Sitting of 28 October 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  UNIBANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Monday 1 November.

  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 November.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 4) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session, the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the
  954
  close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in die Journal of the House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members:Object.

  CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY HERITAGE FOUNDATION BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against the Bill)" were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted:
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the London Underground (Green Park) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in Session 1991–92 or the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1991–92 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (SUSPENSION)
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [26th October] as relates to the Humber Bridge Bill [Lords], the London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords], the Malvern Hills Bill [Lords] and the River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [Lords] be now considered.
  Resolved,
  That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
  Ordered,
  That, in consideration of the Lords Message [26th October], the Promoters of the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill, the Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Bill and the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Forestry
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission to discuss the forestry policy review; and if she will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I plan to meet the Forestry Commission chairman next month. I met the commission's director general last week, when we discussed a range of issues.
    Mr. Marland: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that great concern is being expressed in many quarters about the possibility of access being denied to woodland sold off by the Forestry Commission. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to pass on those concerns to the chairman of the forestry review group? Will she ensure that if any recommendations are made by the group, there will be adequate opportunities for interested parties to discuss and comment on them before any changes are made?
    Mrs. Shephard: Woodlands managed by the Forestry Commission provide very important opportunities for nature conservation, access to the countryside and a wide range of other recreational and environmental benefits. The review group will have to take full account of the need to safeguard those public benefits. I know that my hon. Friend lives close to the Forest of Dean—indeed, it is in his constituency—and I live very close to Thetford forest. I have been left in no doubt whatever of the degree of public anxiety about access. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's concern, as I have been doing, to the review group. There is nothing to consult about at present because the review group has not yet made any proposals. Nevertheless, sufficient time will need to be allowed for consultation about whatever proposals the review group puts forward.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Secretary of State remind the Forestry Commission chairman that people have had the right to roam in Sherwood forest for many years and that Robin Hood will turn in his grave if that right is forbidden? Will she ask the chairman of the Forestry Commission to ask his review group to stick to its previous timetable? The changes to the timetable are causing concern and I do not want to see Robin coming into the Chamber to tackle the Secretary of State.
    Mrs. Shephard: I shall certainly pass on to the Forestry Commission chairman the hon. Gentleman's message about Robin Hood and his more serious message about the need for a clear timetable so that, at the end, there is time for full consultation on whatever proposals might be made.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tenfold increase in broad-leaf planting that has taken place?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes. That is a considerable achievement by the Forestry Commission and as a result of Government policy. We need to get the balance right

    959
    between broad-leaf planting and softwood, given that softwood makes up the bulk of our timber consumption. That will be another concern to be considered by the forestry review group.
    Dr. Strang: How can we believe what Ministers say on this issue? First, the Prime Minister gave an election pledge that the Forestry Commission would not be privatised, but then that was repudiated on the ground that that commitment was given during the
    "frenzied activity of the campaign".
    Next, the review group was set up. We then discovered that some forests have been offered privately to national conservation groups. Now we are told that that review group has appointed a merchant bank and a land agent to advise it. Does the Minister not appreciate that millions of people derive great enjoyment from the freedom to roam in our state forests and that that freedom would be lost were they to be privatised? Will she stand up and fight for the people on this issue?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have already made my feelings plain on the question of access. I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a keen interest in this matter. Perhaps I should remind him that forestry is a multi-million pound industry which brings many economic and environmental benefits to this country. The review is intended to ensure that we get the best value from the Government's investment and that we are to provide the right climate for private-sector investment. The consultants will help the review group in that work. I should repeat to the hon. Gentleman that there is no pre-determined outcome of that review and one option could be to do nothing.

    GATT
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the discussions on agricultural trade in the current GATT round.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government are making every effort worldwide to maintain the momentum of the GATT negotiations so that a conclusion to the Uruguay round can be reached by 15 December.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that thousands of jobs depend upon the successful outcome of the GATT talks and that trade in agriculture is central to that success? Will she remind our Community partners of that fact and, in particular, remind the French when she next has the opportunity to do so?
    Mrs. Shephard: I reassure my hon. Friend that, on several occasions, I have already reminded my European Community counterparts, and in particular my French counterpart, that far more depends on the successful outcome of the GATT negotiations than agriculture, France or, indeed, the EC. It is a question of the liberalisation of world trade. The successful conclusion of the round would boost that trade by $213 billion. The EC is the world's largest exporter and everybody stands to gain. It is essential that there is a successful conclusion to the GATT round by the end of December.
    Mr. Skinner: What a load of claptrap. Almost every day that passes one hears Government Ministers talk about GATT and the level playing field. When that is discussed
    960
    by the people who represent the farmers, what does it really mean? It means that Britain, with its climatic conditions, is going to compete with Mediterranean countries and California, which can grow——
    Madam Speaker: Order. I heard only a quarter of a question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a proper question to put to the Minister.
    Mr. Skinner: When will they realise that if they want to ensure a balance of payments surplus in Britain we cannot have a level playing field for agricultural produce from here? Intervention will always be the name of the game. All those Tory Members who represent the shire counties will back the farmers to the hilt. It has all been a load of baloney from beginning to end.
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I could thank the hon. Gentleman for his illuminating and meaningful contribution to this afternoon's affairs. The question is about GATT and if he had taken a moment to study either the question of my hon. Friend or, indeed, my answer he would have known that British agriculture stands to gain everything from a successful conclusion to the GATT round and the liberalisation of world trade. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does better next time.

    Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources have been allocated for the decommissioning of surplus United Kingdom fishing vessels.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): A total of £25 million has been allocated for decommissioning, of which £8.4 million is to be made available in 1993–94 under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: What measures will my hon. Friend take to ensure that the boats that have been allocated for decommissioning are taken out of service?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in the matter. The funding for the measure will be of interest to his constituents. The order on decommissioning that we took through the House laid down in meticulous detail the arrangements for disabling a fishing boat so that it could no longer fish. People have to produce a certificate to that end before they can be paid. That should give the guarantee that my hon. Friend seeks: that boats will be stopped from fishing by decommissioning.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is disappointing to learn that the sum allocated for decommissioning this year is a pathetic £8.4 million. That is nothing compared with the scale of the problem. It will mean that more fishing effort will have to be taken out by days-at-sea limitations and a disproportionate sacrifice will be made by the fishermen. Why does not the Minister recognise that we are in this situation because his predecessors did not achieve the multiannual guidance targets from 1987 to 1991? It is the Department's fault and the only fair action would be for him to suspend the operation of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 while proper conservation measures are imposed in agreement with the industry and to expand the decommissioning scheme.
    Mr. Jack: I was almost distracted by the hon. Member's neck wear from composing a suitable reply. He seems to have reclaimed the Union flag for his own purposes. There were faults in the previous decommissioning scheme because we were removing fishing capacity at the same time as paying for new capacity and therefore increasing fishing effort. My hon. Friends who did the job before me should be congratulated on their persuasive powers over the Treasury to get a £25 million decommissioning scheme off the ground as part of a package of measures that we are putting forward to try to reduce fishing effort. I would have hoped for the hon. Gentleman's support because the end-point of the exercise is to help conserve fish stocks for the long-term good of the industry.
    Mr. Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on speaking so well on behalf of his fisherman. But may I put it to the Minister that, although welcome, the £25 million for decommissioning goes nowhere near to solving the real problem of bringing effort under control? Will the Minister look with great seriousness at the constructive and extensive proposals put to him by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, because some Conservative Members, including myself, think that its proposals are a much better way to conserve fish than the wretched tie-up scheme that the Government have unfortunately put to the House.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his continued lobbying on that point. He does much credit to himself and to his constituents for assiduously voicing the concerns of the fishing industry. He will know that during September I conducted detailed discussions with fishermen around our shores, including many of his constituents. He will also know that I have attached importance to what they said about conservation, but he will be aware that our proposals to reduce fishing effort are not solely dependent on decommissioning. The capacity reduction through licence aggregation and through further measures to reduce effort play their part. I assure my hon. Friend that we will look, and are looking, carefully at the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations' proposals. I wish that I could be more specific in my response, but that organisation has thrown a spanner in the works and prevented us from announcing our views quickly because of its court case.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister will know from his recent visit to Portavogie in Strangford that some 16 vessels in our 100-strong fleet are to be decommissioned. How does one decommission a fishing vessel?
    Mr. Jack: I was aware from my visit, which was very successful and useful, of some of the difficulties that Northern Ireland's fishermen anticipated with decommissioning. Those of us who have seen in the national press some sad photographs of the disposal of timber boats will realise that the decommissioning process has begun. I understand the impact on some of the fishermen and have talked to some of them, but, as far as I am aware, the practical problems of decommissioning boats in the ports of Northern Ireland appear to have been resolved.
    Mr. Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for listening to the fishermen—especially those from Poole—during the long recess. He will, therefore, be aware of the chaos caused by uncertainty, so will he come to a conclusion as quickly as
    962
    he can? Above all, will he assure the fishermen on the south coast that our continental partners are just as rigorous in enforcing the regulations as his inspectors?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important point. I recently visited Commissioner Paleokrassas to put exactly that point to him. I said that if enforcement is not perceived to be effective by all fishermen throughout the Community, there will be no credibility for the common fisheries policy. He appreciated that and I think that he is going to make some useful proposals to ensure that when the new control regulation comes into force on 1 January, enforcement can be seen to be effective throughout the Community.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister aware that among fishermen in the south-west in particular, he and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench are now referred to as the little, little arid large show, for the obvious reason that the Minister is continually recycling the script of his predecessors? When will he and his colleagues listen to the industry, to the people in the south-west and to the Select Committee on Agriculture and, in particular, to what they have to say about the size of the decommissioning budget, the tie-up provisions and days at sea? When will he listen to his own district inspector from whom I have received a copy of the following recommendation—[interruption.] I am not permitted to read it, but it states that the only thing to be done with the days-at-sea provisions is to abandon them. When will the Minister listen to his own officials?
    Mr. Jack: That is an illustration of why the Liberal party should be decommissioned—it is utterly bankrupt and bereft of individual thought about fishing policy. The best that it can do is get its hands on stolen goods, a personal communication from a fishing inspector to officials in my Department. If that is the sum total of Liberal fisheries policy, let it be broadcast throughout the south-west.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are on target to achieve a 5 to 6 per cent. reduction in fleet capacity? Will the rules of the scheme be changed to target specific sectors where conservation is essential?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Certainly, the results from the first tranche of decommissioning have been very encouraging. The spread of boats was good throughout the major fishing areas, in particular the demersal, beam and pelagic vessels. We have said, however, that we shall learn the lessons from the first decommissioning exercise to ascertain whether the eligibility rules have to be adjusted to meet exactly the point at the centre of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. McGrady: First, may I thank the Minister for visiting South Down where he had what I hope was a fruitful dialogue with the fishermen there. However, after the consultation period, he must realise that the fishing industry as a whole has rejected the days-at-sea scheme because it is wholly impractical and uneconomic for fishermen to contend with and certainly it does not deal with the depletion of fishing stocks. Will he therefore take on board the suggestions made and introduce a new licensing scheme, enhance the decommissioning scheme and introduce new tactical conservation measures?
    Mr. Jack: I hope that the fishing industry will look positively on the announcement that we are to make as a result of the consultations. I have taken the matter seriously. I bothered to go round to major fishing centres, including the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We have Community obligations in terms of effort reduction, which we must meet. We have introduced a programme. We have said that we will try to modify the days-at-sea programme under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. I promise that we are looking carefully at the proposals that have been made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.
    Mr. Morley: Will the Minister confirm that his Department has taken out an injunction to prevent the publication of a letter from one of his inspectors in the south-west, Mr. C. R. George, who wrote that his staff felt that deep down there is a feeling that the legislation is so ill-conceived and so unpopular that it will not be workable? It went on to say that he felt——
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have just cautioned one hon. Member. Quoting is not allowed at Question Time.
    Mr. Morley: I was not quoting directly, but I will certainly follow your guidance, Madam Speaker.
    The conclusion of the inspector was that, in its present form, the days-at-sea legislation should be abandoned. Is not it the case that the Minister has received detailed and excellent proposals for alternative schemes and ways of managing our fish stocks from the fishing organisations? Will he give those proposals careful consideration, act on them and abandon the legislation, which his staff feel is unworkable?
    Mr. Jack: I am really disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have always regarded as an honourable Member of the House, should be fingering that stolen document. It was an internal document from a member of our fishing inspectorate. I was aware of that. So seriously did I take those remarks that I invited the inspector together with the other inspectors to a meeting. I listened carefully to what they had to say. The point at issue is that the particular document concerned was written months ago, before we had started the exercise of consultation with the industry. The inspector had a view; we have taken it into account. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see the results.

