chairman and Chief Executive of British Steel, who not only appeared as a witness but also saw us on a number of occasions and provided the committee with more detailed information. We had much help from our specialist adviser, Professor Aubrey Silberston of Imperial College, and we are much indebted to our Clerk, Mr. Edward Wells, for the great skill that he showed in organising the inquiry and drafting the report.
In fact this is not the first crisis that the Community's steel industry has suffered since the existence of the Community. There was a crisis at the start of the 1980s. On that occasion the solution, which was provided under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, which set up the European Coal and Steel Community, and was ratified in 1950, was to apply a situation of "manifest crisis". That involved setting quotas and fixing prices. It resulted in a degree of rationalisation and a reduction of surplus capacity which, however, was interrupted by the resurgence of economic activity that happened in the latter part of the 1980s.
Some countries seized the opportunity to rationalise their steel operations substantially. Among those countries were Britain and France. But some countries did not do so, and that is where the problem lies. Before getting to the nub of the issue, I should like to summarise the present situation. In October last year a number of the leading steel enterprises of the Community approached the Commission to draw its attention to the very serious crisis which had led to a reduction of something like 30 per cent. on prices compared with the 1990 level and which was leading many of those enterprises into an extremely serious and precarious situation.
As a result of that approach, in the following month, the Commission appointed M. Fernand Braun of Luxembourg, who had served as a director of the industry division of the Commission, to conduct a survey into what needed to be done to reduce the capacity of the EC steel industry to a more acceptable level consistent with likely market demand. He presented a report which showed that the capacity of the European steel industry was something like 30 per cent. over what it needed to be and something of the order of 20 million tonnes of crude steel capacity needed to be taken out of the system.
That report was presented to the Council of Ministers in February 1993. The Council decided to accept the findings of the report. But on this occasion, instead of declaring a manifest crisis and an interventionist solution such as was done under the Davignon plan, it decided to ask the enterprises themselves to come forward with proposals. Furthermore, it asked the Commission to devise a scheme for financial aid for restructuring and to meet redundancy costs. It asked the enterprises to come back with a report and plan of action to cut out those 20 million tonnes by the end of September. Unfortunately, the timetable has slipped. At a meeting of the Council of Ministers on 21st September, it received a progress report which showed that certain progress had been made but now the date of 21st November for a final report has been set.
The nub of the issue is that certain of the countries in the Community provide their steel industries with substantial subsidy. That is totally contrary to the Treaty of Paris which forms part of the corpus of legislation underlying the Community. Article 4 of that treaty states that certain acts are recognised as incompatible with the Common Market and shall accordingly be abolished and prohibited. Item (c) in that list is:
"subsidies or aids granted by states, or special charges imposed by states, in any form whatsoever".
Nothing can be stronger than that. Nonetheless, in spite of the Davignon plan, there are regrettably still flagrant cases of subsidy. They are concentrated in three countries: Italy, Spain and East Germany. Those are the essential issues with which the Commission has to grapple.
It is generally estimated that to take out the 20 million tonnes of surplus crude steel capacity, about half will need to come from the countries which provide subsidies and the other half from the private sector.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how East Germany can be identified separately now that it is part of a reunified Germany?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should have said plants located in what was previously East Germany and is now part of Germany as a whole. I thank the noble Lord for that correction. The plant is located on the German-Polish border. It is therefore as far east as one can get. I used the term "East Germany" to differentiate between the plants in what was formerly known as West Germany.
It is felt that 10 million tonnes of the 20 million tonnes excess capacity would need to come out of the subsidised plants and the remaining 10 million from the privatised plants which are not in receipt of subsidy. Understandably, the private companies are reluctant to move until they can see what is going to happen with the subsidised companies. They do not want to give up a large part of their capacity for it simply to be taken over by subsidised products.
In the subsidised enterprises the plants are operating in areas which already have high levels of unemployment. I referred to the situation in Germany where the plant is on the border with Poland and is itself a centre of high unemployment. The plant is known as EKO-Stahl. In Spain the plants are located in the Basque
720
country, which also has a high level of unemployment and in which there are number of political perturbations. In Italy the main plant is in Taranto in the south, also known to be an area of high unemployment even in good times. It is therefore clear that the countries concerned will have great difficulty in grappling with the problems.
It is roughly estimated that if the full 20 million tonnes of capacity were taken out, 70,000 jobs would have to go—those would be directly employed personnel—in addition to those employed in the supplying activities, which are always difficult to estimate. That would mean a large increase to the 17 million unemployed already in the European Community. Nonetheless it seemed to the committee that the case was extremely strong for dealing with the situation once and for all.
What is now happening in the marketplace is that subsidised, high cost steel is pushing out competitive low cost steel. The British steel industry is generally regarded as the most efficient in the European Community, if not in the world. But it is finding that it has to face up to the subsidised products which are even penetrating into Britain. That is not a sensible situation at the best of times. But at a time when we are launched into the start of a single European market, distortions of that sort must be removed. If they are not removed, it is difficult to see what the future for the European steel industry can be.
I believe therefore that the Council of Ministers and the Commission need to take a firm line on the issue. They have given an extended period for plans to be put forward. But the Treaty of Paris gave the Commission—then the High Authority—strong powers to deal with the situation. Article 54 reads:
"The 'High Authority' [now the Commission] may facilitate the carrying out of investment programmes by granting loans to undertakings or guaranteeing other loans. However, if the High Authority finds that the financing of a programme or the operation of the installations therein planned would involve subsidies, aids protection or discrimination contrary to this Treaty, a decision to this effect by the High Authority shall have the effect of prohibiting the undertaking from drawing on resources other than its own funds. Undertakings which disregard such a prohibition may be fined up to an amount not exceeding the 'improperly devoted' funds".
In other words, if an enterprise, in spite of the prohibition placed upon it, were to continue to draw subsidies, it could be fined up to the amount of those subsidies. That is a reserve power and everybody will be most reluctant to see it used. Nonetheless, it lies there.
We are talking about an issue of great importance. We are talking about the success of the single market, which many of us support. In the recent Maastricht debate the one thing that I do not believe anybody was against was the creation of a single market in Europe in which goods could flow freely and competition reign. But we must remove distortions. We have a major, clearly identified distortion in the steel industry. I hope that HMG will continue to use all their endeavours to correct that situation and that they will bear in mind that there are substantial reserve powers available if voluntary agreement cannot be reached.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, as a relatively newly-joined member of the sub-committee, it is right that my speech this afternoon should be reasonably short. But I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who led our inquiry. The measure of our debt is contained in the clarity and authority with which he spoke to us this afternoon.
This debate is particularly timely, placed as it is between the meetings of the Industry Council in September and November. It gives us the chance to express thanks to the noble Lord for all that he has done since he became chairman of the sub-committee. I should like to make clear from all that I have heard that he achieved great things before I joined him. We are all deeply grateful to him and conscious of our debt.
In my opinion, from my short experience, this examination is the most important that the committee has conducted. The report that issued from the inquiry will give valuable support to the position adopted by Her Majesty's Government at the Industry Council. Our ability to debate that report increases its potential to influence opinion in Europe, when further important decisions are to be taken.
The Commission and the Council of Ministers deserve great credit for their determination firmly to tackle what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, described as the "crippling" continuance of over-capacity, and to try to do so by avoiding resort to any copy of the Davignon plan. I cannot see that any repetition of that experiment can provide a solution to the industry's present problems. Moreover, it is exciting for those whose hearts are in Europe that the new Braun plan challenges the nations of Europe, with the European Coal and Steel Community in a key position, collectively to solve the problem. Looking back into history—not particularly far back—I cannot see how the challenge could be effectively met if individual nations had to meet it on their own.
Before the sub-committee began the inquiry I had no clear idea of either the urgency or the enormity of the problem. Some—I am not referring to members of the sub-committee—seemed to feel that it would go away at the end of the recession even if nothing more was done. I am convinced that nothing could be further from the truth.
One measure, among many, of its magnitude is the very large number of jobs which must now be at risk, a point mentioned by the noble Lord. We have seen in this country the grievous effect of the closure of steel-making capacity, so often, like the cutting off of coal production, in areas where little alternative employment is immediately available. Having in the past had some responsibility in these matters, I am convinced that it is wrong, and would be wrong now, to delay unpalatable but probably in the long run inevitable decisions. It must be better to move as quickly as possible to more constructive alternatives: and this is the strength of being able to take this decision within the European framework. But without doubt, despite any help available to displaced workers, the human price of
722
this operation will be great. It is this that must give grave anxiety to anyone with the least understanding of the present deformity of the industry.
Will steel producers and their governments have the will to act? Can subsidies to uneconomic producers be brought to an end? To my mind, the most important sentence of the report is in paragraph 57, towards the end. It states:
"Without the necessary political will on the part of Member States, restructuring will fail".
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, must feel very proud that under his leadership the sub-committee has done all in its power—it could do no more—to support and strengthen the resolve of the Commission and Council of Ministers to act now, firmly and decisively. All of us must hope that that resolve will not fail.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I should like to add my tribute to that of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who is standing down under the rules of procedure as chairman of our sub-committee. I hope that he will be proud of his last production, if that is the right word, and I am sure that your Lordships will find it a stimulating and interesting document. As chairman, he will be much missed.
In looking at the restructuring plans for a major industry it is helpful to try to peer, however darkly, into the future to see what is the potential of the industry down the years. It is essential to make up one's own mind whether one sees steel as an industry in gentle decline, in steep decline or suffering only a cyclical hiccup. This was a question on which we received a certain amount of help from the witnesses before us. What they had to say your Lordships may care to read in the report, but it may be helpful to summarise one or two of the points that they made.
First, in a mature economic society such as our own the demand for steel is declining. That does not mean to say that all is black. I was myself astonished at the ingenuity and salesmanship of the steel industry in finding and exploiting new products. Apparently, of the 5,000 or 6,000 different steel products on the market, some three-quarters have been invented or processed during the past five years. That shows at least an agile and alert industry seeking to develop its own future.
Other pointers were that semi-finished steel should be produced in countries like Brazil and perhaps, if one may use the expression, East Germany rather than in places like the UK and other advanced technological societies. They have the labour and the resources to make their contribution—that is, with the proviso that shipping steel about is an expensive business. It is a bulky and heavy product and not easily transhipped at economic prices.
As noble Lords will see from our report, there seemed to be a measure of confidence that large steel firms with high resources of technology and research capability would prosper and that small firms aiming at selected segments of the market would also prosper, but that medium sized firms, which could probably do neither of those things, were in a parlous position and might indeed fade slowly from the picture.

723
Finally, it looks as though steel-making as a whole will be concentrated more and more at selected large sites, mostly near coastal waters. One would certainly hope that within the EC this would be regardless of national boundaries.
What of steel in the future? One can only give a personal view, but it seemed to me that, taking these factors into account, steel was and is in slow decline. I would expect to see an exercise such as this undergone perhaps in another 10 or 15 years unless the industry itself can phase itself downwards without international or governmental intervention.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, have dealt with state subsidies. It is impossible to consider the situation of steel in Europe without considering state subsidies. They are the rock on which this whole plan may well founder. It is obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, that private steel companies will not accept painful reductions in their workforce and in their production if they see alongside them state subsidised firms putting out products at effectively a much higher price, the difference being sustained by the taxpayer in the relevant country. That is simply not acceptable and one can only hope that the Commission will be able to deal with it.
The issue of state subsidies is a complex one and one of which we have a long history in this country. I seem to remember—my memory is becoming increasingly fallible—that some decades ago we were pouring around £1 million a day into some of the major state corporations, and even today we apply subsidies to our rail transport. There are often reasonable social and economic reasons for doing this, but if we are to operate a European Community as a common market this must stop. It can only function as an economic entity by the elimination of these subsidies which distort not only steel but the different forms of transport, of which—one might say in parenthesis—the most grotesque example is national airlines.
There is a social cost to this which the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, mentioned—70,000 jobs and probably, with the knock-on effect, a great deal more than that. Fortunately, there seems to be sufficient money in the pot to make very satisfactory redundancy payments to those affected. Money will be available from the Coal and Steel Communities, from the European Commission, from national governments and from employers themselves. Between those various sources it is to be hoped that redundancy payments will be more than satisfactory. Previous speakers have thought sorrowfully of the 70,000 extra unemployed who will be cast on to an unemployment market which is already between 17 million and 18 million. That is a tragedy and one should not try to minimise it. But when one thinks of the sacrifices that have already been made in this country alone in the coal industry and in the steel industry itself, where numbers have dropped from around 250,000 to 42,000 in the space of 10 or 15 years, we have made the most remarkable sacrifices already.
The final point that I wish to touch on—and I dare say that other speakers will elaborate on it—is the position of British Steel. It was a revelation to me to discover
724
how British Steel has turned itself around in the space of a decade, or perhaps a little more, from a somewhat obsolete firm into one of the most efficient steel producers, certainly in Europe, and possibly in the world. It has been done of course with notable sacrifices in plant, equipment and manpower. I believe that the whole committee felt that it would be most inappropriate for any reductions contemplated under the Braun scheme to fall again on British Steel. It has already made its sacrifices and already turned itself into an efficient company. It should not be called on to do more.
I can only say that the Braun plan has been welcomed on almost all sides. One of the almost curiosities of the situation is that the problem is generally agreed by everybody and the solution is widely agreed by most people. The only obstacles are the state subsidised companies. It is to the hoped that the Commission will find the power and determination to overcome those obstacles. Given that determination and a successful outcome to that problem, there is no reason that the European steel industry should not prosper for many years to come.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and his colleagues on the Select Committee. I read the report with a mixture of sadness and some depression and also with a considerable amount of hope. It raises not just economic and political issues, but moral issues too.
It took my mind back very much to January 1981 when I was appointed Minister of State for Industry with responsibility for the steel industry here. That was the time when the European Community steel industry was held to be in a state of manifest crisis. That is no loose phraseology, as we old Brussels hands know. It has a precise legal meaning: it is a Euro-formula which enables the provisions of the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Rome—particularly those concerning state subsidies—to be suspended. That seemed to me to be just as well since, as a government, we had inherited from our predecessors a British steel industry which was severely disadvantaged by a sad history of economics subordinated to politics and constant surrender to unreasonable demands from trade unions. It was an industry so weakened that, without subsidy, it would have collapsed.
My noble friend Lord Joseph, who was my Secretary of State, entrusted to me the negotiations which were designed to restore health to the industry. The only strong card in my hand was that, as one of Europe's worst offenders, I had more to concede in negotiations than almost anybody else. I remember well that vice-president Davignon took me aside at the first meeting I attended and asked me: "Minister, what is your position?" "Well Commissioner," I said, "we are behaving like Italians but we would like to be like Germans". Sadly now, even the Germans are beginning to behave like Italians, although we have learned to behave like Germans.