    Apple Day
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support she is giving to Apple Day.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): My ministerial colleagues and I have been pleased to participate in a number of recent events to promote the launch of the 1993 English apple season.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend concede that there are many inefficient growers of tasteless apples in Europe, which swamp the market and cause surpluses, taking a lot of subsidies as a result? Does he agree that the money could be better used to promote the great English apple —I am thinking of the Blenheim Orange, Egremont Russet, Ashmead Colonel, Worcester Pearman, Chivers
    964
    Delight, not to mention the Cox's Orange Pippin and a new apple called Kingdom. Is not that why the English apple pie is the envy of the world?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend should know. He is perfectly right. The traditional English apples have never been more popular in this country. It is right that consumers in Britain should be reminded now and again of the outstanding quality of English apples against less-flavoured foreign imports. It would be quite wrong for us to consider banning foreign imports, however. It is for consumers to decide what they want to eat. There is no doubt that, if they were to test the British apple against any foreign apple, the British apple would always win hands down.
    Mr. Enright: First, may I congratulate the Minister on his forthcoming connubial bliss? Secondly, now that we have had a successful Apple Day, will he throw his weight behind a special day for Yorkshire rhubarb?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We would be happy to do anything that we can to assist Yorkshire rhubarb.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I also support the congratulations that have been given to my hon. Friend. Will he in turn congratulate the catering authorities of the House, which celebrated Apple Day by producing a rather imaginative menu using apples in all the restaurants of the House? Will he also have regard to the cider industry of Britain, which contributes significantly to the positive side of the balance of payments, and give it a degree of fiscal stability so that it can use British apples rather than foreign apples in its production?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the House catering authorities did a marvellous job on Apple Day. The House will be interested to know that, also on Apple Day, my right hon. Friend the Minister was presented with a traditional apple pie made with apples from the original Bramley tree, 180 years old on that day.
    My hon. Friend asked about cider and fiscal stability. That is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who I am sure will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost of the common agricultural policy to the United Kingdom in 1994.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole, not to parts of it. Expenditure on CAP in the United Kingdom in 1993–94 is estimated to be £2.5 billion.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister recall her speech to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on 10 August, in which she announced a number of new environmental measures as part of the CAP reform package—in particular, the expansion of environmentally sensitive areas? Will she undertake that there will be no delay in implementing those measures, and no cuts in projected expenditure on the promotion of such measures following this year's Budget?
    Mrs. Shephard: I do, indeed, recall my speech to the RSPB on that very pleasant occasion. I also recall that I spoke of the excellent contribution that ESAs make to environmental protection and sensible and profitable farming—the whole being tailored to the needs of local areas. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all aspects of all spending in all Departments are being closely examined at the moment by the Departments in conjunction with the Treasury. I can say no more than that at this stage.
    Sir Ralph Howell: Does my right hon. Friend regard the fact that the harvest fell from 22 million tonnes to 19 million tones—11 per cent.—in 1993 as success or as failure? Bearing in mind the heavy imports of foodstuffs into this country, what will be the implications for the balance of payments?
    Mrs. Shephard: Part of the aim of the CAP reform package is to limit production by using set-aside to reduce expenditure on costly intervention and storage, which I know that my hon. Friend abhors. I consider an 11 per cent. reduction in production this year as a success for set-aside.
    Mr. Strang: May I put it to the Minister that the Opposition regard it as quite indefensible that next year we shall be spending about £2 billion on intervention buying, adding to the food mountains? Does the right hon. Lady agree that expenditure on intervention buying should be cut and that some of the money should be used to encourage farmers to farm in a more environmentally sensitive way? Is she aware that any public expenditure review cut in the increased £30 million allocation that she announced under the agri-environment regulations will be bitterly resented by everyone who has the future of the countryside at heart?
    Mrs. Shephard: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that the cost of the CAP remains too high. I should have thought that he would also agree that the CAP reform package cuts prices and therefore brings the industry closer to the market, that it reduces intervention and that it places increased emphasis on benefits to the environment—all effects which I should have thought he would welcome.

    Exports
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department is taking to assist the export of British agricultural produce.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am taking forward in a number of ways the marketing initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating our farmers and growers—a truly successful industry—on halving the trade gap in food over the past 30 years? Does she agree that the seminars that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set up are playing an important role in continuing that process? Does she further agree that it is essential that we provide our farmers and growers with a level playing field in as many respects as possible, from research and development through to pesticides?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend that a level playing field is important for farmers, as it is for all our manufacturers. It is is important to reduce the trade
    966
    gap, and the marketing work of Food from Britain, which has been recently reconstituted to focus on export work, will make an important contribution in that respect.

    Whaling
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met her Norwegian counterpart to discuss the subject of whaling in the north Atlantic; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's counterpart, Mr. Olsen, is left in no doubt about the strength of feeling of the Government, the House and the public about Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister will know that Norwegian whaling ships have slaughtered more than 220 minke whales already this year. What action will the European Community take if the Norwegians decide to resume whaling next year? Does the Minister agree that Norway's membership of the EC is incompatible with whaling, so that if Norway becomes a member of the EC it will have to give up its whaling industry?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Member will know that the EC's present position effectively makes commercial whaling incompatible with Community regulations, and there has been no change in that. Certainly, there has been no change in the Government's position on whaling and on the International Whaling Commission.
    As for Norway's accession to the EC, I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 10 June, when she pointed out that anybody contemplating joining a particular club should be fully aware of the implications of membership.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision by Norway to restart commercial whaling is having a serious impact on the Scottish salmon farming industry? My hon. Friend will know that the industry is facing a serious crisis because of overproduction and the dumping of salmon by Norwegians.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that, to circumvent bans by European consumers of Norwegian products because of whaling, hundreds of tonnes of unlabelled Norwegian salmon have been shipped to Europe and then relabelled as Scottish salmon, thus squeezing Scottish salmon out of the European market? We know that English apples are the best, and we also know that Scottish salmon is the best. Will my hon. Friend do his best to stop the relabelling?
    Mr. Jack: Norwegian whaling is a serious issue, and the action of the Norwegian salmon industry is an issue of equal seriousness. I am aware of the considerable concerns that have been expressed by the Scottish industry and by the Irish industry over the impact of the considerable increase in production from the Norwegian farm salmon sector.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and I have raised the matter with Commissioner Paleokrassas, who has visited Norway to make a personal assessment of the situation. He is considering the matter and what action

    967
    can be taken. If my hon. Friend provides concrete evidence of relabelling, I will give him the best advice as to what he should do.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Government have made perfectly clear to the Norwegians their opposition to Norway's limited whaling, but what further action do the Government propose to take against the Norwegians to drive home the fact that whaling is totally unacceptable to the thinking of this country?
    The arrogance of Mrs. Brundtland is breathtaking. She parades her credentials as a "green" person around the world, while her country flouts an international whaling agreement. What further action do the Government propose to take to put pressure on the Norwegians?
    Mr. Jack: The most important action that we can take is to continue our stance of supporting the International Whaling Commission. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on 26 April this year, he received an unambiguous letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that spelled out the Government's position on the matter. That position has not changed.
    I know that individuals are taking action to demonstrate their strong feelings about Norway, while others have taken different action. The Government's position remains as was stated in my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Gentleman.

    Beer
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she will be attending the great British beer festival in 1994 to discuss the promotion of British beer.
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend and I are always keen to promote the interests of our drinks industry.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's comment. Is he aware that the British brewing industry can compete adequately in the home market, but it is being damaged by the difference between the duty rates here and in France? Some 12 per cent. of take-home beer now comes across the channel into Britain. Will my hon. Friend have a look at that, bearing in mind that some of the southern breweries are having difficulties? My brewery, Courage, has just laid off 250 men. Will my hon. Friend talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the matter?
    Mr. Soames: I am very sorry to hear about the position at Courage, which affects my hon. Friend's constituents. Certainly, we are aware of the serious anxiety in the industry about duty-paid allowances. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's points are raised with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister examine the reverse side of the promotion of British beer—the enormous damage which is done by alcohol abuse? Alcohol abuse costs the nation dear in expenditure by the national health service and in other ways. Will the Minister ensure that he remains completely at arm's length from the brewing industry? Will he examine the possibility of promoting a ban on the advertising of alcohol products? Only by doing that will he ensure that the Government's reputation of keeping
    968
    themselves at arm's length from the brewers is retained, especially in view of the massive donations that the brewing industry makes to the Tory party.
    Mr. Soames: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am completely at arm's length from the brewing industry because I do not drink beer. "The Health of the Nation", a document which has been broadly welcomed in the House, contains references to the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Although we would not consider some of the more extreme suggestions that he made, I will certainly make sure that his views are represented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health at a meeting that I am to have later today.
    Mr. John Marshall: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend? Does he accept that it would be wrong to ban the advertising of products, the consumption and production of which are legal? Does the suggestion not show that the Labour party is full of misery guts?
    Mr. Soames: I am not sure that I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, but his central point is correct. It would be improper to do such a thing.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve the welfare of animals transported from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EC.
    Mr. Soames: We have maintained strict national rules to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport both within this country and for export. Further detailed Community rules are currently being discussed, and we are pressing for our high standards to be adopted elsewhere.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that, although three years ago we in Britain banned the barbaric procedure of putting calves in veal crates, more than 20,000 calves were exported to Europe last year, of which about 40 per cent. in weight came back after being put through the veal crate process? Does he believe that British consumers should have a choice? Will he agree to consider the Labour party's proposal that all veal in Britain should be labelled to allow consumers to avoid buying that which has been created in such barbaric conditions?
    Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we banned the use of close confinement veal crates in 1990. Although the directive that followed imposed small welfare improvements on other member states, it did not abolish the veal crate as we would have wished. Therefore, we voted against the directive. The directive will be reviewed and we shall continue to fight for welfare improvements. Our ban on veal crates will not be lifted. I will consider carefully the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a strong case in terms of welfare for giving every encouragement that we can to the export of lamb in carcase form rather than on the hoof? Is not that case reinforced by the fact that when lambs go over to France and are slaughtered there, they are marketed as French, not British lamb?
    Mr. Soames: Plainly, my hon. Friend is correct. But, of course, a substantial premium is paid for the excellent

    969
    products that farmers in Britain produce. The central point, on which my hon. Friend is right, is that whatever happens, none of the welfare arrangements is worth the paper it is written on unless the Commission enforces the arrangements on the continent. That is the central task of Her Majesty's Government.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost of the common agricultural policy to EC member states in 1994.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The draft EC budget for 1994 provides for expenditure on the CAP of £28.4 billion.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Minister knows that the Agriculture Commissioner has already stated that it will be extremely difficult to live within the legal limits of the budget in 1994 and he expects to use creative accounting to be within that limit. Does not the Minister agree that the cost of the CAP is spiralling and has gone through the roof? What practical measures is the Minister taking to ensure that the CAP is brought under control and that the British contribution does not go through the roof as well?
    Mrs. Shephard: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cost of the CAP is far too high. It is always good to welcome a convert to the cause of sensible public spending. It is perhaps a little late, but late converts are none the less very welcome. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the guideline for the EC budget, and for the agriculture part of that reached at Edinburgh, will not be exceeded. It cannot be exceeded and the United Kingdom will not agree to its being exceeded.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Shersby: As a result of my right hon. Friend's discussions today, does he agree that the fight against crime calls for a partnership between the Government, the police and the people? Will my right hon. Friend's Administration do all in their power to raise the morale of the police so that the police can do more effectively the difficult job of protecting the lives and property of every citizen of our country?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is quite right to talk about the importance of police morale and the need to form a partnership between the police, the Government and the public in tackling crime. Nothing does police morale or public morale more harm than to see criminals uncaught or unpunished. I give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that crime will remain at the centre of our concerns in the months and years ahead.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is really the case that, after accepting an
    970
    amendment that British Rail should be allowed to bid for rail franchises, the Government now intend to table further amendments which will remove that right if there are any other bids? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify such a blatant and discreditable manoeuvre?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait and have a look at the amendments which my right hon. Friend will table this afternoon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait and see.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister deal with the clear point of principle? If British Rail put in a bid for a franchise and that was clearly the best offer, why should that be knocked out in favour of a worse offer from a competitor? What is the justification for that in terms of the taxpayer or traveller?
    The Prime Minister: I advised the right hon. and learned Gentleman to wait, and he might have been rather wiser to have done so. The Government accept that there might be circumstances in which it might be appropriate for British Rail to be a franchisee. However, we remain of the view that it would not be right to treat British Rail in the same way as other potential franchisees and that measures for this provision should be made in relation to British Rail's role in the franchising process.
    Mr. Smith: Is not the Prime Minister revealing that the Government are accepting an amendment and then seeking to nullify it? Instead of those cynical tricks, would not it be better to take this legislation away altogether, because 80 per cent. of the British public know that rail privatisation means higher fares and fewer services? It is a rotten deal for taxpayer and traveller.
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely to produce a better deal for taxpayers and travellers that we are bringing in private sector skills to ensure that British Rail is run more efficiently. The Labour party on this, as on other issues, really needs to make up its mind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman effectively accuses us of making sham concessions. [Interruption.] Yes, oh splendid. In that case, his hon. Friend who speaks for his party said that it was a U-turn. It cannot be both.
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware of the two bombs that were put in Reading station last weekend. Will he pass on, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, the grateful thanks of the people of Reading for the fact that the railway police, the Army and the railway staff defused that bomb, which would have caused major damage and loss of life? Will he, therefore, as Prime Minister, take tough action against those vicious terrorists?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Army, the police, the emergency services and the staff of British Rail for the magnificent way in which they dealt with the incidents at the weekend. I believe that they deserve the utmost thanks and credit for the way in which they sought to protect the public.

    971
    The terrorists will achieve nothing whatsoever from those crimes of violence. Their readiness to kill and their readiness to inflict injury will merely reinforce the Government's determination and, I hope, the determination of everyone in the House to ensure that they gain nothing whatsover now or in the future from their actions.
    Mr. Faulds: Does the Prime Minister recall that he gained considerable international kudos when he mounted the initiative to safeguard or to try to safeguard the Kurds in northern Iraq? Now that his Government and other European Governments have so abysmally failed the Bosnian Muslims, would he perhaps restore his credibility, even only fractionally, were he to launch an initiative to try to safeguard the Marsh Arabs—the Shi'ias—in southern Iraq, an issue which the Prince of Wales raised in his admirable speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept for one second the hon. Gentleman's strictures on helping the Bosnians, in particular the Bosnian Muslims. There is no country in Europe or beyond that has such a proud record of humanitarian assistance over the past two years. It would be more graceful of the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that fact. I fully share the concerns expressed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales about the draining of the marshes in southern Iraq. It is a matter on which the Government have spoken before.
    We and the Security Council have repeatedly condemned repression of the Shi'ias and have repeatedly demanded full access for the United Nations. That, we believe, is the right way for us to continue in this matter. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we do not regard this as a light matter to be casually pushed aside. We will continue to pursue it in the right way and in the right place, and that is the United Nations.
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with social security abuse and fraud costing our constituents many billions of pounds a year, they will welcome the introduction of an identity card scheme, which will do nothing to threaten civil liberty but do much to support and encourage individual freedom and responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many people, and I share whole-heartedly his wish to stamp out social security fraud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking at a range of options to step up the fight against fraud, and as part of that he is looking at the practicalities of the introduction of an identity card scheme. Frankly, I find the principle of such a scheme to be attractive, but there are many practical difficulties to be overcome.
    Q.4 Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mitchell: It looks very much as though the Government are not reducing interest rates because they are covertly shadowing the deutschmark once again. At the same time, other European Governments are saying that Maastricht is not dead, that the exchange rate mechanism should be reconstituted and that the timetable for monetary union can and should be followed. In other words, we are probably in for Europe's biggest ever outburst of necrophilia. What will the Prime Minister be saying about stage 2 of monetary union and about the burdens, the timetables and the obligations that it imposes?
    The Prime Minister: I commend to the hon. Gentleman an excellent article he may have seen in The Economist not very long ago which set out clearly the way in which the Government will proceed in terms of the future of our policy in Europe. Stage 2 of economic and monetary union involves no infringement whatever of sovereignty over monetary affairs. It is fixed in the international treaty and it is fixed in our legislation. But it does not mean that we proceed to stage 3 and it does not infringe in any way our own monetary sovereignty.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I join its author in congratulating the writer of the article in The Economist on 25 September, which set out clearly and in a masterly fashion the traditional policy of the British Government towards the European Community? May I express to my right hon. Friend the belief that almost the whole of the Conservative parliamentary party and, indeed, the British electorate will be able to unite behind his total rejection in that article of economic and monetary union, a single European currency and a united states of Europe? Will he repeat the points he made in that article in forceful terms to the 11 Heads of Government whom he will meet in Brussels tomorrow?
    The Prime Minister: I rather fancy that the other Heads of Government noticed what I wrote while on holiday in Portugal, which was subsequently printed in The Economist article, so they will be in no doubt about the Government's position. As appropriate, I will re-endorse it tomorrow and on other occasions.
    Mr. Purchase: The Governor of the Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that he regards zero inflation as the overriding goal of economic policy. Has the Prime Minister made an assessment of the effects of such a policy on unemployment and growth?
    The Prime Minister: I made clear to the House well over three years ago how important I regarded ensuring that we got inflation down to the lowest possible level. No one has ever been in any doubt about the determination of the Government to achieve that. We have achieved it. We have inflation now at a lower level than we have seen for 30-odd years. We have interest rates at a lower level than we have seen for a very long time. They are the essential prerequisites to sustainable growth over the medium and long term.
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bates: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement made by Nissan yesterday of a £26 million expansion to its car plant at Sunderland? Does he agree that that investment will further strengthen the manufacturing base of the north-east and that it is a substantial vote of confidence in favour of the work force in Sunderland and in the strength of the British-led economic recovery?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly a substantial vote of confidence in the work force at Sunderland, and I am absolutely delighted at this increased investment by Nissan. I have to make the point that if we had followed policies that piled on employers social costs such as the minimum wage and the social contract, I strongly suspect that that investment would not have come to this country but would have gone elsewhere.
    Mr. McGrady: In view of the grave political and security problem in Northern Ireland caused mainly by the political vacuum of the past 12 months because the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative and Unionist party refused to attend the conference table, will the Prime Minister, in union with the Irish Government, reconvene the round table conference of all the democratic parties so that the private documents of the DUP and the official Unionist party, and the document of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), can be placed on the table? More than that, the distrust and the fears of the people of Northern Ireland can be removed by proper political dialogue and some hope for the future can be given.
    974
    As a writer, will the Prime Minister take note of the statement made in the Dail yesterday by the Tanaiste, Dick Spring, setting out six principles that all fair-minded people would regard as a fair basis of political progress in Ireland as a whole?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely to ensure that we get a proper political process and the return of constitutional rights to the people of Northern Ireland that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been pursuing with such skill and vigour—as did his predecessor—the three-stranded approach in Northern Ireland. I saw with great interest the remarks of the Tanaiste yesterday and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing them with the Taoiseach tomorrow.
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my love of motor biking. Can he imagine the distress that I felt when some years ago I motor biked across Europe and had to do so on a Yamaha—a Japanese motor bike? Will he join me in congratulating Triumph on producing more motor bikes in the large motor bike league than either Suzuki, BMW or Harley Davidson?
    The Prime Minister: I was delighted to see the success of Triumph and I hope that my hon. friend will soon be again riding a Triumph motor cycle across Europe, and perhaps elsewhere.

Police Responsibilities and Rewards
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on behalf of the three Secretaries of State for the Home Departments on our decisions about police pay and conditions of service in the light of the Sheehy report.
The police are of unique and vital importance to everyone in the country. They are the front line in the fight against crime, and essential to maintaining public order and ensuring safe communities. As was demonstrated only too tragically in Clapham last week, policemen and women face lethal dangers, often quite unexpectedly. They have to cope with the many pressures of providing a service to the public 24 hours day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
The inquiry led by Sir Patrick Sheehy was appointed to consider afresh the rewards and responsibilities of that vital public service. I am grateful to Sir Patrick and the other members of his team for their valuable work in producing that wide-ranging report so quickly. The report was published at the end of June. Since then, we have consulted widely and have received many helpful responses, including, in particular, those of the police staff associations, police authorities and the local authority associations. Today I am setting out the Government's decisions about the best way forward for the police service. In deciding on those changes, I have been mindful at all times of the special nature of our police service and the work that it does.
We all want to create an up-to-date framework of arrangements which will encourage police officers to give of their best. Change is necessary to ensure that the British police remain the best in the world. In the police service, pay has too often been too dependent on length of service. Bureaucracy and chains of command have increased, leaving too many officers behind desks instead of on the streets. The present rank structure can act as a barrier to the rapid progress of more able officers. I want a modern and effective police service. That means less bureaucracy, rapid promotion for able officers, rewards for hard work and the highest priority for front-line duties.
This afternoon I am placing in the Library of the House copies of a letter which I am sending to all chief officers in England and Wales which sets out our proposals in detail. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland are also writing to their chief officers. I shall now explain those proposals to the House.
The Committee was expressly asked to consider the future of the ranks. It recommended that the ranks of deputy chief constable, chief superintendent and chief inspector should be abolished. That would eliminate the overlap between ranks at present. It will enable those with the greatest ability to move more quickly through them. Reducing the ranks would also give chief constables the opportunity to put more police constables on the beat. All the responses to our consultation agreed that some change in management structure was necessary.
We believe that this proposal is the key to the streamlining of middle management in the police service, which is essential to free up resources for front-line policing. We have therefore decided to accept it. Many forces have begun to reduce the number of chief
976
superintendent and chief inspector posts to meet the changing needs of policing. That process will now be completed by 1 April 1995.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has decided to make a limited number of adjustments to the overall package to accommodate the special and different circumstance of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In particular, the rank of deputy chief constable will be retained to meet the unique operational demands of policing in Northern Ireland.
The report recommended that fixed-term appointments should be introduced for all ranks. We have decided to accept that recommendation, in so far as it applies to future appointments to chief officer ranks, for whom it was almost universally regarded as appropriate. We shall consider extending the appointments to the superintendent rank when we have monitored their effectiveness for chief officers.
Different considerations apply to other ranks. I have already announced new procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance and misconduct in England and Wales, and we shall legislate as soon as possible to allow for the consequences of restructuring. I want people entering the police service to see it as a career. The skills and knowledge of ordinary police officers, their experience and their accumulated wisdom form the backbone of British policing, which is admired throughout the world. We do not consider that fixed-term appointments are appropriate for ranks below superintendent, and so we have decided not to accept that recommendation.
The report recommended significant changes to police pension arrangements. Those were closely related to the proposals for fixed-term appointments and must therefore be reconsidered, so we shall undertake a full review of police pensions. One of its principal objectives will be to produce greater flexibility.
One aspect of the recommendations excited controversy: that officers of all ranks should be expected to serve for 40 years to receive a full pension at the age of 60. That would not help to encourage mature people with experience in other walks of life to join the police, as we wish. Patrol duties are not appropriate for people in their late 50s, and we do not think that it is reasonable for constables and sergeants, in particular, to be expected invariably to continue to serve until then. We have therefore decided not to accept that proposal.
On performance-related pay, the report suggested that that objective could best be met by the application of a matrix determining police pay according to the scope of the job and the level of responsibility, experience, skills and performance. The Government fully accept the principles behind that recommendation, but we do not think it practicable or desirable to examine each job in the way that the report suggests and have therefore decided not to use the matrix recommended in the report. Instead, we will introduce—as soon as they can be worked out—arrangements which depend on the overall appraisal of performance. That will take account of an officer's experience, skills and the circumstances in which they are exercised, and will determine progress up or down the pay scale.
The report also recommended replacing the Edmund-Davies pay formula. In considering how police pay levels should be determined and on what basis pay should be uprated, the inquiry took account of the fact that police officers are often called upon to put their lives in danger

977
and, moreover, they do not take industrial action. The inquiry recognised—as do the Government—that that type of dedication deserves a consistent and clearly defined way of setting policy pay.
The report recommended linking pay uprating to the median of non-manual, private sector pay settlements. That linkage recognises both the professionalism of the police service and its special nature, which justifies the comparison with settlements in the private sector. We accept that recommendation.
The report recommended that pay levels should also be linked to the median of pay levels in the private sector. Although we agree with the inquiry that there should be some private sector benchmark, the case has not been made out for it to be that particular one. We shall be carrying out further work to form the basis for our decision on the most appropriate benchmark for future police pay levels.
The report also made proposals on the whole range of allowances received by police officers. The most significant of those is housing allowance, which the report recommended should be abolished as police officers are no longer automatically required to live in a particular location. We accept that recommendation for new officers recruited after 1 September 1994. For those already in service, housing allowance will remain. It will be frozen at its present level but will not be removed or reduced.
The report suggested that, at present, starting pay is higher than is needed for the recruitment of able police officers. The recommendation was based on evidence about the starting pay of 18 to 22-year-olds. We believe that our police service benefits substantially from having older recruits with wider experience and that starting salaries should be pitched so as to continue to attract them as well as high calibre younger recruits. We have therefore decided not to accept that recommendation.
The report recommended that the range of other allowances received by police officers, which represent only a small proportion of take-home pay, should be a matter for local discretion. That is clearly in line with the proposals in the White Paper for police reform for allowing police authorities and chief officers greater discretion to match resources to needs locally. We accept that recommendation.
I have set out the decisions of principle that we have reached on the main recommendations of the Sheehy report. A great deal of further work remains to be done on their detailed implementation. I am therefore today inviting the independent chairman of the Police Negotiating Board, Professor Laurie Hunter, to convene the board to consider the details of implementation of the decisions of principle that I have announced. I have asked him to do so on the basis of the proposals put forward by the official side during the consultation period. The board will make recommendations which we can take into consideration before preparing the detailed regulations needed to give effect to changes in pay and conditions of service from September 1994.
I am glad to be able to end the uncertainty which the police service has, inevitably, faced while I consulted it and others on the Sheehy proposals. As our decisions show, we have listened carefully to what the police service had to say. Our objective must be to create the framework that will encourage our police service to be as effective as possible in the fight against crime. To be effective, it must
978
be properly led, managed and rewarded. It must have the flexibility that it needs to deploy its resources as modern policing and local communities require.
The proposals that I have announced today will help achieve those objectives. By cutting down on middle management we shall allow chief constables to put more resources into fighting crime. That could mean more work on crime prevention; or more computers and modern technology to fight crime; or up to 3,000 more police officers on the front line, protecting the public. That is what the changes will do, and that is my blueprint for our police service for the future. I commend my proposals to the House.
Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. There has unquestionably been the great clamour of a Government retreat, but the direction in which they are retreating is still entirely unclear.
The Home Secretary said that the details of the proposals are set out in a letter that he has put in the Library. I have that letter now and can tell the House that the details are still far from clear. While the implications for ordinary officers, in pounds, shillings and pence, are not clear and uncertainty remains, so will the undermining of police morale which the Government have caused.
May I put six specific points on the details which have a direct implication on what an officer will get?
First, the Secretary of State is ending, is he not, the: Edmund-Davies pay formula. He said that he is accepting the principle of the Sheehy recommendation that there should be a private sector median formula. Will he confirm that under the Sheehy formula there will be pay cuts for the ordinary police constable of on average up to 33 per cent.? Will his formula mean pay cuts? We should be told.
Secondly, on performance-related pay, the Secretary of State presumably accepts the principles behind the Sheehy report. Is he keeping the present fixed pay scale but merely introducing an element of appraisal, or is he abandoning the present pay scale and putting a different pay scale in its place? If there is to be a change, what is the implication of that pay scale for officers? If the issue is to be dealt with by the Police Negotiating Board, is its decision binding or is it a recommendation? Is that board the new police negotiating board that Sheehy recommends or is it the board that exists?
Thirdly, on fixed-term contracts, I have studied the letter in the Library. The objection of the police to fixed-term contracts was that they would make it possible to terminate contracts, not on grounds of misconduct or incapability, but on structural grounds—cost-saving grounds. Does the recommendation that there should be termination on structural grounds still stand? If that power remains, it has a vital impact on how the report will be viewed.
Fourthly, the Secretary of State did not mention overtime. Does he accept the Sheehy recommendation that incidental overtime should be banned? If he is banning it, will he confirm that the effect will be that, if an arrest is made at 11.30 on a Friday night and the officer ends his shift at 12 o'clock, the next four or five hours spent processing the arrest will be unpaid? Is that true, and, if so, will it be accepted?
Fifthly, Sheehy estimates that up to 5,000 officers will be removed as a result of the abolition of the ranks. Is that also the Secretary of State's estimate? Most important of all, has his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of