725
As noble Lords will know, the 1981 Davignon agreement provided for capacity reductions, quotas and price fixing. In short, it was a classic cartel. I remember well the expression on the face of my noble friend Lord Joseph when I returned from the crucial meeting at which agreement had been reached. He said: "How did it go?" I said: "Very well, Keith". He said: "What happened?" I said: "We have probably created the largest cartel in commercial history and it is designed to force up the price of a product already in surplus". "Oh my god!" he said, clutching his forehead. "Never mind, Keith", I observed, "It will work out".
Of course the redeeming feature of the agreement was that it also provided for an end to subsidy and a phased return to the proper economics of the market. It worked, but as the crisis was overcome so the commitment to the elimination of subsidy was put aside and the game of politics was resumed. So I make it plain that I firmly agree with the committee that we should not again allow a declaration of a manifest state of crisis to be made. That gives far too much to member states who reneged on the 1981 Davignon agreement.
The words of paragraph 49 on page 14 of the Select Committee's report, are worth quoting precisely when referring to the Davignon agreement:
"Perhaps the key weakness was that the plan was not followed through as the economic boom of the late 1980s took away the incentive to change".
I strongly endorse paragraph 51, also on page 14, which says:
"In some industries much of the industry is state-owned. While this does not necessarily lead to inefficiency, witnesses described the reluctance, particularly in Italy and Spain, to close uncompetitive capacity, resulting in high state subsidies. These subsidies are expressly banned by the Treaty of Paris … Witnesses suggested that the rules are not being enforced, particularly in Italy … Even in Germany … inefficient plant has been kept open, often propped up by banks".
That is a turnaround from the situation which we sometimes hear of in this country where efficient plant is closed down mainly at the behest of banks. But that is another matter for another debate. I most particularly choose to share the concerns expressed by the committee in the footnote at the bottom of page 15:
"The Government initially took the view that, in view of the Treaty prohibition, the Decisions could not be justified [that is, to allow subsidy] except on a very short-term basis, without Treaty amendment. By 1989 they appeared to have changed their policy and their legal position. The Select Committee were highly critical of this change: see Correspondence with Ministers 12th report".
I agree with that criticism. We agreed in 1981 to the Davignon plan precisely because we believed that that was the way out of the subsidy trap and that if we allowed that to go on, except in the very short term, it would have required amendment of the treaty. Clearly, anything which undermines the general prohibition of subsidy is damaging to the European Community's economy as a whole but, most particularly, it is damaging to the most subsidy-free member state, which today is the United Kingdom. If Ministers are backsliding, that is a matter for profound regret.
But as I observe, there are also matters in this report for profound rejoicing. Perhaps most clearly that is to be found on page 89, almost at the end of the report, in some of the written evidence that was given. I have in
726
mind the evidence offered by the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. I believe that it is worth reading. Paragraph 13 states that,
"as a result of its earlier drastic pruning … operations, British Steel is now the most efficient producer in Europe—so it would not make economic sense to force cut backs in the United Kingdom.
"Looking at the principles involved—if a company found it had excess capacity and it responded by reducing production at its most efficient plant and subsidising its least efficient plants, it would be well on the way to bankruptcy.
"The same logic applies to the European steel industry—if total output needs to be reduced, it would not make any sense to force reductions in capacity on the most efficient producer (British Steel). The only sensible response would be to reduce capacity at the least efficient plants (those, in other countries, which are most heavily subsidised)".
That is not the Institute of Economic Affairs speaking; it is the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. It makes a sharp contrast when compared with the flabby thinking of Mr. Pedro Ortún of the Commission. I believe it is well worth while to look at his evidence in the report. I shall quote but briefly from the second column of page 78 of the report. The following is the voice of the Commission:
"We could have chosen the 'let the market work' strategy but it would have been much more negative … It could have led to massive subsidies".
Indeed, it could have led to massive subsidies, but only if the Commission chose to stand aside from its responsibilities and let such subsidies be paid. In fact, the Commission is saying either that it does not believe in the Treaty of Paris or that it does not have the will to apply it.
Let us be clear on the matter. The difficulties of the European steel industry spring, above all, from a refusal to let the market work and a surrender to a political blackmail. No one disputes that the British steel industry is the most efficient in Europe; indeed, among the most efficient in the world. Yet illegal subsidies, especially in Spain and Italy, are forcing British Steel into losses. I have some sympathy with the German problem. The Germans have only just taken on the commitment of East Germany. It will take them some time to sort out the problem. I believe that they should properly be given some time; but that is not the case with the others.
The Commission and the Council sit paralysed as those illegal subsidies force British Steel into losses. They say that it is not their business to destabilise governments of member states. That is a constant theme when one asks the Commission to act. They should think about which governments they are destabilising by a failure to act. The consequences of such policies are all too clear. As has already been mentioned, the airline industry is a particularly blatant example in Europe. Air France continues with illegal subsidies because the French Government lack the courage to stand up to Luddites. The European Community itself pays vast subsidy to open a new coal mine to produce coal at £60 a tonne in Spain, while our pits which produce coal at £30 a tonne are being closed.
What sort of single market is that? If a single market existed and the provisions of the Treaties of Paris and Rome were honoured by our partners, British coal would be exported to Spain as its mines closed and

727
British steel would be going to Italy and Spain and their steel works closed. Moreover, if the French could not run an airline to match its competitors then that would also have to be closed. In a single market there is no case for every country to have a steel works or even an airline.
If other member states ignore their treaty commitments and make the rules to suit themselves, then, sooner or later, this country will face an ugly reality: either more jobs will be lost here and taxes will rise to keep in idleness men who deserve to be in work, so putting more men out of work, or Ministers will have to behave with the same lack of scruples and determination to look after their own people as do those of our continental partners
If illegal subsidies continue, they will have to be met with illegal tariffs, or simple prohibition of imports from offending countries. We always hear the same: the French Government cannot comply with their obligations because they are too weak. The Spanish Government would be overthrown or there would be terrible riots in member states if it was insisted that they comply with their commitments. The same cringing weakness is pleaded by the Greeks, and others, as they plunder British taxes and British jobs. It is a moral issue. We are seeing a political system in which wrongdoing and law breaking brings rewards. I do not believe that that should be allowed to he so. If it continues to be so, then the law will be dishonoured and the whole system will break down.
I sometimes wonder how long we in Britain are expected to queue in an orderly manner to be treated as the mugs—the soft touches of Europe. I was shocked to read that my successor Mr. Sainsbury declined in his evidence to rule out further cuts and job losses here in the United Kingdom. However, the problem is not here in the United Kingdom; the problem is elsewhere. It is in Brussels, it is in Rome and it is in Madrid.
Ministers might do well to start here today with the steel industry with a commitment to take the Commission, as well as the Italian and Spanish Governments, to court for persistent, blatant breaches of the treaty, unless those illegal subsidies are terminated and disgorged by the businesses concerned. Nothing could do more for the rule of law, for the creation of a single market and for the future of the European Union.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it is indeed a formidable task to follow my noble friend Lord Tebbit. However, the one great advantage in so doing is that he has already covered much of the ground. That will make my intervention much briefer. I, too, should like to begin by saying that it has been a great privilege to serve on the sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I should like to thank the noble Lord, and also, as he did, to thank our Clerk, Mr. Edward Wells, for the production of such a clear and comprehensive report. Its recommendations largely accord with the restructuring plan drawn up by the European Commission and the Council. Similar conclusions having been reached by ourselves—that is,
728
by independent means—I hope that that will add to the weight which should be attached to the recommendations.
As other noble Lords have said, there is no doubt that, if the report's recommendations are implemented, the impact will be traumatic on no fewer than an estimated 70,000 steel workers—and, of course, their families—across the EC. Doubtless, as we have seen all too often in this country, whole towns and communities will initially be devastated by its implementation. We know about that in the United Kingdom. But we also know that the phoenix can and does rise from the ashes and that genuine long-term benefit can be achieved, though only by considerable struggle and the implementation of hard decisions. I am entirely satisfied that the proposals outlined in the report form the basis of the only sensible way forward and, indeed, the only way to ensure a viable future for the steel industry in the EC.
The steel industry in Europe can no longer labour under its present load of subsidies, over-production, over-capacity and inefficiency if it is to retain any prospect of competing in world markets. The Minister for Industry gave evidence to the effect that overcapacity throughout the EC was in the region of 20 per cent. The Braun Report, which was initiated by the Council and the Commission in November 1992 to look at the level of cuts necessary in the industry, put it at an even higher figure. On any analysis, that overcapacity is substantial.
Capacity was reduced by 19 per cent. during the early and mid-1980s which was declared to be a lime of manifest crisis in the EC's steel industry. There is however still a long way to go. The UK participated fully in those cuts in the early 1980s and, unlike many of her EC partners, has continued to make reductions, notably by closing Ravenscraig in Scotland. Ravenscraig, with its consequent job losses of 3,700, is the only closure of an integrated steelworks in the EC since 1988, and resulted in a further cut of 15 per cent. in crude steel capacity in this country—a greater percentage than any other EC country.
Unsurprisingly, there is a similar story to tell with regard to workforce figures. During the 1980s, 40 per cent. of its workforce was shed by the industry, with France, Italy and the UK sustaining the biggest number of job cuts. As has already been said, between 1975 and last year, the UK reduced the number of steel jobs from 250,000 to just under 42,000, obviously far in excess of the EC average of 40 per cent. We are now talking about another 70,000 job losses across the Community. In terms of both production and job losses in the steel industry—here I agree wholly with my noble friend Lord Tebbit—this country, to put it in the vernacular, has done its whack. It is now up to our EC partners to follow.
The issue of subsidies is not at all straightforward. Although subsidies are, as has been rightly said many times this afternoon, banned expressly by the Treaty of Paris (with the specific exceptions of research and development, financing closures or assisting regional and environmental policies), there can be no doubt that some countries in the EC are bending the rules ad

729
absurdum. Italy and France appear to be the worst transgressors. I urge the Commission most strongly to heed the words of one of our witnesses, Mr. Ian Blakey—
Lord Ezra: My Lords, Italy and Spain.
Lord Geddes: I thank the noble Lord. Italy and Spain appear to be the worst transgressors. Mr. Ian Blakey, the Director General of the British Iron and Steel Producers Association, said:
"If governments generally want to get the steel industry off their backs … then the subsidies must go. This is a question of political resolve".
I add my own words: no more, no less. Even in Germany private inefficient plants are being propped up, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit said, by banks. I therefore urge the Commission to grasp the nettle—and if your Lordships will excuse the pun—however much it may sting. The solution can only be market led. It lies in increased efficiency and diversity and a recognition of the enormous potential of a well run steel industry. For the story is all not doom and gloom, as my noble friend Lord Elibank said. There are areas where, while the weight of steel per unit has decreased, nevertheless, the overall market share of steel is increasing.
Britain has an especially strong case as our industry is arguably the most efficient of all in the EC. As my noble friend Lord Tebbit said—but I put it in slightly different words—we have complied with the regulations, suffered the closures and increased our efficiency until, as an example quoted by witnesses, our costs per tonne of cold-rolled coil are only 413 dollars as compared with France's 493 dollars and Germany's 558 dollars.
We must not be misled into believing that the crisis in the steel industry is a result of the recession. The boom years of the 1980s may have concealed the problem to a large extent, but no future upturn will solve it. The recession throughout Europe has, perhaps cruelly, stripped away the gloss, and the reality underneath has now been revealed. The Commission should regard it as an opportunity to take tough and painful decisions to ensure the industry's healthy survival into the next century.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate. That was due to the vagaries of the transport system for reasons that most people will recognise. Perhaps I may also disclose an interest in this subject as a director of the British Steel Corporation for many years. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and his committee on an excellent report which well defines the serious crisis facing the great steel nations of Europe.
Under successive governments of both parties, the steel industry in this country has been rationalised and modernised so that it is now among the most efficient in the world. Unfortunately, that is not so with regard to many of our partners in the Community. Clearly they have been caught out by the economic downturn so that
730
despite the fact that subsidies or aids granted by the state "in any form whatsoever" are prohibited by the coal and steel treaty itself; despite the fact that a state aids code for the steel industry which provides the Commission with comprehensive and regular information on state aids has been in place since the beginning of the 1980s; despite the fact that specific programmes for the restructuring of the industry and the eradication of state aid were carried out in the early 1980s, subsidy still exists today and thrives beyond the borders of the UK. It is acknowledged to exist on a massive scale in the state-owned industries of Italy and Spain. There are other cases elsewhere.
In Germany, the Government have proposed the construction, with state money, of a new plant in the former East Germany to manufacture a product already acknowledged by the Commission to be in gross over-supply throughout Europe. I was happy to see that the Commission refused to accept that proposal, but I remain very worried by the apparent willingness of some member states to regard the Community's laws on state aid as being flexible, and negotiable when they become inconvenient. How else can one explain the continuing operation of loss-making plants in Italy and Spain, except by the provision of massive state funds and guarantees, in direct contravention of the laws to which those states subscribe.
I recognise that those laws have in the past often been honoured in the breach rather than in the observance, but today the European Community is committed, by the very existence of the single market, to the necessity of establishing fair competition within its borders. The Community has also recognised, as have the British Government, the need to encourage and foster competitiveness if it is to compete successfully in world markets. To meet these requirements the member states and the Commission must eradicate a political climate in which "deals" can be struck on state aid—for instance, so much capacity closed in return for so much aid—and replace it by the widespread acceptance that illegal subsidy will simply not be allowed.
We find ourselves in a situation where privately-owned, efficient companies in Britain—such as British Steel—are competing against heavily-subsidised Community producers and inevitably facing the difficulties that arise from that. They have already caused plant to be closed and workers to be laid off and could lead to further job losses and closures. That simply cannot be allowed to continue. The immediate task for the Government is to ensure that the state-aid cases soon to be brought before the Council of Ministers are settled in a manner most conducive to an adequate restructuring of the industry. They should then go on to secure acceptance of the principle that the law preventing subsidies must be rigidly applied so that the present situation never arises again.
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving the House an opportunity to debate the report of sub-committee B on the steel industry. I am grateful all the more so because the noble Lord is retiring as chairman of that

731
sub-committee and this is, as it were, his swansong. A most efficient swansong it was. Would that I could say that the steel industry was efficient but, as all other speakers have said, that is far from the case. The industry is extremely inefficient. Since my membership of sub-committee B I have been involved in producing six reports and I have never come across a subject so convoluted and frustrating as Community steel.
Of course, the problem is one of overcapacity. But who in his right mind would try to solve overcapacity by increasing capacity? That has actually happened in Italy and Spain. The plant at Taranto in southern Italy is less efficient than Ravenscraig but it continues to produce 8.5 million tonnes of steel that is hard to sell; so hard that not even Fiat in Turin will buy it. Taranto is producing more than one-third of the Community's surplus capacity of 20 million tonnes. That mill is in a deprived part of Italy.
Likewise, the Spanish mill is in a deprived area in Bilbao in the Basque country. Both ventures are state-aided, which is contrary to the Treaty of Paris. Both are looked upon as solutions to unemployment. However, as Sir Robert Scholey told the sub-committee, if you put a state-aided factory into a deprived area surely you should choose the type of factory that could make money. I should like to quote Sir Robert's evidence. He said:
"I think it is absolutely crazy that the Spaniards should try to reconstitute the steel industry in the Basque region. They have to have something there but why steel? Why do they not go for something that is going to be profitable?"
More specifically, he told us:
"the steel maker has to be quite clear what his role is. It is not to make steel to support a social situation. His role there is to provide a competitively priced quality product".
I also agree with Sir Robert that there is very muddled thinking about steel. The reason for choosing steel is on occasions not so much economic as emotive. The word is macho; it has overtones of valour. I looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and found that it appears in contexts such as, "girdle me with steel", "give them the cold steel", "Foemen worthy of their steel", and "steel true and blade straight". Therefore, a country with a strong steel industry could be imagined to be ipso facto a strong country.
Whatever the reason, there is overcapacity. As was said by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, one cannot exclude Germany from the list of transgressors because they have uneconomic mills which are funded by the banks. The Commission is rightly looking to make cuts of some 20 million tonnes per annum. That is three Tarantos or, looking at it another way, the combined output of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. I must reiterate in passing that we have already cut our steel industry to the bone and it is now the most efficient in Europe. There is no state aid. I make no apology for blowing the trumpet of patriotism. We cannot and we will not make further cuts because we are the best.
That said, the cuts needed are considerable and painful. We completed our report on 27th July knowing that we should not obtain specific directions from the Commission until 21st September. We now have something specific, although only partially so, but more
732
about that later. Suffice it to say that the Commission is not in the business of destabilising governments and we were expecting it to be somewhat tentative.
Before narrowing down to the suggestions for cuts, I wish to widen the debate by mentioning two global issues. The first is the change in the world market for steel. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. There are now trade barriers with the USA, but there is in the former communist bloc a sea change from import to export. Once the mighty Soviet Union needed all 44 million tonnes of Ukrainian steel for shells, guns, tanks and battleships and for its factories, bridges and railways. Indeed, it needed more steel than it could produce so it imported from us. But that is no longer the case. Now Russia and eastern Europe are exporting cheap state-aided steel. Hungary is exporting steel, as is Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the Czech lands. There is therefore a danger of dumping steel on a scale that would dwarf any decision that the Commission might make about Bilbao. If one adds to that the colossal new steel production of the Far East—that is, North and South Korea and China—limiting production in Bilbao and Taranto becomes hardly more than a spit in the ocean.
The second global issue is that of global warming In that respect there is a confusion. We are unhappy that the market for steel is so small yet we are surely happy that we are able to build high-rise structures using 30 per cent. less steel, that we can make steel cans that are 30 per cent. lighter or, most important, that we can make cars of high-quality coated steel that are less heavy and therefore use less petrol and cause less pollution. A decline in the steel market should be a cause for celebration. Of course, it is not. It causes unemployment, poverty and misery because we do not have the environmentally-friendly industry to put in its place. We must compromise and realise that the playing field of European steel is too big. We must make it smaller, but we must also make it more level.
I turn to the Commission's partial decisions of 21st September. They stemmed from discussions with the countries involved. The Spanish plan to close the Bilbao plant and take out capacity of 2.3 million tonnes. However, they also plan to erect a mini-mill, which will be aided 49 per cent. by the state and have a 1 million-tonne capacity. So the net saving is only 1.3 million tonnes.
I cannot understand the Italian situation. I am relieved that the chief executive of British Steel, Mr. Brian Moffat, cannot understand it either. The state-owned company, ILVA, is to be privatised in some parts, restructured in others, rationalised in others and sold off and liquidated in others. Taranto capacity might be reduced by 1 million tonnes. Mr. Moffat regards that as too little too late. In a recent note to us he stated that the time was fast approaching for the Commission to threaten further sanctions to force a satisfactory solution to the state-aided cases. How right! But when it comes to the crunch, even post Maastricht, it is the national governments which have clout. So the 64,000-dollar question is: how much attention will Rome or Madrid pay to Brussels? We should find that out on 21st November; that is, if matters do not slide even further.

733
After the state-aided sector has reduced capacity the plan is for the privately-funded sector to follow suit within three months; that is, by my reckoning, by mid-February 1994. Then, it is to be hoped, the European Community will have reduced capacity by the required 20 million tonnes. I detect an element of pie-in-the-sky about all this because all that we seem to have cut so far is 1.3 million tonnes in Spain. We should do better than that.
Should we manage the target of 20 million tonnes, we should be setting the world a good example. That is important because I am sure that steel is a world problem. I find support for that view in evidence given to us by the senior delegate of the European Commission, Mr. Pedro Ortún, the director of Directorate C. He has already come in for quite a bit of stick from my noble friend Lord Tebbit. However, I found his concluding words to be quite wise. He said:
"The steel problem is not a European one. It is a worldwide problem and [the steel market has become] a worldwide market and the problem of overcapacity which has been very clearly defined and analysed in Europe exists also in many parts of the world and this overcapacity leads in some cases to subsidised prices and these are the root of the global steel problem…We should try to find a common discipline for the world steel trade".
The best way to find that common discipline is to cut drastically European steel production and to cut subsidies completely.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with every noble Lord who has spoken in congratulating the committee on its report. I congratulate in particular the chairman, my noble friend Lord Ezra, not only on the report but also on the way in which he introduced it to the House today.
This is a strong, even stark, report on the future of the EC steel industry. Its recommendations have major implications not only for the future of the structure of Community steel but, more widely, for Community industrial policy. As a non-expert on the steel industry, I was struck, on reading the report, by two contrasting comments. The first was British Steel's evidence on page 25 pointing out that Japan has seven major producers compared to 16 in the European Community along with the comment that European Community industry is too fragmented to be fully competitive. The second comment, on page 16 of the committee's conclusions, was that the cut in capacity which is proposed as essential will result in the loss of about 70,000 jobs. Those jobs will be in areas of high unemployment and also in areas of great political sensitivity within the member states. It has to be remembered that the Community already has 17 million unemployed.
The stark fact, endorsed by all noble Lords who have spoken, is that the European Community must make itself internationally competitive in the steel industry. The only alternative is a loss of living standards and, in the long run, even greater unemployment. Therefore, for my part, I am glad that the committee endorsed the Braun plan. That is strong medicine but it is medicine that must be taken. As my noble friend Lord Ezra
734
pointed out, there are powers within the treaties for implementing the recommendations of the Braun Report. What is at issue is the question of the political will of the Commission and of the Council of Ministers.
We need a Community solution which aims to produce an efficient and competitive Community steel industry. As the committee emphasises at paragraph 58 of the report, it must not degenerate into some kind of intergovernmental compromise of the type with which we are rather familiar in the European Community—a patch-up of so-called national burden-sharing. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, nods his head. He and I do not always see eye to eye on European Community matters but I agreed with the main thrust of what he said today.
Certainly, as regards national burden-sharing—the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, made the point very pungently—the United Kingdom has had more than its share of the burden. It has faced up to the long trauma of creating an efficient steel industry. As a Scot, I was fascinated by the evidence, mentioned in paragraph 54 of the report, that Ravenscraig, for all its geographical disadvantages in modern conditions, operated at a level of costs lower than other steel plants which remain open. I agree therefore with the rather barbed point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in an extremely interesting speech, about the evidence given by one of his successors at the Department of Trade and Industry. Any idea that out of the Braun plan should come further sacrifices on the part of the British steel industry is, I believe, totally out of court.
In my experience, the European Community always looks for ways to dodge difficult and painful decisions. It is possible to use the East Europeans as a scapegoat. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, mentioned the change in the steel industry in the former Soviet empire. The report points out that the present penetration of steel from the former Soviet empire is some 4 million tonnes out of 130 million tonnes. Therefore, it is a 3 per cent. penetration. That is not an excuse for dodging difficult decisions.
The Braun plan will require vigorous action, both negative and positive. On the negative side, as paragraph 56 of the committee's conclusions makes clear, there should be a firm timetable for the ending of all state aids which do not directly facilitate closures. That means a political will to take on the situation, particularly in Italy and Spain.
On the positive side, as paragraph 62 of the committee's conclusions mention, maximum effort is needed as regards extra help for retraining, the setting up of new enterprises and the various other activities in which British Steel has engaged during the dramatic changes which have taken place within the British steel industry over the years.
Perhaps I may be allowed to widen the issues raised by the report. If the report is implemented, it will add another 70,000 redundant workers to the 17 million already unemployed in the European Community. The Community as a whole faces a very real problem in the years which lie immediately ahead as regards longer term structural unemployment. It is rather fashionable to refer, with a certain amount of complacent self-satisfaction, to the failure of Soviet communism as an