979
the Exchequer guaranteed the £200 million severance package for those officers? Is that part of his proposals? The Secretary of State's letter says nothing about that. If that package is not forthcoming, the basis of the Sheehy report, which was that those officers would go and others would be put on to the beat, cannot be maintained. Will he answer that argument specifically?
Sixthly, on a matter of detail, there is an agreement about short-term contracts for chief constables. Will the Secretary of State accept that there is concern about the combination of the change—involving short-term contracts for chief constables—and the policing White Paper, which means that chief constables are now to be appointed by the Government through the police authority, not elected authorities, and are to operate under guidelines of finance from the Government? Will he accept that there is a legitimate concern that even if he has barred the Sheehy report from the front door—I do not think it is clear that he has—it may slip in through the back?
The test of any reform, whether the Secretary of State's or Sheehy's—and of the extra work that has to happen before we know the true outline of the proposals—is whether it will cut crime or is designed merely to cut costs. Will it put more police officers on the beat? Will it make our communities safer? While the confusion surrounding the Home Secretary's proposals remains, the undermining of police morale through what the Government have been doing in the past few months will continue and the fight against crime will be impaired.
Mr. Howard: The most extraordinary aspect of the tirade that we have heard from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is that he has not said a word about the attitude of the Labour party to the decisions that I have announced today. He talks of retreat. He decided to sit firmly on the fence on the day that he took his present job. He has been there ever since—he has never come off it.
We are still waiting to hear from the hon. Gentleman what his party's position is on the 27 announcements that I made in my speech at Blackpool and on those that I made today. All he can do is practise his soundbites in the Daily Mirror and fail to come to the House with any inkling of the attitude of his party on these proposals.
Let me deal now with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He suggested that using the Sheehy formula instead of the Edmund-Davies formula would lead to cuts in police pay. That just shows how little he understands these matters. We are talking about a different formula for uprating police pay. One cannot uprate police pay in order to cut police pay; the idea is nonsense. We are using the Sheehy formula: the median of private sector non-manual pay. That is what Sheehy recommended and it is what I said clearly in my statement. It deals with uprating. The formula will not cut any police officer's pay.
We will introduce an appraisal-based system of performance pay. Its precise relationship with the pay scales will be a matter on which I shall await proposals from the Police Negotiating Board. That will not be the board recommended by the Sheehy committee; it will be the board in its present form, operating under the Police Negotiating Board Act 1980. As the hon. Gentleman should know, under that Act the board makes
980
recommendations to me. They are not binding recommendations, but I have every confidence that the board will come up with sensible answers.
This applies also to the extent to which the board will consider overtime arrangements. I accept the recommendation of the Sheehy report that overtime for inspectors should be abolished, and they will be compensated by the increase in salary. Overtime for other ranks will be changed; details will be worked out by the Police Negotiating Board on the basis of the official side proposals.
So the answers to all the hon. Gentleman's questions are clear. If I correctly understood him, he regretted—perhaps even deplored—the fact that we were remitting the details of these proposals to the Police Negotiating Board. He suggested that that might lead to continuing uncertainty and might have an impact on the morale of the police.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have talked to the police over the past few weeks. If he had talked to the staff associations, he would have realised that they were keen on having the details of these matters remitted to the Police Negotiating Board, which is the proper place for them to be resolved. Indeed, I have a legal obligation to listen to what that board says before reaching final decisions on these matters. I was therefore sorry to learn from the hon. Gentleman's response that he is completely unaware of how the staff associations wanted the detailed decisions to be implemented.
The truth of the matter is that, some weeks ago, the hon. Member for Sedgefield wrote an article about the Sheehy report. He said in it "If the Government got it right, we should not be reluctant to praise them." It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman did not have the guts today to live up to what he wrote several months ago. Instead, he came to the Dispatch Box with weasel words that did not include one sentence about the attitude of his party to these matters.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his sensible, practical and realistic response to the Sheehy proposals. It will be widely welcomed. The shadow Home Secretary owes it to the House to set out exactly what the Labour party's attitude is to the Sheehy proposals, not to disappear into a morass of footnote details.
I have two questions—first, on the appraisal of officers' performance. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that during his career a police officer will be subject to appraisal at regular intervals and that there will be assessment of his performance? I trust that those who regularly do not come up to standard will be expected to leave the force.
Secondly, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the proposals set out three years ago on community policing—smaller operational units, local police officers staying longer in their areas and being more visible on the beat—remain the chief principle behind the reform of the police service?
Mr. Howard: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and I can certainly give him the assurances that he seeks. Under arrangements that have already been announced police officers will be regularly appraised on performance. If performance is unsatisfactory over a period of time, there will be procedures to enable the chief constable to take the necessary action to terminate the appointment of that police officer.

981
I am as enthusiastic as I know my right hon. Friend is that community policing should occupy a most prominent place in the approach of chief constables to policing arrangements. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the steps that he took when he held my office to encourage that development. Under our White Paper proposals, chief constables will have much greater discretion on the way in which they manage their forces than has been the case hitherto, and I know that they will continue to place the greatest value on community policing and that they will take it forward in a way that I know my right hon. Friend would welcome.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am relieved, and no doubt the police will feel relieved, that the Home Secretary has shown more wisdom than did his predecessor in setting up Sheehy by rejecting the core of the report's findings and disposing of almost all its significant recommendations, which were effectively demolished by the Touche Ross report on behalf of the Police Federation.
To ensure that performance appraisal makes a significant contribution to police efficiency and does not simply drown the police in a torrent of further paperwork, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that forthcoming proposals are properly pilot tested?
On restructuring, will the Home Secretary make sure that his proposed changes do not result in increased costs being borne by a reduction in the number of police in the front line, even temporarily, as was proposed by Sir Patrick Sheehy?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's response was a trifle more graceful than that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about pilot appraisal, although I am not convinced that that is necessarily the best way forward. It will take a little time to put effective appraisal arrangements in place, but we shall take his suggestion into account.
I have made it clear that, for my part, the object of the exercise is to improve the effectiveness of policing and, to achieve that objective, to increase the number of front-line officers on our streets. In my statement I said that I thought that the results of these changes could be to increase the number of such officers by about 3,000 in addition to the 2,300 who could be released by the changes in paperwork that I announced last week. That is at the forefront of our objectives, and we shall strive to make sure that everything possible is done to achieve it.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend totally reject the nonsense we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench? They have not the faintest idea of what their view is on Sheehy or what to do about crime generally. My right hon. and learned Friend should disregard them completely.
My right hon. and learned Friend has taken an extremely sensible line in accepting what is good in the Sheehy report and rejecting what is bad. He is particularly wise in his line on starting salaries and fixed-term contracts. Will he ensure that every encouragement is given to ex-servicemen who are so unhappily available as a result of "Options for Change" and who have great experience, a great deal of ability and a tremendous amount to contribute to the good of the police service?
Mr. Howard: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of welcome for my proposals. I entirely agree with him. As I said in my statement, mature recruits have a great deal to offer the police service. That applies especially to ex-servicemen who may wish to apply for positions in the police service in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred. That is one of the principal reasons why I have rejected the Sheehy recommendation on the levels of starting pay. I hope that the police service will continue to benefit from the entry of mature recruits such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Home Secretary have any plans to deal with what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mr. Paul Condon, defined as noble cause corruption in the police which has caused so much damage to public confidence in recent years? Does he have any plans to deal with the high incidence of freemasonry in the police force which is so deeply resented by officers who are not freemasons and so corrosive of public confidence in the police?
Mr. Howard: The law applies to police officers as it does to everyone, and it is to the law that we have to look for safeguards against corruption. The police are as enthusiastic as anyone—indeed, rather more so than anyone else—to root out corruption where it exists in the police service; I know that the commissioner and other police officers are determined to leave no stone unturned to get to the root of such matters where there is evidence. Freemasonry is not a crime.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Since the Sheehy committee was totally independent of Government, and since my right hon. and learned Friend has never from start to finish identified himself with any of its provisions until today, does not the Opposition make itself look foolish by calling for him to retreat? Did not the BBC announcers make themselves look foolish and perverse by calling it a climb-down? Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the police want their force to be efficient and effective? They want more young men and women to join it as a career and they want more policemen on the beat. Is he aware that his proposals will achieve that end and should be widely welcomed by the police?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He is right in the strictures that he passes on the BBC announcer this morning, but, to be fair to the BBC, its home affairs correspondent immediately pointed out that, as the Government were not in any sense and had never been committed to the proposals in the Sheehy report, there could be no question of climb-down or retreat. The response of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to that point was absolutely pathetic. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of elevating indecision to the level of a constitutional principle.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Ulster Unionist party, with the majority of law-abiding citizens in the United Kingdom, will be pleased and relieved to hear that the Government have met the legitimate concerns of the police. The realistic and objective approach to Sheehy that the Home Secretary has brought to the House today should not cloak the reality that the police are open to reasonable change, as is required. They recognise that they must endeavour to open up proper channels of communication with the general public if the

983
ills of society are to be overcome. However, we all recognise that any drop in the morale of the police would be totally unacceptable to that end.
The special and different role of the RUC that has been mentioned today is acknowledged, but as the parliamentary adviser to the RUC federation, let me say that the RUC would not set themselves on a different plain from their colleagues throughout the United Kingdom and will be deeply relieved that their work will not be hindered by some of the less acceptable aspects of the Sheehy report.
Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. In responding to him, let me pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a force which carries out its duties in such difficult circumstances in an exemplary fashion.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his wise and statesmanlike decision this afternoon will go a long way towards alleviating the understandable concerns of the police during the past few months while the Sheehy report has been considered? In particular, his decision to refer points of detail to the Police Negotiating Board will be warmly welcomed by the Police Federation and other staff associations. I believe that the police know that today they have a listening Home Secretary whom they can trust and with whom they can work, and that he will have their full support.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I pay tribute to the part that he played in my discussions with the Police Federation during the months of the consultation period. It responded most positively to the consultation exercise, recognised the need for change and came forward with proposals of its own. I have by no means been able to accept all the federation's proposals, but I am absolutely clear that we now have a basis on which to move forward together in order to give this country the improved policing that it wants and deserves.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Home Secretary now regret that his predecessor embarked on this sad, sorry and disturbing process? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like the word "retreat", does he accept that his tactical withdrawal will be widely welcomed? An even bigger welcome will follow the Home Secretary's decision to ensure that the centralisation process promised in the White Paper does not proceed.
Mr. Howard: There is no question of retreat or of withdrawal. I have consistently said that the Government never previously declared their views on the Sheehy recommendations.
I will certainly directly answer the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I do not regret for one moment the committee's establishment. It did extremely valuable work and helped to promote general recognition, not least in the police service itself, of the need for change. I have accepted many of its recommendations, and I pay tribute to the work of Sir Patrick and his committee.
Sir George Gardiner: My right hon. and learned Friend will know of my connection with the National Association of Retired Police Officers, all of whom will surely welcome the fact that my right hon. and
984
learned Friend has consigned Sheehy's proposals on police retirement and pensions to the waste paper basket, where they belong.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend elaborate on his proposed review of the exit arrangements for police officers? Will it be an internal review, how long will it take, and how will it relate to the other discussions that he outlined this afternoon?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The review will be internal, and it will be completed as soon as possible. We would like the new arrangements to be in place as soon as practicable. When we have particular proposals, we shall want to consult upon them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that, instead of spending all that time trotting out that long-winded retreat, he needed only to say, "It wasn't me, guv'nor—it was that Ken Clarke wot done it"? Better still, the Home Secretary did not need to come here at all: he could have demanded the right to remain silent.
Mr. Howard: That was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard, but no doubt we shall hear better from him in due course. In an earlier answer, I paid tribute to the work of the committee, which provided a valuable service. I do not believe that we would have reached today's position, with widespread recognition of the need for change, had it not been for the committee's work.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend will have noted the importance that official Opposition Members attach to his significant statement this afternoon, demonstrated by the fact that barely 20 of them are present.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that appraisal is not new to the police force and that the best forces already appraise their men on their performance? The tie-up with pay is novel, but by failing to fall into the trap of the matrix system, my right hon. and learned Friend will not negate all the people that he has taken off paperwork duties and put back on the force. It is good news that we are not to have the highly bureaucratic scheme recommended by Sheehy.
Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend was a bit hard on Opposition Back Benchers. After all, if their spokesman is not prepared to say a word about his party's attitude to the proposals, how can he expect them to turn up? Were I in their position, I would not have bothered to come and listen to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
I agree with my hon. Friend about appraisal. One of the criticisms of the Sheehy matrix was that it might have led to excessive bureaucracy. We want to cut the amount of paperwork that deflects and diverts the police from the work that we want them to do, rather than add to it.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: When exactly will we see the extra policemen and policewomen on the beat? The rank restructuring of which the Home Secretary spoke will cost money. Will he implement the severance package proposed by Sheehy? Will he put the extra resources into carrying out that restructuring, and will he also put extra resources into putting more policemen and policewomen on the beat?
Mr. Howard: That last observation was a bit rich, coming from a Labour Member. It is a bit rich for Labour