735
economic system. But unless we find a solution to large-scale structural unemployment in the western industrial world—I am thinking in particular of the countries of the European Community—we shall face a charge of the failure of western capitalism.
That is the wider background against which the report should be seen. I confess that I have no solutions to offer to the magnitude of the problem, but I believe deeply that the only way in which we shall make progress is on the basis of a Community approach. To export our unemployment to each other is no solution in the Community whether as regards the steel industry or industry more generally. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that if you start to allow illegal subsidies, sooner or later that leads to illegal tariffs. There is no way forward for any of us on that particular route.
I notice with interest that the President of the European Commission, Mr. Delors, and the Social Affairs Commissioner, Mr. Flynn, seem to be jointly engaged in producing a White Paper on competitive growth and employment for the summit meeting of the Community which takes place in December. I am not sure whether I still carry the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, with me, but I believe that the best hope of finding solutions to the longer-term problems of structural unemployment arising from technological change is action on a Community basis. I hope that the Government will give a fair wind to some of those ideas.
There is talk coming out of the Commission about the need for action on competitiveness combined with other forms of collective Community action. I believe that the Government have a fair case in drawing attention to the paramount need for the European Community economy to make itself internationally competitive within the global economy in which the next generation will have to live. There are big issues here to which I hope the Government will give a fair wind. In conclusion I cannot resist saying that by far the best way to bring influence within the European Community on the issues of maintaining maximum competitiveness, whether of steel or anything else, is from right inside the Community. Standing on the sidelines with opt-outs is not the most persuasive way to exercise maximum influence.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is an important, interesting and informative report. I join with other noble Lords in thanking the Committee and its chairman for preparing it and placing it before us. I have certainly found today's debate extremely helpful. I use the word "informative" because I found the report informative, particularly in its evidence, and especially the evidence which shows that British Steel is the low cost producer of Europe. I spend a lot of my time pointing out the deficiencies of British industry. For once I almost find it uplifting to be able to say that, on the figures Mr. Aylen presents, British Steel is far and away the lowest cost producer.
The rationalisation that led to that state of affairs was started by a Labour Government and it has certainly been continued by the privatised industry. That leads me immediately to the point which I believe was made by
736
the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, when he referred to the evidence given by Mr. Ortún and that given by Mr. Sainsbury. I was not surprised by Mr. Ortún's evidence because I would expect the Commission in the end to wish to do a deal and obscure matters. However, I was taken aback by Mr. Sainsbury's evidence in the sense that he did not say in forthright terms two things. One is that we should rely on the single market and the other is that we are not going to give in to those who wish to fudge these issues. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, drew that matter to our attention. It is a clear-cut matter and one which in your Lordships' House we cannot stress too often.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that of course one wants to see a Community solution to this matter, but for once the Community solution is that the Commission should do absolutely nothing to interfere and should let the market decide this matter. All the Commission should do is to ensure that those who seek to subvert the single market in this case should be stopped from doing so. For once the Community solution is clear and I have no difficulty in that regard. I reflect that, paradoxically, many years ago many of my right honourable and honourable friends were opposed to the Community on the grounds that it was the embodiment of free market capitalism. Nowadays I note that the Right-wing of the Tory Party is opposed to the Community on the grounds that it is the embodiment of interventionist socialism. How the wheels turn full circle. I think there is a balance there, but in the case of a market like steel, clearly we want it to work as the single market was supposed to work. I take it that that is what the report is saying and I support that view most strongly.
On the question of subsidies there are, as we know, many disguised subsidies whether they consist of preferential access to banks and finance or rather arcane offsets to taxable capacity and matters of that kind. It is not easy totally to stop those who wish to subvert the single market in one way or another. However, to return to my main point, I believe that the role of the Commission should be to seek that out. It can be discovered as easily as one can discover fraud, despite all the fuss that is made about that. It is staring one in the face. When I am told that the Commission is investigating this matter, I wonder what it is it thinks it is investigating. It is perfectly obvious to many of us what is going on as regards subsidies. The Commission should say no. It is rather like those referees of football matches who cannot see when cheating is taking place when the rest of us can see it very clearly.
I believe we are all against subsidy which seeks to keep in existence inefficient structures. However, we are not saying that we do not wish to see public money used to produce new efficient structures if it can be so used. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that when we debate industry and the economy, as I hope we shall after the Queen's Speech, I do not believe that we should be pessimistic about the possibilities of dealing with structural unemployment on a European scale. I believe a great deal can be done in that area and I shall certainly propose some ideas when we discuss that matter.

737
The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, made a point that I am sure we all agree with. When an industry in some sense improves its efficiency, it sheds jobs. Shedding jobs is a human matter as well as an economic one. One has a responsibility to ensure—particularly as we are having difficulty maintaining full employment—that something is done to make the workers who have lost their jobs re-employable. We must ensure that they have hope for the future rather than just the prospect of remaining on the dole. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. I am sure we all agree that it does not help those workers temporarily to prevent the decline of the industries they are in. All that that does is to postpone the problem for a while and make it a good deal worse. The case for intervention and subsidy with respect to the steelworkers as with others is the positive case of what we should do with the resources that are made available rather than the negative case of not allowing efficiency to dominate what happens.
I have one or two brief points still to make. I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and one or two other speakers referred to the position in Eastern Europe and in the Far East. Our responsibilities in the Community must still be to welcome competition. We cannot say simultaneously to Eastern Europe, "We want you to succeed and we want your economies to develop; but if there is the slightest chance of your undermining our industry we shall find all sorts of ways to prevent you from undercutting us". I agree that there are still problems with subsidy there, but on the whole I would turn a blind eye in that area, at least for a short while, because I believe it is in our interests that industries are made viable within the new systems developing in that area. It would be catastrophic if the Community said on the one hand how much it favoured Eastern Europe and how much it was willing to give it aid but on the other hand said it was not willing to allow Eastern Europe to beat it at some of the games it is used to winning. I think the principle—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does not the noble Lord recognise by now that turning a blind eye is setting a precedent which would be much more damaging than the temporary advantage he believes can be gained?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but the fact remains that the Eastern European countries are coming from a position that is far behind that of other countries. My first priority would be to encourage them. I would not nit-pick on some matters which I would do if we were dealing with Italy or Spain, or Greece in other areas. The noble Lord's point is valid in the end. Finally, the countries of Eastern Europe will have to compete on their own merits. There is no doubt about that.
Given that simple technology is involved with the steel industry, we must expect the countries of the Far East to become much more effective competitors. Again it would be quite wrong to say that we favour the emergence of the third world and then prevent those countries having access to our markets. I am not
738
suggesting that we will do that; I am simply saying that free trade has a rather tough side to it that we must recognise.
I do not wish to speak any longer as it is perfectly obvious that all the good points have been made. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, will make it clear to us that the Government are determined that the British steel industry will not be undermined by deals which seek to share the misery by making all parties involved shed some capacity. British Steel has made itself efficient. It has shed capacity. I believe that Mr. Aylen said that in a truly competitive world it would expand its capacity and its share of the market. We want to hear that kind of encouragement from the Government in forthright terms.
4.50 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate for their contributions, which have been both well-informed and helpful. I should also like to thank the committee for its thorough and incisive report on the serious problems facing the EC steel industry. The chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and members of Sub-Committee B are to be congratulated on the quality of their report. It is of no surprise that it has been warmly welcomed both by this House and by outside bodies, including the UK steel industry. We were particularly struck by how much common ground there is between the committee and the Government on what needs to be done in respect of EC steel restructuring. The views of the committee have been invaluable in preparing the UK position for the Council of Industry Ministers.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that we fully endorse the committee's view that the current problems facing the EC steel industry are deeply rooted in history. Following the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 demand for steel rose fairly steadily during the 1950s and 1960s. The ECSC treaty contained some liberal provisions, such as internal tariff reductions and a prohibition on price discrimination and state aids, but it also gave the Commission considerable and commanding powers of its own. Those powers came into play during the mid 1970s in the aftermath of the first oil crisis, first with the Simonet plan and then with the two Davignon plans. These established minimum prices, production restrictions and import restraints.
Recession in the early 1980s resulted in significant overcapacity. Some action was taken to reduce capacity but the task was made particularly difficult for two reasons. Most of the major Community steel producers were either state owned or received considerable state assistance. That meant that many were cushioned to withstand the worst effects of recession. Secondly, it was the policy of the Community to encourage steel firms to rationalise by providing state aid. This, together with the burden sharing principles of the Davignon plan, resulted in only limited restructuring.
Most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have stressed that it is countries which have failed to adapt their steel industries to market conditions which

739
must accept most of the responsibility for the serious problems the industry is facing today. The current cyclical downturn in many European countries has severely exposed the underlying structural weaknesses that have been caused by past intervention in the market-place and by the use of state aid to sustain unviable steel producers. Overcapacity—estimated at about 20 per cent. of output—is the main symptom of the industry's current difficulties, and most of that excess capacity is located in those countries where there has been less restructuring—Italy, Spain and Germany—and where many of the least profitable and least efficient plants are located. The situation has been exacerbated, but by no means caused, by US trade actions against EC exports and by increased imports from central and eastern Europe, particularly into Germany.
If market forces had been allowed to operate properly we would not be facing severe problems of oversupply today. If the market was left to its own devices then the answer to overcapacity would be simple: those who run tight ships and meet the needs of the market survive and make profits; those who do not, do not survive. That is the market solution. That is what should happen in the case of the European steel industry.
We should like to endorse the committee's support of the Braun plan, which advocates a market-based, industry-led solution to problems of overcapacity. It is only right and proper for the industry itself, and not governments, to decide how it should restructure and rationalise. The Government also fully support the special package of measures proposed by the Commission and agreed at the February Industry Council, which were designed to help smooth the process of adjustment. These measures are dependent upon the industry committing itself to a definitive programme of capacity reductions. We very much hope that the industry will be able to do that. We support the committee's view, as expressed by my noble friend Lord Holderness, that the Braun plan is far preferable to the kind of burden-sharing measures that have been tried in the past, and which have not only failed but have contributed to the current difficulties. Burden sharing implies that the UK industry should do more than it has already done to help solve the problem of EC overcapacity. That is totally unacceptable. The UK has already done a great deal of restructuring in its industry. It is now for others who have done little so far to put their steel industries on a commercial footing to accept the bulk of closures.
We are most grateful to the committee for drawing attention to the crucial link between the need to eliminate state subsidies and the success of the restructuring process. We cannot expect private sector companies to volunteer capacity cuts if subsidies continue to flow unabated into unprofitable state-owned companies. Subsidies which allow uncompetitive and inefficient producers to carry on operating—and to compete unfairly against those who receive no subsidies—are the root cause of the industry's current problems and a major barrier to a true single market in steel. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stated, Article 4 of the ECSC treaty specifically prohibits:
740
"subsidies or aids granted by states… in any form whatsoever".
That prohibition has been modified by successive aid codes, the most recent of which allows strictly limited amounts of aid only for research and development, environmental protection and closures. However, Article 95 of the treaty can be said to approve subsidies beyond those permitted under the aid code, but only in exceptional circumstances. We find it unacceptable that so soon after the finalisation of a strict subsidies code we are already being asked to approve huge amounts of state aid for companies in Italy, Spain and Germany—all under the "exceptional". provisions of Article 95.
The House will not be surprised to hear that the Government are opposed to state subsidies to the steel industry, as is the committee. I can tell my noble friend Lord Tebbit and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we have consistently argued for strict application of the aid rules and for action to be taken against those who break the rules. There is no question of Ministers backsliding. We are taking a strong line and will continue to do so in Brussels. There is no UK paralysis. For example, we have taken a lead in blocking the Spanish, Italian and German proposals for new subsidies. We shall continue to veto proposals which disadvantage the UK steel industry. I believe that that is the reassurance which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, sought.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I thank him for what he has said and in particular that Ministers would regard any further closures or reduction in capacity in the United Kingdom as unacceptable. However, he then went on to say that he thought that the bulk of closures should be elsewhere. Where should the closures be which do not come in the bulk of closures?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not for me at this Dispatch Box to tell the UK industry where or whether it should shed jobs. I have stressed repeatedly that the UK industry has already undergone a great deal of restructuring and is now the most efficient steel producer within the EC. Those are most important points to bear in mind.
Subsidies mean unfair competition for those who are not subsidised. They can mean that the most efficient companies go out of business while those which have access to seemingly limitless pools of state funding survive. Most damaging of all are subsidies which are paid out to meet every day running costs. Only last month United Engineering Steels announced the closure of its Templeborough plant, whereas its less efficient state-aided competitors carry on unscathed. The Government very much share the committee's concern, expressed by many noble Lords today, that other efficient private companies will be forced to close unless subsidies are brought firmly under control. We agree that it would be quite intolerable for other UK companies to suffer as a result of indiscipline in other member states.
The UK steel industry is not subsidised. The issue was referred to by my noble friends Lord Elibank and Lord Tebbit, and by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson. It is among the most efficient in the world. British Steel is widely regarded as the Community's most efficient