985
to talk about putting more policemen on the beat when the Government have put nearly 17,000 more people into the police service—in addition to the 16,000 more civilians who are now working for the service—and nearly doubled the amount that we spend on it, in real terms. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about police officers on the beat or money for the police service.
Restructuring will be a matter for chief constables. We believe in devolved management: we believe that chief constables are the best people to decide the pace at which they introduce changes to their force. As the middle-management posts disappear, they will be able to recruit the extra front-line constables to whom I referred in my statement.
Mr. John Greenway: Is it not clear from what we have heard today that the single event that would do most to undermine police morale would be the election of a Labour Government, given Labour's record of failure to support the police in the 1960s and 1970s? Is it not equally clear that what the public want is a consistent, continuing and abiding relationship with their local police officers? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the new arrangements that he has outlined will provide a career structure in front-line policing for new policemen?
Mr. Howard: Given his experience of these matters, my hon. Friend is entirely right to emphasise the importance of a career structure—and, in particular, the importance of a career structure for front-line officers. That is one of the great advantages of the changes that I have announced today they will enable a police constable who is excellent at his job, but has no desire to be promoted to any other rank, to gain the recognition that his good performance demands. That has not always been possible under the existing arrangements; it will be possible to a much greater extent under the new arrangements that I propose. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for identifying and recognising their benefits.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's rejection of the more contentious parts of the Sheehy report. Will he ensure that any future discussion of pay and structure genuinely includes all staff associations at an early stage? The Sheehy process has undermined morale for several months in many of our constituencies.
May I ask the Home Secretary a specific question about pay? He referred to the private sector. Will comparison be at national level, or will it be at local or regional level? That is a matter of concern in many areas. May I also ask whether the islands allowance in Scotland will continue?
Mr. Howard: Comparison will be at national level, as it is now. It will be based on a different formula—the formula recommended by the Sheehy committee.
As I said in my statement, we are abolishing central payment of allowances other than housing allowance for currently serving officers; but the future of those allowances will be at the discretion of local chief officers. If a local chief officer decides that the islands allowance would be appropriate, it will be perfectly possible for that allowance to continue to be paid. Those matters and others will be considered by the Police Negotiating Board.
I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that I think she is seeking. The staff associations are fully represented on the Police Negotiating Board at the moment, and I do not
986
envisage any changes to those arrangements while these matters are being sorted out. The Police Negotiating Board has its own plans for restructuring itself in due course.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated. When the Sheehy report first came out, it was met with horror by most on the Tory Back Benches, and throughout, certainly, the Hampshire police service. If we had not moved directly against some of the worst aspects of the Sheehy report, we would not have been able to call on the police to defend us from anarchy in the future—it is as serious as that—and we would have moved away from the close bond that politicians have always had with the police. The police would have seen the Sheehy report as some sort of retail commercial project and would not have understood what was in the mind of the Sheehy committee. My right hon. and learned Friend has performed a very worthy service for the House and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Views on the Sheehy report recommendations have varied widely. What I have announced today are not the Sheehy recommendations, or some version of them, but the Government's decisions on the way forward for the police service.
Mr. John McFall: What the police will learn from this report is that the Edmund-Davies formula, which was established by the Labour Government in 1978, is to be abandoned. Is there not a hidden agenda, where the Home Office mission to extend control has been achieved at the expense of community policing? The police consider the elimination of some ranks to be crude and unproductive. How many extra police will be put on the beat, and how will crime be affected by that? Is it not the case that the Home Secretary is doing something for the police but nothing about crime?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is the first Opposition Member to have expressed a view on any of the decisions that I have announced. At last we have a voice from the Labour party that is prepared to express a view on these matters. As far as I can tell, that view is one of total opposition, which is typical of the Labour party. It harks back to a decision of the last Labour Government —which was not honoured—and totally ignores the changes that have taken place in the world ever since. Truly, the hon. Gentleman spoke for the antediluvian tendency of the Labour party.
The hon. Gentleman said that none of the decisions that I have announced will have any effect on fighting crime. I do not know what sort of world the hon. Gentleman lives in if he believes that 3,000 more officers on the front line will not have any effect on combating crime. That is the kind of dream world of fiction in which the Labour party lives. We will see a thinning of middle managment ranks, which will make more resources available to chief officers to recruit constables for front-line duties. That is something that the people of this country will warmly welcome, whatever the curmudgeonly antics of the Labour party.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his balanced and pragmatic package will help to restore not only the morale of the police but that of people in the communities that have been victimised by a rising crime wave? In rural Norfolk, people particularly welcome his plan to put more

987
bobbies on the beat and his scheme for the introduction of parish constables. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what plans he has for reviewing police force boundaries, which often inhibit efficient policing?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals, particularly on parish constables, who I believe could play a significant part in helping to combat crime in rural areas. I have no plans at present to review the boundaries of police areas, but if any local police authority wishes to put forward proposals to me, including the Norfolk police authority, I shall study them with great interest and care.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Can the Minister give some balanced and pragmatic details about the overtime payments, which will relate to the number of officers who are available? For instance, in the Royal Ulster Constabulary a great deal of overtime must be worked because of terrorism and that force would require another 3,000 officers to cover the overtime that is required now. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to do about overtime?
Mr. Howard: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said earlier: overtime for inspectors will be abolished and inspectors will be compensated for that by an addition to their salaries. The basis of overtime for other ranks will be changed, but the details of those changes will be worked out by the Police Negotiating Board. On the official side, detailed proposals have been put forward relating to changes to overtime and they will be a starting point for negotiations in the PNB.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Barjat Singh of Leicestershire who has recently joined Leicestershire constabulary as a mature entrant at the age of 33 and has been accepted on to the accelerated promotion scheme? My right hon. and learned Friend should particularly congratulate Mr. Singh because, until last week, he was the chairman of the Labour-controlled Leicestershire police authority. Does not his decision to join the police prove how successful the Government's policies have been in advancing better policing in this country?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. It is proof of their success and perhaps it is some indication of the extent to which people in such positions are thoroughly fed up with left-wing Labour politics.
Mr. John Gunnell: Given the benefit of the experience that the Home Secretary has gained in the past few weeks, does he agree with two propositions? First, many of the difficulties that have been encountered in the past few weeks and, in particular, the uncertainty felt by the police would have been eased if, given we are dealing with a professional service, consultations could have taken place at an earlier stage, perhaps before the terms of reference were stated.
Secondly, since the Home Secretary has accepted relatively few of Sheehy's major proposals, does he agree that perhaps it is not such a good idea for business men to study that public service? Perhaps it would be a good idea
988
if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to abandon his proposals to appoint business men as chairmen of police authorities.
Mr. Howard: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, no, I certainly do not accept his strictures on the role of business men in this matter. I have said on many occasions that I believe that Sir Patrick Sheehy's committee has performed a valuable service. Those whom I shall appoint to police authorities will by no means necessarily be business men. I am sorry if behind the hon. Gentleman's question there existed that prejudice against business men which still infests the Opposition.
On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I do not believe that anyone could accuse the Government of lack of consultation in relation to this exercise. There were extensive consultations while the Sheehy committee was at work and I announced that there would be a further consultation period after it reported. That consultation period ended on 30 September. I came to the House as soon as possible thereafter with my decisions in order to keep to the absolute minimum the period of uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will ignore the carping criticism from the Opposition because he should be aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the overwhelming majority of police officers who were horrified by some of the controversial proposals in the Sheehy report. Before he brings in any legislation, may I have an assurance that there will be meaningful consultation with our police forces because they represent the people who do the job and they therefore know far more about it than anyone else?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As I have said, there has been extensive consultation with the police and others since the report was published and, of course, the staff associations will be directly involved with the Police Negotiating Board in working out the details of the decisions and principles that I have announced.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am also pleased that most of the far-fetched suggestions of the Sheehy report have been rejected by the Government, but since it appears that 90 per cent. of the report has been rejected, I must ask the Home Secretary how much has Sir Patrick Sheehy been paid? If his pay is performance-related, he does not deserve anything at all. I am pleased that the Government have listened to common sense over the report, but I draw the House's attention to the fact that the White Paper is far more dangerous and insidious and I hope that the Government will listen to common sense over that too.
Everybody knows the benefits of community policing, but it is an expensive form of policing. In the past year in north Wales we were 70 members under-manned and were refused one extra policeman. How will the chief constable allow for community policing?
Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his especially churlish and ungenerous observation about Sir Patrick and his committee in view of the fact that they were all offered payment for their work and all refused payment. It may be inconceivable to Opposition Members that anybody should undertake

989
public service of that kind without payment, but it happens and the hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself for what lay behind his question.
Community policing is entirely at the discretion of chief constables. We are devolving management of the police service to chief constables and it is for them to decide what emphasis to place on community policing. I know, however, that they recognise its value, to which they will attach a high priority.
Mr. James Pawsey: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on consigning the majority of the Sheehy report to the waste bin? As the father of a police officer serving in Warwickshire, I know that his statement will give a lot of pleasure to the Pawsey household.
In his statement, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the lethal and dangerous job of police officers. Will he seek to make that job a little less dangerous by making body armour more readily available and by speeding up the evaluation of the side-handled baton?
Mr. Howard: I am always happy to bring pleasure to the Pawsey household and happy that today's announcement has done that. My hon. Friend was not quite right in his characterisation of my response to the Sheehy recommendations. I have already said that the committee did valuable work, I have accepted many of the recommendations, and on some others I sought to achieve the same objectives in different ways.
The question of body armour is under constant evaluation. Its deployment is a matter for chief constables. As my hon. Friend will know, side-handled batons are presently being evaluated and I hope that that evaluation and the trials of the batons will be completed as soon as possible so that we can make them available to the police as soon as possible.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that those who hold the ranks that are to be abolished will be moved into other posts and on moving that their pay will not be reduced?
Mr. Howard: What happens to officers of those ranks will be a matter for the chief constables. I can assure my hon. Friend that if they are regraded, they will not suffer any loss of pay.
Mr. Tim Devlin: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the sensitive and helpful way in which he responded to the concerns of the Cleveland constabulary and for withdrawing three aspects of the Sheehy proposals that especially vexed them—the matrix, the retirement age and the pay isssues? Those aspects would have demoralised the officers in Cleveland, who have managed significantly to reduce crime over recent years and who, I am sure, will warmly welcome what he has said today.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has correctly identified the three aspects of the proposals which caused most concern to police officers, not only in Cleveland but elsewhere. I met many officers from all parts of the country and discussed their concerns in great detail, so I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.

Business of the House
4.29 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week, which will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill.
TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures:

Crofters (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Scottish Land Court Bill [Lords]

Health Service Commissioners Bill [Lords]

Probation Service Bill [Lords]

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]

Motions relating to the Football Spectators (Designation of Football Matches in England and Wales) Order, the Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order and the Football Spectators Act 1989 (Commencement No. 4) Order.
Motions relating to Members' pay and motion on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order.
THURSDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Motions relating to a scheme for additional voluntary contributions for Members and to the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund.
Motions relating to the First Report, Session 1992–93, from the Select Committee on Procedure entitled "Parliamentary Questions" (House of Commons Paper No. 687).
Motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties.
FRIDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Subject to the progress of business, the House is expected to be prorogued.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER
Committee B, document No. 6625/93 relating to the special rehabilitation support programme in developing countries.
WEDNESDAY 24 NOVEMBER
Committee A, document No. 7825/93 relating to reduced prices for school milk. Committee B, document Nos. 7390/92 and 7133/93 relating to postal services.
[Tuesday 2 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 6625/93, Overseas aid; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxxiii (1992–93).
Wednesday 24 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 7825/93, school milk; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93).