741
integrated producer. In 1979 it took over 13 man hours to produce one tonne of liquid steel. Today it takes less than five man hours. But that increase in efficiency has not been achieved painlessly—witness the most recent closure at British Steel's Ravenscraig works. The Government are in accord with the committee and a number of noble Lords who have spoken in urging other countries to find the political will to take similar decisions now. Shelving those problems means that even more draconian measures will be needed at a later date.
The three major impending requests for derogations from the aid code are in the Basque region of Spain, the heel of Italy, and former GDR territory near the Polish border. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, highlighted that those areas are characterised by high unemployment and by their dependence on the steel industry. For political and social reasons steel companies in those areas have been kept going by state subsidies. Regrettably, in those circumstances it is probably inevitable that some strictly time-limited aid may be needed to allow companies to rationalise so that they can then operate on a market basis.
However, we will only agree to those requests if certain strict conditions are met. We shall need to be satisfied that the unsubsidised UK industry will not be disadvantaged by those proposals. Therefore, in exchange for additional state aid we will seek to insist upon substantial, early and permanent reductions in capacity, and we are opposed to any new aided capacity. Finally, and most importantly, we will not sign up to any agreement until it is clear that running cost subsidies are strictly under control.
I am glad to inform the House that there has been some progress on those outstanding state aid cases since the publication of the committee's report, following intensive discussions between the Commission and countries concerned and following the Industry Council meeting last month. Those hold the key to the success of the whole restructuring initiative. However, much has still to be done before the proposals are acceptable to the UK. We need to be fully satisfied that any agreement takes full account of UK concerns. My right honourable friend the Minister for Industry made our views clear to the Council of Industry Ministers in September, and secured useful references to the elimination of running cost subsidies, to capacity reductions and to no new state aided capacity in the Council conclusions and Commission statements. We expect a more substantive debate on these matters at the next Industry Council meeting on 18th November.
The report states clearly that the future of the steel industry depends on it being ready to face the challenge of the single market and competition in world markets. The Government fully agree with that view. In that respect the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and its financial regime in 2002 will make a significant contribution to improving the EC industry's competitive position.
We also noted the committee's points about opening up our steel markets to competition from Central and East European countries. The issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Mersey and the noble Lord, Lord
742
Peston. We are keen to promote trade with those countries and to improve access to EC markets, but we must ensure that the trade is fair. We believe that the limited measures agreed represent a reasonable balance between our desire to support the development of those countries' economies and the need to take limited action in respect of certain sensitive imports.
At the end of last year the UK agreed to the establishment of Community-wide restrictions on imports of certain sensitive steel products from the former Soviet Union, excluding the Baltic states, and from the Czech and Slovak republics. We argued for greater access at the February Industry Council and secured a reference to the relevant parts of the Edinburgh European Council conclusions. Those underlined the Community's commitment to support and encourage political growth.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Viscount concludes, will he deal with an important point on which he has not given a definitive reply to date? He spoke of new arrangements and new agreements to be arrived at. Past experience has shown that some member states have no intention of keeping to the agreements that they sign. In the event that those new arrangements are not properly enforced by the Commission, will the noble Viscount assure the House that the matter will be taken before the European Court of Justice?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do not discount any option such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. We would perhaps be prepared to take such measures. However, it would be a drawn out process. Last autumn we and the UK steel industry believed that it was likely to be more expeditious to discuss an agreement in the Industry Council. If there is no agreement in November, we shall reconsider what action needs to be taken and again we shall explore all options.
Before the intervention, I was passing to the problems of the eastern European countries. I stated that we argued for greater access at the February Industry Council and secured a reference to the relevant parts of the Edinburgh European Council's conclusions. Those underlined the Community's commitment to support and encourage political growth as well as developing trade, investment and technical co-operation with the former Soviet Union and central and east European countries. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also gave a general assurance to the Russian Prime Minister last March that the UK would try and ensure that no Community safeguard or unfair trade action would be taken unless it were clearly justified, and the Commission has endorsed that.
In autumn 1992 negotiations re-commenced on a multilateral steel arrangement (MSA), which aims to put in place a "GATT plus" international trading regime for steel by dismantling tariff and non-tariff barriers and imposing strict disciplines on subsidies. The negotiations have made less progress than we would have liked and are currently hampered by fundamental disagreement between the main contracting parties on the way forward. The main difficulties lie in the permissibility of

743
certain types of subsidy and action that might be taken against them. The Government attach high priority to agreeing a satisfactory MSA which will end the chronic international wrangling which we have experienced and which has bedevilled trade in this product, and the extensive subsidisation of inefficient production for over 20 years.
Finally, I stress that the Government's overriding priority in respect of EC steel restructuring is to create an EC market in which the UK steel industry can trade freely and without unfair competition. We will act vigorously when the unfair and illegal actions of others serve to disadvantage the UK industry. We are determined to see the reorganisation of the Community steel industry completed as soon as possible and in a way which would achieve sufficient capacity cuts to ensure the industry's lasting competitiveness. The committee has made a valuable contribution to current discussion on EC steel restructuring. We appreciate that and thank the committee for the work that it has done.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in winding up the debate, I wish to express appreciation to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for the relatively short notice at which he spoke on behalf of the Government and for the wide ranging reply that he gave us. I wish also to thank the members of my committee, without whose help this report and others would never have been prepared.
I am grateful to noble Lords from the committee who have spoken in the debate; namely, the noble Lords, Lord Holderness, Lord Elibank and Lord Geddes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. I am sure that another noble Lord who sits in this Chamber would have spoken had he not in the meantime been elevated to the Front Bench. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, whom I congratulate. I only wish that his elevation had occurred a little later so that he could have spoken in our debate today. I am also most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for the sympathetic support which, as chairman of the Select Committee, he has always given us in our endeavours.
I believe that today's debate has shown one of the strengths of our House, that through our committee structure we are capable of taking a specific problem away, looking at it in depth—in this case in relatively short order because of the timetable—and leading it to such an informed debate not only by members of the committee but also by other noble Lords who have spared the time to come here. We have been totally unanimous in what we feel should happen. However, what has been particularly important about the debate is that we have shown that it spreads beyond the steel industry in the Community, important though that issue is. It raises questions about how effectively the single market: will operate. It raises questions of the world competitiveness of EC industries. Above all, there is the point made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Peston: it raises the whole question of how together we shall deal with the problem of structural unemployment.
I believe that we have had a useful afternoon. The speeches were as brief and to the point as the report
744
which gave rise to the debate. Perhaps that is an example which may be of interest on future occasions. I ask that the report be noted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"At around half-past nine on Saturday morning a house in North Belfast was taken over by two masked men who said they were members of the Provisional IRA. The occupant of the house was forcibly detained in an upstairs room for some three-and-a-half hours. His car was stolen.
"Shortly after 1 p.m. a similar car was seen parked on the Shankill Road, close to Berlin Street. Two men got out of the vehicle. One was carrying a box. Both walked from the car into Mr. John Frizzell's fish shop at 275 Shankill Road. At eleven minutes past one a bomb exploded inside the shop, which is on the ground floor of a three-storey building. This is a popular shopping area which at the time was especially crowded with people doing their weekend shopping. The building was completely demolished.
"The police, fire and ambulance services were quickly there, and a major rescue operation ensued, with local people providing tremendous help. The injured were taken to a number of Belfast hospitals whose medical and other staff responded immediately. The work of all concerned, both at the scene and in the hospitals, was beyond praise. I am most grateful for the tributes so widely paid to them, to which I gratefully add my own today.
"Ten people died: two children; four women and four men. They included a seven year-old girl and her parents; the owner of the shop, Mr. Frizzell, and his daughter; a wife and her husband; a 38 year-old woman and a 13 year-old girl on an errand for her mother. Fifty-seven people were injured, ranging from young children to elderly shoppers.
"In a statement on Saturday afternoon the Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for this atrocious act. They subsequently said that some of those who carried it out were unaccounted for.
"The Chief Constable of the RUC took immediate steps to safeguard security. In particular, more police and military manpower has been deployed in Belfast and other areas. Two people have been arrested in connection with the explosion.
"The whole House will condemn with revulsion Saturday's hideous attack. There can be no possible doubt about this: these people intended in any event to commit mass murder and to commit it in a busy street full of Saturday shoppers and their children.

745
Once again the Provisional IRA has taken away the lives of children, along with those of ordinary men and women who in two instances were their parents.
"The natural reaction of humane men and women to crimes of this enormity is one of rage. The restraint and dignity shown by the people of the Shankill are therefore all the more to be admired. Horrible though the provocation is, I urge the whole community in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland to continue to show equal self-control in the days ahead. I share the Chief Constable's belief that it will do so.
"Reason tells us that revenge merely multiplies the murder and injustice it reacts against; and reason, not rage, must be our guide. Reason tells us that all violence, from whatever quarter, and certainly including recent loyalist attacks—which have already resulted in another murder since Saturday—must be consistently and universally condemned. But reason also tells us that in this democracy those who commit these terrible crimes, those who commission them and those who justify them must not be bargained with.
"To the innocent victims of this attack and those near and dear to them our heartfelt sympathies go out. I assure them and the people of Northern Ireland that the RUC, with the Government's full support, will spare no effort to track down the remainder of these criminals and to protect the public from others like them. The RUC needs, and it deserves, the help of everyone.
"To those who did this terrible thing and to those who justify the use of violence the message, and the only message, is this. In this democracy no political purpose, whatever it may be, will be advanced by a single inch through the use or the threat of violence. No campaign, however horrible or protracted, will shift us from that determination.
"Finally, this atrocity surely reinforces the challenge to all the participants, including the two Governments, who are currently involved as constitutional politicians in the urgent search for a solution to Northern Ireland's political problems. In this democracy it is only through dialogue—dialogue between those who unequivocally reject the use or threat of violence—that the foundation will in the end he found for a fair and hence a lasting peace."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am sure that the whole House will join him in condemning with revulsion the appalling atrocity in the Shankill Road last Saturday afternoon and in expressing immense sorrow and sympathy to the families of the innocent people who have so suddenly been bereaved and the 57 innocent people who have been injured. At the same time, there is no concealing that it is deeply disappointing that these dreadful events have led to the need for this Statement.
I am assured by the reasoned tenor of the Statement—and we on these Benches support its central theme
746
—that reason, not rage, even in this situation, must guide our response. I am glad to note that the Statement confirms that no effort will be spared to track down the criminals. Although I do not doubt for one moment the Government's intention in that respect, it should be said that that assurance has been embedded in Statements which have been made time after time after every act of carnage in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years. So the people of Northern Ireland will say: "We have been here before". But the sad fact remains that the men of violence have not been defeated, and on the evidence which is observable to outsiders, they are unlikely to be defeated in the absence of a political solution.
We appreciate that there is a huge amount of courageous work being undertaken by the approximately 30,000 members of the security forces deployed in Northern Ireland. But perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Chief Constable of the RUC and the General Officer Commanding are satisfied that they have the manpower which they require. Is the Chief Constable asking for more resources?
This morning on the radio the Anglican Primate of All Ireland, Dr. Robin Eames, spoke, I thought, with deep conviction and feeling. I hope that Ministers of both Governments will ask themselves the question which the Archbishop posed: "Is there anything else we have not tried?"
We must urge Ministers of both governments to respond to the political challenge and to redouble, and treble, their efforts to seek to agree proposals which both Governments can support and which could lead to a lasting solution—although no one pretends that that will be an easy task. In fairness to the Government, I believe that that point is made in the closing part of the Statement. Meanwhile, we must never forget that it is innocent men, women and children who are being killed and injured by the men of violence and who are, first and foremost, the losers from the failure to seek a reconciliation.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend in another place. From these Benches I should like to express our deepest sympathy to the families of those bereaved, particularly perhaps the four women and two children whose loved ones were snatched away so brutally and unexpectedly. I should also like to express our best wishes to the 57 people who were injured in this horrendous atrocity.
We in this House must hope and urge, as the Government and the Chief Constable have urged, that calm prevails in the next few days so that there is no bloody escalation of tit-for-tat violence across the communities. Is the noble Earl satisfied that the Government believe that for the next week or two of acute pressure they have adequate forces on the ground, adequate intelligence and an adequate state of alert?
In the longer term, however, we should remember the overriding need for the political progress to which the Statement refers. In the end, hopelessness will be the best ally of the terrorist. When may we expect to hear from the two Governments? I know very well how