991
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents (a) 7390/92, postal services; (b) 7133/93, the single market for postal services. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee:
(a) HC 79-vi (1992–93); (b) HC 79-xxxv (1992–93), HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93).]
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Lord President for that statement. Will he take on board the fact that there is considerable concern in all parties about the Child Support Agency? I think that all hon. Members would welcome an early statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security on the Government's proposals as the present position is clearly unsatisfactory.
May I also draw his attention to the reviews of London's specialist health services? He will recall that in June, or thereabouts, there was a demand for a statement on the reports but that the Government resisted on the ground that time was needed to take them into account, alongside the Tomlinson report and other factors. However, there are now extremely strong and, I understand, well-founded rumours that the Government are ready to come to a conclusion on these issues but are thinking of announcing it in the recess rather than before the House rises. That would be unacceptable to all hon. Members, so I hope that the Leader of the House will advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health accordingly.
I remind the Leader of the House that we are still seeking debating time on public expenditure. We give him advance notice that we should like at least one, but preferably two, Supply days before Christmas.
I realise that the following matter may have been resolved, but a number of hon. Members are worried about the business for tomorrow. There have been some rumours about whether or not it can proceed. Many of us regret the fact that the Government chose to discuss the issue on a Friday when some of us who would have liked to be here cannot be. I shall be working a full day, but, unfortunately, I shall not be able to be in the House to vote on the order. Some hon. Members are still worried about whether the business can validly be discussed tomorrow because of the legal position, and it would help us if the Leader of the House clarified that point.
Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady has asked a variety of questions. As to her comments on the Child Support Agency and her question about an announcement on London's health service, I will of course undertake to consider her requests.
The right hon. Lady asked about public expenditure and Supply days. I was not sure whether the questions were linked or whether the Opposition wished to debate public expenditure on Supply days. I will take note of her request for Supply days in my usual and helpful way. It will be well within the right hon. Lady's knowledge that public expenditure will be dealt with alongside other matters in what will be the unified Budget shortly after the House returns. There will be opportunities to discuss those matters. The right hon. Lady will be aware of the suggestions that both she and the Procedure Committee have made in that respect.
Lastly, as to the right hon. Lady's question about tomorrow's business, I do not accept her suggestion that it is inappropriate to be debating the measure tomorrow; by
992
so doing it will enable us to devote a full day to matters —not necessarily that one—such as the Church which in the past were debated much more briefly and late at night. On this occasion we have a full day.
There has been legal action but the right hon. Lady will be aware that the Church of England authorities today won their case in the High Court. I understand that the High Court indicated that, in its judgment, there was nothing to delay the debate. Nor, I think I can say, is there anything in the procedures or rules of the House. In the end, of course, the question to move the motion is a matter for those concerned with the motion. I know of no reason to put pressure on them and not proceed tomorrow. If it is of any comfort to the right hon. Lady, I, too, was planning to be elsewhere but have adjusted my programme to ensure that I shall be here.
Mr. Paul Channon: I support what the right hon. Lady said about the need for a statement on the Child Support Agency. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widepread concern and considerable confusion, especially in the light of the recent court ruling? It would be extremely helpful if we could have an authoritative statement.
Mr. Newton: I am aware of the concerns expressed in various quarters, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends. I will bring that request to their attention.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I would like to take this opportunity to make that request all-party and say that it is vital that we have a statement from a Social Security Minister next week before Parliament prorogues, because of the widespread misgivings that the legislation in its practical operation is causing in the country. I am sure that Members from both sides and from all parties would welcome such a statement.
I thank the Leader of the House for finding time in this spillover session to find time for an important debate as far as we are concerned on a motion for financial assistance to Opposition parties. It is essential that the Opposition are properly financed as that will enable us to do our job properly. Although it has taken a long time to achieve, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for finding that time.
I hope that we shall be able to welcome the motion on Members' pay. When we see the terms of the motion I hope that it will bear out the assurance that the Leader of the House gave on behalf of the Government that Members' pay will not lose out in terms of the freeze on pay that we have had over the past 12 months.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about what is known in the trade as "Short money". It has taken a long while to find time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think it a reasonable and just outcome. So far as Members' pay is concerned, I cannot give a precise undertaking about when the detailed resolutions will be tabled; I am not seeking to delay them. I can say in a clear-cut fashion that, in my judgment—though in the end others will wish to bring their judgment to bear—what will be proposed fulfils completely the undertakings that I gave the House at this time last year.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If it could be arranged, a statement next week on the workings of the Child Support Agency would be ideal. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the creation of that agency had support on both sides of the House? What was designed as a

993
measure to catch up with people who were not honouring their obligations to their children is now being used as an instrument to punish those who are doing their best. That was not intended by hon. Members on either side of the House, and it is essential that we have an early debate so that we can see what can be done to alleviate the distress and anguish that that is causing.
Mr. Newton: The point made by my hon. Friend has been made in other quarters, too—indeed, I note that the matter has now been raised four times in the course of our exchanges today. I cannot add to what I said earlier but I will bring that fact to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. John Cummings: The Leader of the House will be aware of certain assurances given to me by the Minister for Energy during questions on the coal statement last week, to the effect that pumping operations at Easington colliery would not cease until detailed investigations had been carried out. It was therefore with alarm that I learnt today that, during yesterday's debate on the coal industry, pumping operations at Easington colliery ceased. That will destroy the colliery, which was up for bids. It may also pollute the main potable water supply in the county of Durham, with consequential effects not just on the people of Durham but on the people of Tyne and Wear. Will the Leader of the House invite the Minister for Energy to come to the House as soon as possible to explain to us precisely what has happened? The pit is being sabotaged and the people in Easington and Tyne and Wear are living with a time bomb.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not in a position instantly to make substantive comment on what he said. I can, however, undertake to ensure that the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is called to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will seek to be in touch with him.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to discuss the ingenious proposal by a Lancaster city councillor that drivers of untaxed cars using city car parks should be fined? That is already done in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends, where such drivers are charged £30. People do not like freeloading scroungers and, if they were fined under such a scheme, which could spread throughout the country, the Revenue would make an enormous amount. In my constituency alone, the Revenue is losing about £130,000. That is in one district. If the scheme operated countrywide, we should make an enormous killing and would not necessarily need to put VAT on fuel.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's ingenuity is mind bending, as is her optimism. If I may, I will concentrate on the first part of her remarks. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would be in favour of anything that could properly be done to ensure that people paid their taxes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has had to leave, but I will ensure that his attention is drawn to that suggestion.
Several hon.Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members keep in mind—as I am keeping in mind—that two minority parties have motions on the Order Paper and that it is right that
994
they should be heard? I ask hon. Members to refrain from making speeches and to ask one question addressed directly to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Max Madden: When will the Prime Minister make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference and so enable hon. Members, including me, to ask what action the Government are taking to persuade the Indian Government to lift the siege of the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the most appropriate opportunity to which I can draw attention is Wednesday 3 November when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering questions.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate next week on the Sheehy report, to allow those hon. Members whom you.. Madam Speaker, were unable to call today—no doubt for reasons of time—to make their points, especially bearing in mind my long discussions with my own police force and the long document that I sent to the Home Secretary? My police force were particularly concerned to know that—
Madam Speaker: Order. I want no speeches. The Leader of the House is answering questions.
Mr. Greenway: I am asking for a debate so that I can raise a specific point that was more important to my police force than anything else: they do not want performance-related pay but would accept appraisal if it took account of the fact that someone who arrested—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of guidelines that I have just given. Obviously I cannot call all hon. Members who wish to ask questions on a statement or at business questions. Business questions should not be abused. I believe that the Leader of the House has understood the hon. Gentleman's question and I await his reply.
Mr. Newton: I was about to observe, Madam Speaker, that if my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is known to be assiduous in these matters, remains in the Chamber until you permit me to sit down and waits long enough for the Liberal Democrat spokesman to get through what will no doubt be a short speech, he will have an opportunity to take part in a debate entitled "Prevention of Crime", in which mention of the Sheehy report might well be in order.
Mr. John Garrett: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the action that he proposes to take to make this place more visitor friendly? For example, why are there notices at the St. Stephen's entrance saying that the public are not admitted, when in fact the public are admitted to Committees that sit upstairs and so on?
Mr. Newton: One of the curiosities of the way in which this place is now run is that the responsibilities that the hon. Gentleman attributes to me are properly those of the Accommodation and Works Committee, which at this very moment is considering ways in which the place can be made—to use the hon. Gentleman's term—more user friendly, not least, to disabled people.
Mr. Nigel Evans: In the light of the £375 million fine imposed on the Spanish and Italians for

995
their failure to abide by milk quotas, will the Leader of the House find time to allow hon. Members to discuss the enforcement of European Community directives, especially as we now face more of them? Yesterday, I served on a Standing Committee that discussed the waste packaging directive which, if enforced, will add £2.6 billion to the costs of British industry.
Mr. Newton: Much as I would like to, I do not know that I can undertake to find time for precisely what my hon. Friend asks but I can assure him—as is clear from everything that the British Government said and did in respect of the Maastricht treaty—that we are determined to do everything possible to ensure that Community legislation is enforced uniformly among all those who sign up to it.
Mr. John Spellar: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that, since tabling early-day motion 2436 on the Child Support Agency, I have been approached by a considerable number of hon. Members whose postbags, like mine, are swelling with letters on the subject?
[That this House is alarmed at reports of the operation of the Child Support Agency and, in particular, the targeting of those who are already making maintenance payments rather than those who are evading their responsibilities; and accordingly calls for the operations of the Child Support Agency to be suspended until it can be given new and more appropriate guidelines.]
Will the Leader of the House convey to the Secretary of State for Social Security the strong feeling in the House and outside it that this matter needs to be addressed and is causing enormous anxiety?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier, but the hon. Gentleman has added to the number of mentions of the subject that I must draw to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the conduct of some of the newspapers and film companies and, in particular, on the great offence that is caused to all our constituents when the media pay large sums to criminals and their relatives for their stories? It is time that we had a debate leading to legislation to ban that scandalous practice.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on that precise subject, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's words, which clearly draw support from elsewhere in the House, will be noted by those at whom they were directed.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Hon. Members will recently have received from the Department of the Environment a document on the creation of the construction sponsorship directorate, which acknowledges that the construction industry contributes one third of our manufacturing base. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to written question 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and to early-day motion 2529, which stands in my name?
[That this House notes with concern reports that the bulk of tunnelling contracts for the Jubilee Line have been
996
awarded provisionally to foreign companies; believes this will adversely affect the ability of British companies to compete with foreign competition for future tunnelling contracts such as Cross rail and the Hackney/Chelsea link; is further concerned to learn that Italstrade may be one of the companies involved in the Jubilee contract; and asks the Government to make a statement on the current fraud investigations taking place in Italy into Italstrade.]
My hon. Friend's question and my EDM identify the consequences of the failure to invest in our infrastructure. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House so that we can discuss the implications of such matters for our manufacturing industry?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has drawn a number of matters to my attention. I imagine that he is concerned principally about the Jubilee line, a matter which is also of concern to the House authorities, for reasons that he will understand. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and other Ministers have been working hard on that matter; I shall bring his remarks to their attention.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware that my constituents, like those of many other hon. Members, want the Sunday trading issue to be resolved. Subject to what might be in the Queen's Speech, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that we will at least have the opportunity to vote on this matter before Christmas?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand the delicacy of any comment pre-empting the Queen's Speech; but I certainly do not wish to give him an assurance that the matter will not be discussed before Christmas.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the Government to make a statement next week about their intentions regarding a Select Committee on Northern Ireland? Is the Leader of the House aware that anything that would further divide the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland would be extremely wrong—the more so bearing in mind the bloodshed that is now occurring daily in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Committee will not go ahead—although rumour has it that it was the subject of a deal made by the Prime Minister during the Maastricht debates.
Mr. Newton: The Government have made clear repeatedly that a Select Committee may be desirable in principle. However, that is a matter for the House. I have noted, as will the hon. Gentleman, that the Procedure Committee is re-examining the possible composition of such a Select Committee and, of course, the Government will consider any report which the Procedure Committee produces.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on equal opportunities for men and women, following the disgraceful situation that has arisen following the shadow Cabinet elections? Is it fair that hon. Ladies such as those for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) should be consigned to the Back Benches for ever because of the sexist prejudices of their male colleagues?
Mr. Newton: That question sounds as if it were calculated to get me to inflame someone about something. I will observe, as others have done, that there is some irony in the fact that a system which was supposed to produce fewer Scots and more women has succeeded in producing exactly the reverse. Whether those who brought forward that proposition had in mind the hon. Ladies mentioned by my hon. Friend is not for me to say. I will say to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that all of us were pleased that she did not have to get involved in the elections.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: In the light of comments made by the Prime Minister in the House earlier this week, will there be time for an urgent statement—I am sure that a statement will come—on whether there will be a full and independent inquiry into the Bilsthorpe colliery disaster?
Mr. Newton: That matter was covered at some length, both in the statement last week on the coal industry and in the debate yesterday. I do not wish to add to what was said on those occasions.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The usual procedure for Prorogation is that Black Rod comes down to prorogue Parliament. Instead of that, can the House have a resolution, subject to debate, about the length of time between Prorogation and the new Session of Parliament which is disgracefully lengthy? All hon. Members could contribute in the usual way to such a debate, and the wide-ranging concerns about the Child Support Agency could be raised. The concerns primarily involve a change of policy from pursuing irresponsible fathers who are not paying maintenance to pursuing the easy targets of fathers who are responsible, who are accepting court decisions and who are making maintenance payments. Those fathers are now subject to an unprecedented, vicious and unscrupulous attack, which will wrest every last penny from them and prejudice their new families.
Mr. Newton: If I may leave aside the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the forthcoming recess, or whatever one wants to call it, I will take note of the second part of his remarks along with those words uttered earlier by other hon. Members on the same subject.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland or Secretary of State for
998
Health to make a statement regarding a rumour in my constituency that I have been trying to check out? The rumour is that one of the local hospitals is burning toxic waste commercially. Will the Government state whether there is any truth in the rumour that other hospitals in the country—either trust or national health service—are using their incinerators to burn waste commercially?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to provide immediate substantive comment on that matter, as was the case with an earlier question. I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. John Gunnell: When will the House have the promised debate and statement on the Minerals Planning Guidance No. 3 and its revision?
Mr. Newton: I cannot at present give the hon. Gentleman an exact date, but I will look into the matter for him.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Scrutiny by hon. Members of the actions by Ministers at meetings of the EC Council of Ministers is very important. Ministers must act on occasion upon the decisions of Standing Committee A and Standing Committee B, and upon decisions which have been passed by the House. For that hon. Members require information on what is happening in the Council of Ministers meetings.
At the Edinburgh summit of Heads of State it was said that a record of the votes at Council of Ministers meetings would become available, and some figures were starting to come through in parliamentary answers. There has now been a decision by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of Ministers that, in future, votes will be published only if a resolution has been tabled about a vote and if that resolution is not then blocked by a majority of the Ministers present.
Is not that a serious situation, and should not there be a statement from the Prime Minister about how that can be done in line with the decision taken at the Edinburgh summit?
Mr. Newton: For the second time in the exchanges today, I will say that the sensible course is to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here next week to answer questions.

Opposition Day
  20TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Crime
    Madam Speaker: I should tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.57 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
    That this House notes that the level of recorded crime has more than doubled since 1973, that only two per cent. of all crimes results in conviction and that the threat of punishment no longer constitutes a sufficient deterrent to offenders, and that amongst the young there is a growing experience of a culture of violence and drug use; condemns the allocation by Her Majesty's Government of only one quarter of one per cent. of the criminal justice budget of £8,770 million in 1991–92 to specific crime prevention measures; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support, monitor and promote effective locally based preventative measures where they are required and to provide both resources and support to families and schools to educate young people in their personal duties to society in general.
    The very purpose of a civil society is to protect the individuals within it from unrestrained and harmful behaviour—in other words, from crime. Britain today is falling very far short of that aim. The problem is neither new nor is it confined to this country. However, it is causing increasing anxiety and, in some quarters, a sense of despair and helplessness.
    The purpose of the debate is to propose practical policies to tackle crime around which the House could unite. It is to offer hope when previous policies have only induced cynicism, and even despair. I will not linger on the well-known evidence that crime, and violent crime in particular, is a growing scourge. However, falling crime rates as the proper measure of a successful law and order policy is not working. The public will not accept from us the alibi that crime is rising elsewhere in other countries; nor will anxieties be allayed by the political competition for the title of "Official party of law and order".
    Concern about crime will decline only when crime itself declines. This afternoon we heard from the Home Secretary about his proposals for police pay and responsibilities. It is always right to seek measures to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of the police. I have been impressed by the evidence that police forces throughout the country have themselves been eager to innovate measures. For example, while the Home Office dithered, the Kent constabulary introduced an electronic fingerprint recognition scheme which reduced by 75 per cent. the time it took an officer to put a name to a fingerprint. The Thames Valley constabulary did not wait while the Government deliberated on the future structure of the police. The Thames Valley force slimmed down its own middle ranks on an experimental basis.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will do nothing to detract from the valuable and innovative experimentation by the police. The last thing that we want in this country is a structure imposed from the centre. The debate on efficiency has been badly skewed by Sir Patrick Sheehy, who has been seeking to import commercial irrelevancies into a discussion on efficiency.
    1000
    Despite that, one fact stands out. The police service in Britain is more efficient today than it has ever been. Twice as many crimes are cleared up today as were cleared up 20 years ago. However, even the most efficient police service will not be able to deal conclusively with the crime problem on its own. Half of all crime is not even reported to the police, according to Home Office figures. Even a "Robocop", as seen in the recent science fiction film, which was programmed to shoot anyone who refused to obey its commands within 20 seconds would still require to be informed of the crimes. Tackling crime must be a matter for every citizen, every community and every public body.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: On reflection, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the claim that half the crimes committed are not reported is a little spurious? Almost certainly, those figures must include minimal crimes such as minor scratches on cars, theft of milk bottles or whatever, which the ordinary citizen would not feel it worth reporting. Therefore, the matter has to be put in a different perspective from that in which the hon. Gentleman puts it.
    Mr. Maclennan: I do not agree. The one aspect of the Home Office that stands almost beyond criticism is the research capability of its research unit. The unit does not produce such figures and facts without a good deal of careful reflection. The figures have been subjected to academic scrutiny by many institutes of criminology throughout the country. They are the most reliable figures that we have.
    I take it that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) would not seek to diminish the importance of unreported or unrecorded crimes. It is a substantial problem and one of the matters which the police wish to have addressed.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can explain something to me. He will probably agree with me that the increase in the use of drugs is one of the most significant causes of crime. Can he explain how the Liberal Democrat policy of legalising cannabis, which would put far more people in touch with the drugs culture, could assist us in reducing crime?
    Mr. Maclennan: That policy is supported in parts of the Liberal party. I understand that the party in Scotland recommended it. I notice that several journals, including The Economist, have long advocated legalisation of cannabis. The subject is worthy of debate, but it is certainly not the official policy of the party of which I am a spokesman.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Before we lose sight of the issue of unreported crime, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say what contribution he and his hon. Friends were making to the law and order debate in 1988 when they voted against legislation which gave the Attorney-General the ability to appeal against lenient sentences? Does he think that that sets a good example, or was it a good example of unreported crime?
    Mr. Maclennan: Far from being unreported, the matter is recorded in Hansard. Thefreasons were well set out on that occasion.
    The need for crime prevention is unarguable. I am glad to say that my party and its predecessor party has placed

    1001
    the prevention of crime at the heart of the debate on law and order for almost a decade. We recommended neighbourhood watch, crime prevention panels and local authority action as long ago as 1985, when those ideas were popularly regarded as marginal to the problem of crime. Indeed, to some extent, Home Office Ministers regard them as marginal even today.
    The marginality in the Government's attitude was demonstrated even this afternoon by the Home Secretary in his remarks on Sheehy. In the last paragraph of his statement, when he was speaking about the possible benefits that would flow from more efficient structures, he said:
    "That could mean more work on crime prevention."
    That does not suggest that there is any serious commitment to use additional resources for what is plainly the most effective step that can be taken to tackle the problem.
    I do not wish to be unfair to the Government. They have shown some recognition of the relevance and potential of crime prevention.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say a moment ago that he was against greater centralisation. Surely, then, it is up to chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources.
    Mr. Maclennan: I am sure that when the Minister speaks in the debate he will tell us what the Government are doing. It is my purpose to show that they should be doing substantially more. No doubt the police will think it appropriate to deploy their resources effectively in crime prevention. But the success of crime prevention schemes depends on pulling together private voluntary agencies, local authorities and the police, and on the Government monitoring the work, promoting best practice and putting money into schemes in which they have seen value in the past yet to which they now show less commitment than they should.
    I take one example. The safer cities programme was initiated in 1988. The locally managed schemes have had a good and successful run. I am sorry to see them progressively strangled by lack of funds. We have been told that the projects are temporary. I have to tell the Minister that crime, and crime under Conservative Governments, is not temporary. The need for crime prevention does not lessen simply because the Home Office has decided not to invest in it any further.
    I hope that the Minister will assure the House today that the safer cities programme will not only be continued indefinitely but be expanded. The Minister should not be too preoccupied with the balance sheet, because crime prevention is a blue-chip investment. The cost in policing, court time, legal aid and custodial and community sentencing incurred by a single crime far outweighs the cost of preventing that crime from occurring in the first place.
    Despite initiatives such as the safer cities programme, the Government's commitment to crime prevention deserves only two cheers. Last year the Home Office spent £15.7 million on specific crime prevention measures out of a total criminal justice bill of some £8.7 billion. That imbalance reveals the Government's true priorities. Crime prevention remains at the bottom of the list. It is almost an afterthought.
    1002
    Of course, crime prevention does not deliver the headlines that the Government wish to achieve. "Bang 'em up" is far more appealing than "Practical partnerships work".
    Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some crimes cannot be prevented and some criminals cannot be deterred? We have to do something with that residue of hard-core criminals. I put it to him that the only way to deal effectively with them is, as he puts it, to "bang them up".
    Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman without cavil or qualification, as I shall make plain.
    Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Maclennan: No. This is a short debate and I have already given way many times.
    The Home Office's own research has estimated that prison sentencing would need to increase by 25 per cent. to reduce crime by about 1 per cent. The cost involved in building and maintaining the new prisons that would be needed is out of all proportion to their value. To my mind, the public get the biggest bang for their buck from crime prevention. It is preferable to ever greater expenditure on prisons which have little discernible effect on the actual levels of crime.
    Mr. John Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Maclennan: I must make it plain to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I do not intend to give way again. This is a two-hour debate and it is a rare opportunity to discuss the issue. I do not wish to delay the House.
    The Government give the appearance that they tailor their policy rather more to the needs of the party conference than to the needs of the public in general. Such an approach has the effect of moving the spotlight away from the practical measures which are needed, and which are open to every community, to curtail crime. One example will be well within the recollection of Conservative Members. The joyriders legislation was a crisis measure rushed through the House in a frenzy. It grabbed some headlines. In my discussions with the police they have told me that the legislation has been far from effective. I doubt whether a single joyrider has been deterred by it.
    Crime Concern, a charitable body partly funded by the Home Office, has operated so-called motor projects for young people to divert them from joyriding and from crime. Crime Concern has claimed a 98 per cent. success rate in preventing joyriders from reoffending. The contrast between the two approaches of the Home Office—both are favoured by the Home Office—is striking.
    I bow to no one in my determination to punish serious criminals with an appropriate time in prison. However, I will not be diverted from my belief that prevention is better and more reliable than cure. The Minister must accept the disproportion between the great costs and the small benefits of imprisoning even the most minor offenders. Is not it better and cheaper to keep people out when there are better ways to protect society from their crimes and, ideally, to prevent those crimes from being committed in the first place?
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Maclennan: I regret that the hon. Gentleman is deaf.
    Two specific types of crime in respect of which crime prevention has an important role to play are domestic violence and racial violence. Some people believe that crime prevention is little more than an attempt to put locks on doors and seek to elevate that into great public service. I admit that it can sometimes look like that. However, even if that were true, it would not be wholly unacceptable. Good locks can prevent crime and leave households intact and the police free to do other things.
    I believe that crime prevention has great relevance to violent crime. The degree of violence in our society has risen steadily over several decades. Every year we expect the level of violent crime to remain at best static; if it rises one year, we adjust ourselves to that level and expect it to do the same in future. As Edmund Burke once said,
    "Custom reconciles us to everything."
    We reserve the harshest penalties and the most condemnation for violent offenders, and that is right. However, the existence of such penalties and the high clear-up rates associated with violent crimes do not appear to me—and, I suspect, to Conservative Members, some of whom have intervened today—to constitute a sufficient deterrent to potential offenders.
    The commandment that is most observed in this matter is "Thou should not get caught." That is particularly true in cases of domestic violence. We have moved a long way with regard to our acceptance of the seriousness of domestic violence. Wife-beating remained legal until 100 years ago. However, we have not gone far enough. It may be a crime that takes place between intimates, but it is violence and it must be treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
    Research conducted by a number of sources, most recently by Manchester university, revealed two significant facts about domestic and racial violence. The first was the extent to which they are under-reported. One in 35 domestic assaults and only six in 10 racial assaults are reported to the police; even fewer are recorded as crimes and investigated further.
    Mr. Streeter: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?
    Mr. Maclennan: I am coming to that. I want the House to accept the fact that both domestic and racial attacks tend to be repeated within short periods. The majority of recorded offences are associated with relatively few victims and offenders. That is where prevention has a role.
    The evidence suggests that once an offence is reported to the police, another is likely to follow soon after. Our responsibility is to break that pattern. The Government have failed in their duty to support the victims of domestic and racial violence. As long ago as 1975, a Select Committee recommended that there should be three times as many women's refuges in this country as there are today. That is a manifest failure of commitment.
    The Law Society has drafted a Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill which would allow the courts to make an ex parte exclusion order against a violent partner or ex-partner if that is in the interests of the victim. The Government have not yet stated their position on that and
    1004
    I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to tell us the direction in which his mind is moving. The law needs to be amended.
    The police have an immensely important part to play in preventing crimes of violence, as in other respects. The police have made considerable strides in that regard. For example, a police officer in south Yorkshire constructed on his kitchen table devices for recording attacks in the home on video and audio tape. Those devices are installed at the invitation of a victim where a repeat offence is expected. The victim feels more secure as a result of those devices and the police can gather valuable first-hand evidence. Devices like that, and the devices which were used to catch people who abused the owner of a Chinese takeaway on an almost nightly basis, are immensely important to help prevent crimes of violence and other crimes.
    As I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion fairly speedily, I want now to consider racial violence. The Government have attempted a partnership approach. I believe that that is the key to preventing racial violence. There must be a good working relationship of mutual support and interest between the vulnerable communities, the police and the local authorities. The law provides for the eviction of council and housing association tenants who racially harass or attack their neighbours. However, it provides for such offences to be dealt with without reference to race as an aggravating factor. The law is not being enforced to its full potential because we do not have a systematic approach to the problem.
    I put it to the Minister that there should be specialist officers in police stations with the sole responsibility for collating the details of every suspected racial incident in an area and for analysing those details and recommending a strategy to the senior commanding officer. That would enable the police to identify immediately the patterns of offending and allow them and the local community to be prepared for the next incident.
    I am aware that many hon. Members want to participate in this short debate and that there are many aspects of the problems and possibilities in relation to crime prevention that I cannot possibly cover. If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is fortunate enough to catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will address a number of the specific issues referred to in the motion on which I have not touched.
    We all recognise that there are no easy answers to crime. The problem is complex and varied, and so must be our policies to tackle it. A policy of severe punishment has its place and is not incompatible with a policy of strong commitment to crime prevention; indeed, the one can enhance the other. However, we are in danger—this point was brought home to us in the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative party conference—of moving towards a more unbalanced, single-track policy. Crime prevention is not an additional or optional add-on. It is a vital component of a successful law and order policy.
    5.17 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "commends the Government's determination to tackle crime through a broad range of measures aimed at preventing crime, punishing offenders and helping the victims of crime; recognises