747
sensitive this matter is. I know that the two Governments, and Mr. Michael Ancram, are canvassing the two constitutional parties. I should like to express in this House the wish that all the constitutional parties will do their best to respond positively and specifically work out what each of them is prepared to give up in the cause of peace; what sacrifices and compromises they are prepared to make in this appalling situation. I certainly say that it is no time for the leader of any responsible party to be sulking in his tent.
Finally, I wonder how much the document from Messrs. Hume and Adams is helping in the current situation. This is a mysterious document in that we do not know what it says. It is also a much travelled document. It has been to America and to Dublin, but it does not seem yet to have to come to London. Certainly this House and the other place have yet to know what it says. I wonder whether it might not be a distraction from the central need to get the constitutional parties together to make progress.
I do riot want to mar this sad occasion with too strong an al tack on any of the participants, but in regard to Mr. Adams' performance last night and this morning—and, incidentally, if I had to hear him at all, I would prefer to hear him speaking in his own voice rather than in that of an actor—I thought that his remarks were breathtaking in their effrontery, particularly in view of the mainland bombings which have followed today. Does the noble Earl agree that to cause havoc and then promise, if only you can be given what you want, to have a word with your partner about it with a view to stopping it is the language of a protection racket, and that must not be encouraged in any way whatsoever?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the expressions of total condemnation of these violent, heinous acts, these crimes against mankind in Northern Ireland. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their sympathy towards those who mourn and their best wishes to those who have been maimed or injured for a speedy recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, quite rightly asks about the security forces in the next few weeks, as does the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has already said, there are some 30,000 security forces—the RUC and soldiers—already serving in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has certainly said that he will always at all times have sufficient forces in Northern Ireland to combat terrorism. Obviously, we shall continue to devote all resources necessary to security.
Certainly, the Chief Constable has made a number of redeployments of police and troops in the light of Saturday's atrocity. Clearly, if the Chief Constable feels that he needs further manpower to deal with the security situation, I have no doubt that he will put a request to my right honourable and learned friend. Of course, as both noble Lords know well—indeed, as all noble Lords
748
know very well—the level of forces is kept under careful review. We would not wish to speculate about any particular future changes.
The noble Lord mentioned Archbishop Eames and said words to the effect that the Archbishop is quoted as having asked: is there anything else that we can do in these circumstances? Over the years successive governments have tried everything in their power to bring about a peaceful settlement. If the Archbishop has some particularly useful suggestions I am sure that he will not hesitate to come forward and put them to my right honourable and learned friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, is quite right about the talks that are going on. The Government have embarked on a process of further private discussions with the constitutional parties to explore the basis upon which they can come together for further dialogue. The aim is threefold: first, to establish areas of common agreement; secondly, to explore areas of continued apprehension or disagreement; and, thirdly and perhaps most importantly, to try to identify the degree of flexibility which may be needed on all sides to resolve them. As regards the question of timing, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that no specific time has been set in the event of endeavouring to come to a solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned the Hume-Adams talks. Obviously, Mr. Hume's talks with Mr. Adams are a matter for his own judgment. I believe that the noble Lord understands perfectly well the position of the Government. It has been made clear very often. We will not engage in talks or negotiations with those who use, support or threaten violence to advance their political objectives.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I should like to join with other Members of this House in expressing much regret and sadness for those who have lost their loved ones in this latest despicable terrorist outrage. Is the Minister aware that it is now obvious that the Provisional IRA was not listening to the Hume-Adams dialogue? Indeed, it was not involved and did not want to know. Is he also aware that, tragically, the talks sparked off a campaign of Catholic killing by the Protestant paramilitaries who were afraid of the rumoured nationalist alliance of Provisional Sinn Fein, Social Democratic and Labour Party and Dublin? Then John Hume, presenting his peace progress suggestions to Dublin and America and ignoring Her Majesty's Government, made matters even worse. Although John Hume tried, those talks are best forgotten. Is the Minister further aware that Gerry Adams is now seen not to be trusted, and in the Province and in talks of this kind is totally irrelevant?
I should like to ask the Minister just one question, because on security much has been said and done. Why do not Her Majesty's Government consider selective detention, a round-up of senior, known suspects—Provisional IRA, Ulster Volunteer Force and Ulster Freedom Fighters—which would take the tension out of the situation, ease the fears of all the people in the Province and hopefully minimise the backlash?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, regarding selective detention—in other words, internment—as the noble Lord knows very well, that power remains on the statute book, but it would be brought into force only in very particular circumstances; and it is certainly not government policy to discuss what those might be. My right honourable and learned friend has it available to use it if he judges it appropriate.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that in Northern Ireland today there is sorrow, sadness, heartbreak and despair, not only on the Shankill Road but throughout Northern Ireland, because of the terrible, murderous activity of the IRA on Saturday. But added to that there is a great feeling of uncertainty. That is because of the uncertain constitutional position in Northern Ireland, particularly since 1985, since the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was negotiated without any contact at all with the majority community.
Since then in Northern Ireland there has been an air of triumphant nationalism which has caused fear and suspicion among the Protestant majority community. They feel that some way or other moves are taking place behind the scenes which will endanger their position within the United Kingdom. Since then there has been a series of talks—the Brooke talks and the Mayhew talks—with what we refer to as the constitutional parties. Of those constitutional parties there is one—the SDLP—which wants to change the constitution of Northern Ireland and which has entered into discussions with the sworn enemies of the Protestant and Unionist people to change the constitution and to incorporate them into Ireland against their will. Is it any wonder that under such circumstances fear and despair are rampant every second of every minute of every day in Northern Ireland?
I spoke to Robin Eames this morning. I was in the depths of despair about what happened on Saturday and so was he. We spoke of the terrible tragedy and the blood that had been spilt in Northern Ireland. He asked whether there was anything that the politicians could do. The politicians who were involved in the last set of talks—the constitutional politicians—were much too ambitious. Some of them were deliberately too ambitious because they said that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. Strand 1 would bring about concessions within Northern Ireland. Strand 2 would then involve negotiations across the Border; and Strand 3 would follow. There is absolutely no doubt that agreement could have been found within the limits of Strand 1. The Protestant community and nationalist community could have reached agreement to create political structures in Northern Ireland. But when it came to Strand 2 difficulties arose. It should clearly be stated here that it was the SDLP, allied with the Dublin Government, which wrecked the Strand 1 talks in Northern Ireland.
What happened after those talks failed? The Leader of the SDLP entered into discussions with Gerry Adams, the spokesman for the most murderous organisation that has ever appeared in the whole sad, tragic history of Ireland. What does that convey to the majority population? It conveys fear.
750
I have no intention of overstepping or of limiting the discussion. The situation is much too serious in Northern Ireland. It may curtail my remarks. I ask whether there is anything that can be done and reply that yes, there is something. The talks should begin again in Northern Ireland between the constitutional parties. But they must be told that the Border is not an issue. They must be told to find elements of agreement within Northern Ireland and, after having found a reason to learn to live together, then at some time in the future to talk about the eventual—but maybe the eventual—reunification of Ireland.
First of all, John Hume will have to realise that he may be a good communicator in Brussels, Dublin, New York and other parts of the world. But the most important place to communicate is in Northern Ireland with a majority Protestant community. Without their agreement there is no peace in the foreseeable future in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may just say with great respect to the noble Lord that there are people in Northern Ireland who have yet to receive Christian burial and perhaps it might be somewhat insensitive, indelicate and improper to go into deep political discussion at this moment. I shall make just two remarks. First, there is unanimous acceptance that the status quo is not a viable option—everyone wants a settlement. Secondly, there is a general recognition of significant areas of agreement in the 1992 talks, even if much was on a contingent basis.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, we have had too many such bloodbaths in Northern Ireland and on the mainland. I join in the condemnation of such acts. However, I must tell your Lordships that the Protestant paramilitaries love it. The more condemnation there is, and the more there is in the papers, the more they feel a sense of victory. They have been mentioned in dispatches. Unimportant people have become important in the United Kingdom. There is no way out of that situation; but they love it.
I should like to express the hope that what happened in the Shankill Road, which has made everybody feel so terrible, will not lead us to believe that it will bring conciliation, because it will not. We have said too many times before that the horror will make decent people say, "We have to do something". One has only to look at the history of the past century. The Liberals tried to do something about Home Rule. How many times did they call on the decent majority in Ireland to stand up and be counted? They never stood up. It is the paramilitaries who stand up and are counted.
I met the Provisional IRA twice when I was in Opposition with my noble friend Lord Wilson. I and my staff spoke with them after the Birmingham bombings—which goes against what I have just said. It is my view that the Birmingham bombings horrified even the Provisional IRA and that they went for some sort of ceasefire. We tried to find a way that the IRA could get out of violence. Some of them said that they were afraid to walk the streets without a gun and if they gave up

751
violence how could they walk the streets without a gun? That was the nature of it. They cannot deliver. They get 2 per cent. of the votes in Northern Ireland.
The only people who can win through in Ireland as a whole are the constitutional politicians. I say to my noble friend Lord Mason that I ended detention without trial because of the advice that had been given to me. It was badly done, and I can see that now; it was done badly, and understandably so. It led to the revival of the Provisional IRA, which was a new group at that time. My information is that one of the aims of the Provisional IRA is a return to detention. It is the best thing that they can have to obtain more recruits. I wish the Government well, but I hope that no one thinks that there is an easy way through.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are fully aware that there is no easy way through this situation. That is why we are in steadfast talks at the moment and that is why the talks progressed reasonably well last year. I have already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and the other noble Lord the Government's view about selective detention; it is an option for the Secretary of State if he wishes to use it. But what your Lordships, and I am sure the whole of this country, are keen to bring about is a settlement which is acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps we can thank my noble friend for making this Statement this afternoon. We thank him and his ministerial team, including my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State, for all the work that they do that is not seen and not necessarily appreciated except on tragic occasions such as recently experienced within Northern Ireland. It is the work done by my noble friend and the ministerial team that provides the climate for the ministerial and other talks that have gone some way towards helping to solve the situation in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps my noble friend will agree that the only way to continue talks is, first, to restrict them to discussions between constitutional parties; secondly, to promote the talks between my noble friend and the ministerial team in the Northern Ireland Office and their counterparts in Dublin; and, thirdly, to do all that at the right time. Today, this week or next month may not be the right time, and the current climate of media-driven and fevered excitement that we have had since Saturday, with all kinds of media persons suggesting that something should be done, is not the right time. Can my noble friend confirm that diplomacy and the style in which he and my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State are continuing the talks is the only successful way to make the substantial progress that has been made over the past few years?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. I agree with him. I remind my noble friend that Ministers are there to do a job, which they do to the best of their ability. It is not thanks to us but to the security forces out there and to the steadfastness of the people of Northern Ireland who, in spite of all the atrocities, go on about their daily lives.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, mention has been made of the performance of Mr. Gerry Adams on television. Am I not right in believing that there is a. law designed to prevent people like Mr. Adams using television as a platform? Is the Minister aware that at least twice in the past few days Mr. Adams has been interviewed face to face on television, using the transparent device of an actor's voice to put forward his views?
Should not the law be enforced in such a way that it achieves the end that it was meant to achieve? It seems clear to me that both Mr. Adams and the television people are thumbing their noses at the Government. If the law is not enforced, perhaps it should he removed altogether. At the moment the whole thing is descending into farce.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I take particular note of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, says. I confess that I am not totally aware of the law as it stands at the moment. The fact that the noble Lord brought the matter up suggests that the law is being improperly used. I shall immediately convey that to my right honourable and learned friend.

The Public Record Office
5.43 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to implement the recommendations for the Public Record Office, contained in the Open Government White Paper (Cm. 2290).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one comes into the House early to feel the mood of the House beforehand. One hears about the sad and desperate situation of the present and must then talk of the not too recent history. However, one must try to get in the right mood to enable one to talk a certain amount of sense. But it is always pleasant to talk of matters concerned with records.
Since the House debated public records and archives in 1977 the situation has been transformed by the ending of the cold war and the Government's Citizen's Charter. There have been a number of welcome initiatives from the Government culminating in the White Paper published in July this year. There has also been a fruitful dialogue between the Government and the historical profession. On an individual basis historians have made requests for papers to be reviewed; collectively, they have gathered under the auspices of the Institute of Contemporary British History—an excellent institution founded as recently as 1986. They have put forward general recommendations on the operation of the 30 years' rule and have made specific requests for the release of documents.
I want to mention the subject of reducing the times between reviews. Historians particularly welcome the reviews that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster initiated, and the releases that have already taken place. For example, there have been over 400 records released by the Foreign Office. I would press my noble and learned friend on a number of matters resulting from these