    1005
    that government support of crime prevention takes many forms, including support of the police and support through the programmes of several government departments; believes that the key to preventing crime lies in partnership between the police, other agencies and the public; and applauds the work being done by this Government to promote and support partnership at both local and national levels."
    I welcome the opportunity of today's debate. There can be no doubt about the scale of the challenge that we face in tackling crime. Recorded crime has increased in every decade since the second world war. People are understandably concerned. That is why the Government's first duty is to protect the public and that is why law and order is at the top of our agenda.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised a number of points and I am pleased to say that I will be able to respond to several of them. However, I am bound to remind him that some of his statistics were wrong. The incidence of violent crime has remained at around 5 per cent. of the total of reported crimes for the best part of the past five years. I am sure that the House will recall that crimes involving firearms represent about one fifth of 1 per cent. of recorded crime.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to sentencing. Sentencing must be a matter for the courts and the courts must decide whether a custodial sentence is appropriate. He also referred to racial violence. He will recall from our long debates earlier this year in Standing Committee on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill that we agree that racial violence and racial prejudice are to be abhorred. However, I did not hear him say during those debates that it was important, as the Government believe it to be important, to maintain firm but fair immigration controls as a fundamental principle in ensuring good race relations in this country.
    I cannot resist reminding the House that, in March, the hon. Gentleman issued a press release—he has claimed credit for his party on several crime prevention initiatives —about local authority crime prevention schemes. He also spoke of increased public awareness of crime prevention in Alnwick, but he omitted to mention that the lead in crime prevention in Alnwick came not from his party but from a £2.3 million Department of the Environment-funded renovation scheme.
    Mr. Maclennan: I happen to have a copy of that press release with me. Nothing in it suggests that crime prevention schemes are being promulgated only by Liberal Democrat authorities. Happily, they are being pursued by several authorities in which the Liberal Democrats are represented. The impression was never given and it was certainly never intended that it was only Liberal Democrat authorities, although it is undoubtedly the case that they are taking a lead.
    Mr. Wardle: The press release did not mention the Department of the Environment scheme, but the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification.
    Last week, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a speech about law and order. That does not happen often, so I read his speech very carefully. It was flawed from start to finish. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that the criminal justice system was irrelevant in the fight against crime. That must be nonsense.
    We need action to make sure that all elements of the criminal justice system work better. That is why the Government are taking action to prevent crime, to do all that we can to help the police to catch more criminals—too
    1006
    many criminals are never caught—to ensure that fewer criminals are cautioned—too many criminals are cautioned and not prosecuted—to ensure that criminals are tried fairly and quickly, and to ensure that those who are found guilty are punished appropriately. Those are exactly the powers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is addressing. That is why we are taking action across the board. We intend to tilt the balance against the criminal and in favour of the victim.
    Mr. Sykes: Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments about the Liberal Democrats, he might be interested to hear of a feature that I received from the Scarborough district housing forum. The politically correct and liberal tendency is well represented. The forum recently heard a lecture from the probation service and the minutes state:
    "The Probation Service explained that the Scarborough area was piloting a scheme for their clients which could hopefully be extended to include other vulnerable people."
    Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in Scarborough would regard such people not as vulnerable, but, rather, the kind of people who would take a crowbar to an old lady's head in order to rob her of all her savings and all her life's treasures?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make it clear that society should unequivocally condemn criminals. I am sure that he will agree that much hard work is done by many honourable members of the probation service.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil does not seem to understand that an efficient and effective system of criminal justice with tough punishments forms an essential part of preventing crime. No other Government have taken crime prevention more seriously. Listening to the Opposition parties and to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, one would think that they have been pushing us all the way. The hon. Gentleman talked of Crime Concern as though his party should claim credit for it. He talked in the same vein about neighbourhood watch. Of course, the Government are the largest funder of Crime Concern. The Government set up Crime Concern and they continue to support it in that fashion. The Government backed the police with neighbourhood watch. When neighbourhood watch was set up, some Labour councils refused to co-operate. There are now 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes throughout the country. We have had car crime prevention year, the safer cities programme, parish constables and the creation of the National Board for Crime Prevention. All those ideas were developed and taken forward by the Government.
    The most telling feature of the hon. Gentleman's interest in crime prevention has been his party's voting record on law and order legislation. They voted against the. Public Order Act 1986, against the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I believe that I am right in saying that, this year, only seven members of his party voted for the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
    Ms Liz Lynne: The Minister mentioned safer cities projects. Will he guarantee that no further funds will be cut from safer cities projects?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Lady should realise—it is already in the public domain—that, in addition to the 20 safer cities projects that have already been run, we intend

    1007
    to have a further 40 safer cities projects. It was made clear from the outset that those safer cities projects would run and that they would prompt and stimulate local investment, local partnerships and local involvement and would then move on. The hon. Lady talks as though one should continue to repeat the same investment. Does she expect us, having put locks on doors on an estate one year, to spend taxpayer's money, undo those locks and put them back again? I shall return to safer cities in a moment.
    Partnership is fundamental to successful crime prevention. It involves all of us—that is, the Government, the police, local authorities, local groups, local businesses and the man or woman in the street—in the fight against crime. We all have a part to play in preventing crime from happening in the first place.
    Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in respect of crime prevention, it is what people do rather than what they say that matters? Does my hon. Friend agree also that television surveillance has a useful part to play in crime prevention? In Poole, backed by the police, the Conservative group wants television surveillance of an area in town to protect the lives and the property of people in Poole high street. The Liberal Democrat council is more concerned with a potential interference with civil liberties. It is ignoring the civil liberties of those who want to go about their work and their play in the centre of the town in safety. Is not that hypocrisy?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and Conservative councillors in his constituency are right. Throughout the country there is a growing number of examples of success with closed circuit television. That form of surveillance adds security and a feeling of safety and it also adds to watchfulness against crime.
    I believe that the first duty of any Government is to protect the public and maintain law and order and to provide the police and the courts with the powers that they need to catch and punish offenders so that the public are protected. The Government have acted decisively to respond to concern about crime. This month, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced a comprehensive programme of action to crack down on crime and the criminal. As the House will be aware, he announced 27 new measures covering all aspects of the fight against crime.
    Mr. Alun Michael: If the Minister is going to refer to the empty promises that were made by the Home Secretary in his speech to the Conservative party conference, I should be grateful if he would give simple answers to questions which have not been answered. When will he keep those promises? How much money will be provided? Where is the detail? The Minister has answered none of those questions because the matter has not been thought out.
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are approaching prorogation. He understands parliamentary procedure, he knows that the House will reconvene, he knows that there will be a state opening of Parliament, and he knows that there will be a Queen's Speech. My advice to him is to listen carefully to the Queen's Speech. No doubt he will learn more to his and to the country's advantage.
    1008
    I shall briefly remind the House of some of the measures that we have announced.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Wardle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress, but of course I give way. He knows that my good will is reasonably limitless. I shall give way to him once more and I hope that his colleagues will allow me to make progress.
    Mr. Maclennan: I apprehended that the Minister was about to leave the subject of crime prevention. Does he really think that it is defensible that the Government should spend on specific crime prevention measures a mere £15.2 million out of a total criminal justice budget of £8.6 billion?
    Mr. Wardle: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter. I can assure him that I intend to explode that myth shortly—nothing will give me greater satisfaction.
    I have referred to further powers for the police and the courts to tackle offending on bail. We will impose tougher sentences for offenders. We will double the maximum sentence in young offenders institutions to two years. New guidelines will be provided to tighten the use of cautioning by the police. There will be acceptance of all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which was directed at the Government to help victims of crime. We will abolish the right of silence. The Government are determined to help the police in their job of catching criminals.
    This afternoon, the House heard my right hon. and learned Friend announce his decisions on the Sheehy report —a report to the Government, not a report by the Government. Those decisions are a demonstration of the Government's commitment to support the police in their vital work.
    But that is by no means all that we are doing. As my right hon. and learned Friend announced this month, we are scrapping the restrictions on the use of DNA samples and reducing the paperwork burden on the police to free more officers for operational duty. The police need have no doubts about the continuing commitment of the Government to support their work.
    We are determined to make life tougher for persistent offenders and hardened criminals. We make absolutely no apology for that. But it has been suggested by Liberal Democrat Members that, in doing so, we are neglecting or abandoning efforts to prevent crime and tackle criminality at its roots. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply do not agree that being tough on crime and preventing crime through partnership must in some way be regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives. They are not. The Government remain totally committed to crime prevention and partnership.
    Before I outline the action that we are taking, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is completely misleading to suggest that less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of expenditure on the criminal justice system goes on crime prevention. In 1991–92 public expenditure on the criminal justice system in England and Wales was £8,700 million. During that year, over £5,400 million of that sum—62 per cent.—was expenditure on the police.

    1009
    What are the core functions of the police? We should look at the Police Service Statement of Common Purpose and Values. I quote the opening sentence:
    "The purpose of the Police Service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law;"
    The prevention of crime is one of the key functions of the police.
    In 1992–93, estimated expenditure on the police increased to £5,900 million. That is an increase in real terms of 83 per cent. since 1978–79. Therefore, it is nonsense to suggest that Government spending on crime prevention is insignificant. Nor does it make sense to look only at expenditure on the criminal justice system. We have estimated separately that other expenditure on crime prevention across Government Departments was £200 million in 1992–93, compared with £167 million in the previous year. That is an increase of about 20 per cent.
    If we look at Government spending on the inner cities on a wider front, we find that, taken together, expenditure on the Government's city challenge and urban programmes will increase from £319 million in 1992–93 to £408 million in the current financial year. Those programmes include crime prevention and community safety elements and provide significant additional benefits for inner city residents.
    So the repeated suggestion by Liberal Democrat Members that Government expenditure on crime prevention amounts to less than £20 million is both inaccurate and misleading. It is irresponsible and alarmist to understate the real extent of Government expenditure on crime prevention. In doing so, hon. Members merely underline the paucity of their contribution to the challenge of tackling crime.
    I shall return to the subject of partnership and crime prevention. Our partnership strategy has many strands to it.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wardle: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I wish to make some progress and not detain the House.
    Our partnership strategy has a number of clear aims: it must provide a range of opportunities for the public actively to support the police; it must seek to get agencies working together at the local level; and it must maintain partnership at the national level. The Government are taking effective action in all those areas. More members of the public are willing to help the police to tackle crime. But, of course, some are able to do more than others. That is why we have developed a range of opportunities for individuals who want to do their bit.
    The special constabulary has a long tradition of giving valuable public service. Being a special constable is the finest way in which ordinary people can help the police to crack crime. It forges a link between the police arid the community. It creates an additional resource which can allow the greater experience and training of regular officers to be put to the best use.
    The police reform White Paper recommended that the deployment of special constables should focus on tasks such as crime prevention and beat and patrol duties. In that way, they can contribute positively to reducing the fear and incidence of crime. That is why we are aiming to recruit an extra 10,000 special constables by 1996.
    1010
    Another way in which we hope to see special constables contribute is by volunteering to take part in the parish constable initiative. That initiative offers the local community the opportunity to have a real stake, if it wants it, in local arrangements for keeping the peace. We ran a competition to generate suggestions from parishes about what powers and responsibilities such a figure should have and we have based the pilot schemes on the two most common blueprints that emerged. Whether a local community ends up with a parish special constable or a parish warden, the process will involve a real partnership with the police.
    I come to neighbourhood watch to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland alluded in his speech.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to victim support schemes? Does he agree that a high proportion of the vast amount of money that is used to help organisations whose principal object is to help criminals should be shifted to victim support schemes?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will be aware that expenditure on victim support has increased to £8.7 million in the current year, so the emphasis is exactly as he described, and that victim support is represented on the National Board for Crime Prevention. Incidentally, that board has been looking at Home Office studies on repeat victimisation, among other things.
    I return to neighbourhood watch. As I said earlier, we now have 115,000 schemes across the country covering 5 million households. That is a considerable achievement.
    The second limb of our strategy on partnership is co-operation between agencies at the local level. On that, the way has been shown by our safer cities projects. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) is interested in safer cities. I am sorry that she is at least temporarily not in her place. I am sure that she will return.
    Safer cities is a successful programme. It has had many positive results in combating crime and the fear of it. Because of time constraints, I shall give only two examples. In Leicester, domestic burglaries in the South Highfields area were reduced by 62 per cent. as a result of security improvements. In Sunderland, over 3,000 elderly people who had security lights and locks fitted felt much safer in their homes. To revert to my earlier point, what should we do? Should we start other schemes, as we plan to do, or take off the locks and put them on again? I think that hon. Members understand the point.