753
exciting developments. In some cases requests for release have been reviewed and a decision has been made not to release. In those cases a further review is planned in 10 or 20 years' time. Can my noble and learned friend try and minimise the time between reviews? Two examples of disclosure being deferred are the Cabinet Secretary's notebooks which date back to 1916, and the blanket ban on intelligence material. Historians accept the importance of protecting individuals who have helped the state. However, they feel that the blanket ban should be kept under regular review.
Another important point concerns the advisory council seeing documents. I had the privilege of serving on the advisory council of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor between 1974 and 1982. The process was that of the rubber stamp. That was because only three members were security cleared. It was therefore rather difficult. The officer in the Public Record Office simply presented us with something that we had to accept. On one occasion we protested. The documents put forward concerned the Carlisle pubs which were nationalised in 1918. They should not have been involved at all. When one saw them they were basically concerned with managers being sacked for fiddling the tills. It is hardly the same thing that we are discussing now.
Has my noble and learned friend made a decision as to whether or not members of the advisory council on public records will in future be able to see the actual records under discussion, bearing in mind the background I have given. Can he also give an assurance that members of the council will be security cleared? While the council will remain an advisory council, that reform would be most welcome. Indeed, it would be the greatest single measure that could be taken to enhance the confidence of the historical profession that the absolute minimum is being retained and only for truly convincing reasons.
I move on to the importance of the Public Record Office. I gather that there have been many discussions with historians in which help and advice has been given by the staff of the Public Record Office. I have been connected with the office for many years and have great respect for its staff. The advice has been deeply appreciated and genuine bridges have been built between the Government and their customers in the historical profession in line with the prime requirements of the Citizen's Charter. "Customers" is not my word, but the word given. Their presence at the meeting of historians which took place on 25th November 1992 and led to the detailed requests for releases was welcomed in the historians' report. It is hoped that this close relationship will be continued at a further meeting of historians that will take place on 25th November this year at the Institute of Historical Research when historians will consider their response to the White Paper. The movement towards open government will make the Public Record Office an increasingly vital resource for the historical profession. As the use of the PRO increases, can my noble and learned friend assure
754
the House that the PRO will not be denied the resources necessary to fulfil the demands of more open government?
I turn to the centrality of history to open government strategy. The dialogue which has developed and the response of historians make clear that the needs of the historical profession are a central part of the open government strategy. The collective memory of the nation must be as full and as accurate as possible if our history is not to fall into the hands of the hostile and the partisan. The ending of the cold war has critically important implications in this respect. To understand the experience of this country in that period it is necessary to have as full an access as possible to the records of government. Will my noble and learned friend reaffirm the Government's unequivocal commitment to this central strand of the nation's heritage?
We should also consider the wider world, a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may say more. The peace process in the Middle East may well be ushering in a new age. Is it not time that we reviewed all the British Government's records on Palestine and perhaps other countries?
5.52 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that the White Paper represents a move forward, but in my view it is a very small step. When the new measures are carried out it will leave the whole process illiberal, cumbersome and slow. It will be illiberal because the decisions on whether to release or close records is to be taken by Ministers—on the first 30 years, by departmental Ministers, and after that, by the Chancellor of the Duchy and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The White Paper does not argue about whether Ministers are the best people to take the last decisions. There is simply no consideration of that at all. Yet it is surely questionable. The decisions to be taken will almost always be borderline interpretations of the criteria set out in the White Paper—would disclosure be harmful; would it cause distress to individuals; would it be contrary to the national interest; and so on. Why should it be supposed that Ministers are better qualified to take those decisions than, say, judges, or an ombudsman, or a panel of Privy Counsellors? I should have thought that the opposite is the case. Ministers will certainly be less disinterested than members of other professions. Politicians are not the most disinterested professionals in the country. I think that the question deserves further discussion.
A Minister is much less likely to be disinterested. The papers might embarrass his department or the department of a colleague; they might embarrass his party; they might even embarrass the Minister himself; whereas other people—experienced, responsible outsiders—are capable of taking these decisions in a way which would probably not only be fairer but would be seen to be fairer.
Another criticism I have of the White Paper is that it fails to deal with the administrative problems of reviewing records. One gets the impression that the system is overloaded, that there is a backlog of retained

755
papers, of records which have accumulated year after year because of excessive caution. I should have liked the White Paper to have told us how many reviewers there are; how many records are awaiting review. The White Paper is entirely silent on this point. It tells us that 30 miles of records are reviewed every year by departments at the first stage and that four and one-third miles are reviewed by departments at the 30 year stage. But those figures are meaningless. What is a mile of records? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will explain what that means. We need figures of a much more practical kind.
For instance, what is the average time taken by the reviewer to dispose of a set number of records? How many reviewers are there? What is the backlog, if any? Is the backlog growing or diminishing? In that way we might get a clear picture of what I think is a problem; namely, the administrative problem of reviewing records.
No one will dispute the need to maintain a certain level of confidentiality in official papers. That goes without saying. But the standards of confidentiality are changing dramatically. A strange anomaly is emerging, a contrast between the standards of confidentiality laid down in the White Paper and the standards observed in ministerial memoirs. For instance, the White Paper lays down, in paragraph 9.13, that confidentiality must be observed in the case of:
"Exceptionally sensitive records containing information, the disclosure of which would not be in the public interest in that it would harm…internatior al relations".
At the same time we have free publication by a former Prime Minister of her efforts to frustrate German reunification, revelations which have certainly harmed Anglo-German relations.
Similarly, the White Paper lays down that records should not be released which contain information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress. But causing distress to individuals appears to be a major aim of recent ministerial memoirs, which freely report confidential Cabinet proceedings and confidential advice to Ministers from their colleagues or from civil servants or from service chiefs—no doubt to the distress of many of them. I venture to suggest that if ministerial memoirs were subject to the restrictions laid down in the White Paper on open government they would undoubtedly be suppressed for at least 30 years. Therefore, all the more objectionable is the closure of records needed by historians and others which could do no harm to anyone.
Perhaps I may give an example of which I have given the noble and learned Lord notice. Why are the records of the information research department of the Foreign Office not yet released after more than 40 years? Historians have complained about that. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will complain about it again at the meeting in November. I should be very much obliged if he would.
For example, in the Evening Standard and in an authentic history called British Intelligence Strategy and the Cold War 1945–51 the author, Richard Aldrich, writes:
"Why are the records of an organisation [with reference to the information and research department] ostensibly existing to
756
provide information retained after more than forty years? Did British strategy for propaganda and political warfare assist in the securing of Western Europe from the communist threat and the unleashing of ideological forces that eventually overwhelmed the East European regimes? Even if the British psychological crusade in the Cold War is now acknowledged by historians, its nature and purpose await further research".
I must now declare a small personal interest. Since I founded and directed the information and research department, I thought that I would fill this gap in hi story by writing a book about that department. The Foreign Office approved the idea but the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Lennox-Boyd wrote to me:
"As you probably know, IRD's internal records are retained in the FCO pending review. At this stage it is difficult to say either when they, or what proportion of them, will be released to the PRO".
At Mr. Lennox-Boyd's advice, I contacted the head of the Foreign Office library and records department, who was courteous and sympathetic, but stressed the administrative difficulty of reviewing so many records in different departments. It may well be that administration is at the heart of the difficulty. I certainly cannot believe that anyone could argue that these records were secret or sensitive. I say that not only because of the long period of time which has elapsed, but because one of my less happy actions at IRD was to appoint to this secret department an official who showed at interview a most remarkable grasp of Soviet propaganda. This was Mr. Guy Burgess Therefore I cannot believe that secrecy is a reason for withholding these documents. I have now applied to the Russian archives for material on IRD.
I do not want to give an impression that I doubt the good intentions that have gone into this White Paper. In small detail it makes some steps forward, but all my experience suggests that it could be more liberal; it could be better administered and it should and could release for historians and others a much better flow of hitherto secret public papers.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the Government say in the White Paper,
"in furtherance of the policy of greater openness"
they intend to place the emphasis
"firmly on release rather than retention"
of public records. That is both a necessary and a desirable policy goal. But the Government's approach to achieving that goal falls short of providing adequate means for ensuring that public documents are retained only when genuinely necessary in the public interest. The White Paper states,
"In future more information will be released through changes in the criteria governing decisions to withhold material for longer than 30 years".
However, no proposals for either the amendment or repeal of the Public Records Acts of 1958 arid 1967 are forthcoming.
The judgment of my party is that the need to secure freedom of information is of such importance that it must be safeguarded by statute. The Government's proposal to secure that freedom by changes in the guidelines or criteria surrounding the existing law provides no basis for challenging the exercise by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of his

757
discretion in relation to the release of public records. Moreover, it provides for only limited independent scrutiny of decisions to withhold records from the public domain. The shortcomings of the present system were highlighted most succinctly by the late Lord Devlin. He said,
"the danger of the system is that it installs, as judges of what ought to be revealed, men whose interest it is to conceal".
Whilst the temptation to suppress potentially embarrassing or "inconvenient" disclosures can never be eliminated, the imposition of a clear and comprehensive statutory framework would minimise the risk that records will be unjustifiably withheld from the public domain. Moreover, the introduction of some independent form of scrutiny would help to ensure that politicians and administrators cannot exercise their discretion in a self-serving way.
It was with this aim in mind that the committee under the chairmanship of Sir Duncan Wilson recommended in its report published in 1981 that the advisory council which currently assists the Lord Chancellor should play a larger role in providing him with an independent source of advice on questions of extended nondisclosure and retention of records by government departments. In particular, the Wilson Committee recommended that a sub-committee of Privy Councillors should be set up to scrutinise applications relating to information considered to be of a most sensitive nature.
The Government rejected this important recommendation of the Wilson Committee. It stated in their response that:
"The evaluation of the sensitivity of public records … requires an intimate knowledge of current policies and developments which Advisory Council members … cannot be expected to have".
That is very patronising. I would say that the evaluation of the sensitivity of public records requires a degree of independence and objectivity which the policy-makers cannot be expected to have. Whilst the Government's paternalist philosophy prevails, the British people will have no adequate safeguard against the abuse of the present system by self-serving Ministers and civil servants. Moreover, this philosophy is the very antithesis of open government to which so much lip-service is currently paid by the Government.
We say that in the field of freedom of information, the British people deserve more than just a re-hash of the old regime of paternalism and secrecy. A comprehensive statutory review of the procedure for release of public records should form part of a new Freedom of Information Act. Three basic provisions of such an Act would break the traditional mould. The first would give statutory force to the criteria to be imposed by the Lord Chancellor in deciding whether to retain records beyond the 30-year period. The second would require reasons to be given for the retention of any records beyond a period of 30 years; and the third would give an enhanced statutory role to the Advisory Council, in order to introduce a greater element of independence into decisions relating to the retention of public records.
By contrast with these proposals, the Government's approach amounts to little more than a change in
758
emphasis in the present system. Yet this is the system which led to the following official memoranda being listed in January 1989 as closed for a whole century: prison reform and lengths of sentence (1913–17); forcible feeding in reformatory schools (1910); the sterilization of mental defectives (1911–30); imprisonment and forcible feeding of suffragettes (1913); imprisonment of Emily Pankhurst (1913–17); industrial unrest and strikes (1918); experiments on animals with poison gas (1913–16); instructions to police on sedition charges against socialists (1912–18); Home Office practices in dealings with criminal lunatics (1913); coal–miners' strike (1919); flogging of vagrants (1919); decisions against prosecuting James Joyce's Ulysses (1924); Fascist marches (1936); and police reports on the activities of the National Council of Civil Liberties (1935–41). The list goes on.
Even under the Government's new proposals, there will be no obligation upon government departments to justify the withholding of historical records of this nature. Were they to choose to do so, no doubt the Government would seek to justify many of the retentions that I listed by reference to their guideline (at paragraph 9.21 on page 67 of the White Paper) that documents should be closed for 100 years if they contain,
"personally sensitive information which would substantially distress or endanger individuals or their descendants".
However, in practice, what is absolutely apparent from the subject matter of those records which are withheld is that it is the avoidance of embarrassment to the department or the Government of the day which is the overriding consideration. The mere theoretical possibility of distress to family members, so many years afterwards, cannot be allowed to override the public's general right to know how it has been governed in those critical areas.
It is an irony of this traditionally secretive approach that many of the documents withheld from the public in the United Kingdom are sent, under bilateral arrangements, to other countries which do possess freedom of information legislation and where, as a result, they become immediately open to inspection. British historians are forced to travel to Washington to inspect documents which, although stored in the Public Record Office here, are not available for inspection by the British public.
I also observe that there is no discussion whatever in the Government's White Paper of the possibility that some documents might be released before the period of 30 years has elapsed. What the White Paper says wholly uncritically about the 30 year rule (at paragraph 9.5 on page 62) is as follows:
"A thirty year period is now the standard adopted by the countries of the European Community … Retention of the overall 30 year period therefore seems appropriate and sensible".
That shows a remarkable affection for Europe. That reasoning exposes the Government's lack of rigour in addressing the question of freedom of information. We should not simply look to our immediate European neighbours and copy them. We should start from the principle that the public has a right of access to public documents, and then restrict that right only in so far as

759
demonstrably necessary and justifiable. In that, we would be better to take a lead from the United States rather than our fellow European Community members.
The Government's ad hoc approach is based on the fallacy that individuals must simply take it on trust that politicians and administrators will act at all times in good faith and in the public interest. We shall have to await the outcome of the Scott Inquiry into British arms dealing with Iraq to see whether such trust might very recently have been misplaced. But, in any event, if the traditions of paternalism combined with secrecy which have pervaded British government administration for so long are to be overturned, the Government should be prepared to legislate against them. If they are not, the next Labour Government will fulfil their commitment to put a freedom of information Act on the statute book.
6.13 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for giving me this opportunity to explain the measures which are presently being taken to ensure that the Government's policy on public records, reflected in the recent White Paper Open Government, is carried forward. I believe that that is what the Question is about. I could not have expected every speaker to restrict himself to the Question. Therefore, I shall deal later with some matters which went somewhat wide of the Question.
The Government's policy, as stated in the White Paper, is that all public records should be released to the public unless there are truly compelling reasons why that should not be done. I believe that the recommendations contained in the relevant chapter of the White Paper, Chapter 9, illustrate the Government's commitment to that principle.
The Public Record Office, an executive agency for which I am responsible to Parliament, has a fundamental role in that context. It is responsible for advising individual government departments on which records, out of the vast amount of records which the business of government creates, should be preserved. It makes arrangements for the transfer of those records to its custody and is responsible for providing the public with access to these records once they have been so transferred.
The Public Record Office also has a crucially important role to play in the consideration of whether any of those records should properly be withheld from public scrutiny. The recommendations contained in the White Paper aim to enhance that role to ensure that all those responsible for the process by which documents are sought to be so withheld discharge those duties in accordance with the Government's policy. In considering the matter, and with a certain degree of experience as to how it operates, I am of the view that the most important change that could be made is made in introducing the concept of the harm test, under which the actual damage that would be caused by the release of an individual record must be established before it can be withheld. That test has thus been introduced and is the touchstone for all those, including myself, who are involved in any decision to withhold that record.
760
No public record can be withheld from the public without the approval of the Lord Chancellor of the day. I have a very pronounced interest, therefore, in ensuring that the system works to deliver its goal of releasing documents rather than withholding them. The recommendations contained in Chapter 9 affect every part of the process. I will, if I may, first mention the recommendations which affect the Public Record Office most directly, then mention a number of other initiatives which will carry forward the principles behind the White Paper.
There are two recommendations of the White Paper which explicitly involve the Public Record Office. Those are the requirements that guidance should be drawn up for the benefit of reviewers in departments: first, to enable them to assess the element of substantial distress which might give rise to a proper application for closure; and, secondly, core guidance drawn up and disseminated to all departments to facilitate the changes resulting from the White Paper.
Clearly, the sorts of elements which will prompt an application based on substantial distress may be different from department to department. It is, therefore, important that each department issues correct guidance geared to the needs of its own reviewers, and that must be agreed with the Public Record Office so that all those involved are aware of the basis on which such an application is made. The Public Record Office is presently in the process of drafting such guidance for each department, and I expect the exercise to be completed shortly. The guidance will be reviewed over time to take account of the fact that what is considered a valid cause of substantial distress may change from time to time.
The core guidance disseminating the implications of the White Paper for all departments has already been drafted and circulated among departments. Again, it has been vitally important that the Public Record Office has approved the draft. The aim of the guidance is to inculcate into the minds of every person involved in the process by which applications for closure or retention are made the idea that unless the harm test r. referred to earlier is satisfied the application should not proceed. On its way from the initial decision by a reviewing officer to the approval of the Lord Chancellor such an application must go through a number of stages. I think that it is worth reminding the House of the process so that it is clear what I mean.
Each government department has a departmental records officer whose responsibility it is to select those records which are to be preserved and to identify those which may be released and those which should properly be closed at the Public Record Office or retained within the department under the provisions of the Public Record Acts. An official of the Public Record Office is responsible for providing guidance and advice to each department during the selection process. The department concerned must satisfy the Public Record Office with its justification for making an application for closure or retention. I suggest to your Lordships that it is clear that the Public Record Office and its officials have no responsibility for the kind of policy decisions that are the subject matter of other departments. The

761
Public Record Office assesses whether the application is justified and, if so, includes it in a submission to my Advisory Council on Public Records, a body wholly independent of government, which will then advise me whether to accept the application.
The Public Record Office must bear in mind that the Advisory Council on Public Records, which is chaired by the Master of the Rolls, will in its turn be scrutinising the justification for the application and the council will not accept it if not satisfied. Once the advisory council has advised me that it accepts the application, I in turn scrutinise the justification for the application, and only if I too am satisfied with such justification will I sign a formal instrument allowing the records in question to be either retained within government departments or transferred to the Public Record Office where they are closed to the public for a specified period.
As I have said, it is in inculcating the need adequately to demonstrate the actual harm that would arise from release of the records at every level of that process that the greatest progress will be achieved in ensuring greater release of records. The need to justify always to the next appropriate level every application for closure or retention will ensure that any temptation to err on the side of what may appear to be safety, to the detriment of release of the records, will be avoided.
I have already mentioned my Advisory Council on Public Records and I should like to return to that subject. To date I have relied on the council, which is wholly independent of government, to advise me on applications from departments for the closure of records at the Public Record Office but not on applications for records to be retained within departments. That was the original structure. From now on, as a result of the recommendations of the White Paper, the advisory council will advise me also on applications for the retention of records within departments. I regard that as an extremely important step forward and, in so far as being liberal can be regarded as a seal of approval, I consider it to be a liberal step as well.
In addition, the council will now have an important role in considering requests which have been made to departments by historians, or indeed other members of the public, for the release of documents where those requests have been refused by the department concerned.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with my support, extended in the summer of 1992 an offer to historians to let him know of records which they would like to see released, an invitation to which, I may fairly say, they have not been slow in responding, and indeed I understand that a great deal of material has been released as a result of those requests. Where, however, a department believes that there is good reason to continue to close or retain the records in question, it is now intended that the advisory council should be able to consider whether the records should continue to be closed or retained and advise me accordingly. In the case of those records which have been closed in the past, of course, the council will in effect be reviewing its earlier advice that a given record should be closed.
762
Remaining with the subject of the advisory council, I should like to take this opportunity to announce to the House an important change in the way in which the council will now operate. It has been a criticism often levelled at the council in the past that its members have not been allowed properly to assess the case for withholding records because they have been unable to inspect the records themselves. Indeed, the proposal that the council should be allowed to see the records was rejected by the Government, after careful consideration, in their response in 1982 to the report by Sir Duncan Wilson, to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred, during the tenure of my noble friend Lord Teviot as a member of the advisory council.
However, I am glad to say that the Government have now re-examined that matter and they have decided that from now on, where the council is unable to satisfy itself in any other way that an application for closure or retention is justified, the chairman, or a member of the council nominated by him, will be able to inspect the records himself. Having regard to the amount of records involved, that is important. It will have an important effect upon the whole scrutinising process.
It is unavoidable that there will always be a small number of matters that the Government must properly keep from any public scrutiny. For that reason the council will not be allowed physically to examine records which it is sought to withhold for reasons of security and intelligence. In such an instance it will remain open to the council, as it is now, to request that the Cabinet Secretary should examine the records and advise me accordingly. For all other records—a great many, as I have said—however, the power will be there. Extending the remit of the advisory council in that way is, in my view, an effective step and answers criticism that it is hampered in carrying out its duties. I believe that it will lend considerable authority and credibility to government decisions to withhold records only where that is absolutely necessary.
The White Paper proposals relating to public records represent a real and carefully considered commitment to more open government, the results of which are already becoming apparent. A great amount of material has already been released. I could not take down with complete accuracy all that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, read out, but if I am not mistaken those documents were closed for 100 years in 1958 or so. They have all now been released. The present policy has demonstrated just how effective it can be in releasing documents previously withheld.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that it is important that the reviewing process should continue. The figures in miles given in the White Paper relate to the selection process, not to scrutiny or sensitivity. The organisation of selection is a major element in the work of the records section of the nearly 150 organisations covered by the Public Records Act. In the White Paper the Government are giving an impression of the total amount of material that has to be considered. A mile of records means what it says. If one is responsible for providing bookshelves over the years, yards or miles are an important economic indicator of what is involved. No

763
doubt it could be dealt with in other ways, but that is a reasonable way of indicating the volume of public records in question.
During the past year or so while this matter has been under consideration, many previously withheld records have been transferred to the Public Record Office. The backlog is being reduced. It is not growing.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was intent on telling us what would be a better policy. The better policy is to create a new Act of Parliament containing a number of mechanisms which, as far as I can make out, are all intended to secure the same policy that I have sought to explain. It is true that he would seek to add the possibility of action at law to the existing possibilities, but in my judgment that is unlikely to be more effective in producing results than the system which the White Paper has indicated.
My noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned the meeting of 25th November 1992, with its good atmosphere and good results. There will, as he said, be another meeting on 25th November of this year. The Public Record Office will be represented. The keeper and officials will be attending that meeting of historians to review progress and to see what more can be done. I express willingly the Government's commitment to the preservation of the nation's history and to giving the Public Record Office the necessary facilities to achieve that. The arrangements that we have put in place, with emphasis on the identification of the harm in the harm test to which I referred, will ensure that where at all possible public records are made available unless real harm can be demonstrated.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was interested in the institution which he set up and which he had a natural desire to write about. Many of the documents of the department are covered by the intelligence and security problem. It is right that, like all records maintained within departments, these records are reviewed at least every 10 years and subjected to the test of whether actual damage would be caused by their release. Arrangements for such reviews will require that they occur at least every 10 years. If particular attention is drawn to the documents it may be possible for the review to take place more quickly. That happened in relation to matters drawn to the attention of the Public Record Office by historians to whom reference has been made. Within that 10-year review period the continuing sensitivity of the records must be established under the test of actual damage and those which do not meet the test will be released. I hope in time to enable the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, satisfactorily to complete the work that he would like to initiate. The period of 10 years is the maximum and I have every confidence that the maximum will be sufficient—but perhaps it will not be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, drew attention to the possibility of records which are closed here being
764
available elsewhere. I should be grateful if he would indicate the records that he has in mind. I have sought to ascertain to what extent that happens and if he can help me by giving particular examples I should find that useful.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to give one example. The publication of material about the information research department of the Foreign Office, the organisation of which I spoke, was first published in America under the Freedom of Information Act. That is a good example of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful. I have sought examples but hitherto they have been few and far between. When the noble Lord says that the information was published under the Freedom of Information Act, I suspect that as far as the United States was concerned nothing was considered to be important in retaining those records. I am grateful for that example.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also referred to ministerial memoirs. I am not sure whether it would be profitable for me to become deeply involved in that subject. I believe that the principles set out in the White Paper for the discharge by executive government of its responsibilities for the nation's records are sound principles. I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to suggest the contrary. He was more concerned with the machinery by which those principles would be enforced.
Accordingly, I claim that what has been done in the White Paper, in particular Chapter 9 in relation to public records, is a very considerable step forward. It has already produced considerable results and. I believe that it will continue to do so. As a consequence, only documents the release of which would cause identifiable harm will continue to be withheld from the public either by retention in their departments or by closure in the Public Record Office.
I renew my gratitude to ray noble friend for raising the Question and enabling us to have a discussion on what I believe to be an extremely important subject.

London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

European Economic Area Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

  SOUTH EAST ASIA: SEX TOURISM
  SOUTH EAST ASIA: SEX TOURISM
  KUWAITI CITIZENS DETAINED IN IRAQ
  KUWAITI CITIZENS DETAINED IN IRAQ
  SALMAN RUSHDIE: BRITISH AIRWAYS' DECISION
  SALMAN RUSHDIE: BRITISH AIRWAYS' DECISION
  TIBET
  TIBET
  RUSSIA: WESTERN AID
  RUSSIA: WESTERN AID
  CHINESE TERRITORIAL SEA: PASSAGE BY BRITISH SHIPS
  CHINESE TERRITORIAL SEA: PASSAGE BY BRITISH SHIPS
  MAASTRICHT TREATY AND THE CORONATION OATH
  MAASTRICHT TREATY AND THE CORONATION OATH
  SOUTH AFRICAN ELECTIONS: INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
  SOUTH AFRICAN ELECTIONS: INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  CAR NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION: CRIME DETECTION
  CAR NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION: CRIME DETECTION
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
  CANCER TREATMENT OUTCOME: STUDY
  CANCER TREATMENT OUTCOME: STUDY
  RAILWAY PRIVATISATION: DRAFT AGREEMENTS AND LICENCES
  RAILWAY PRIVATISATION: DRAFT AGREEMENTS AND LICENCES
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, LUXEMBOURG, 20th OCTOBER
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, LUXEMBOURG, 20th OCTOBER
  STUDENT GRANTS
  STUDENT GRANTS
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: SALE OF WOODLANDS
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: SALE OF WOODLANDS
  COT DEATHS IN SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND
  COT DEATHS IN SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND

  MENWITH HILL STATION: COMMUNICATIONS SURVEILLANCE
  Lord Jenkins of Putney
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether American communications facilities at Menwith and elsewhere record telephone conversations originating in this country and received here from other countries; and whether it is the case that Her Majesty's Government has no control over, or knowledge of, the details of these and other activities, which were alleged (in the Channel 4 programme of 6th October) to include industrial espionage.
  WA 77
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)
  Menwith Hill Station is an integral part of a worldwide defence communications network. We are not prepared to comment further on its operational role. The station operates with the full knowledge and agreement of Her Majesty's Government.

  NUCLEAR WASTE: STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
  NUCLEAR WASTE: STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
  PLANNING INSPECTORATE EXECUTIVE AGENCY AND WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT
  PLANNING INSPECTORATE EXECUTIVE AGENCY AND WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT
  EC EMPLOYMENT MINISTERS' COUNCIL: FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
  EC EMPLOYMENT MINISTERS' COUNCIL: FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS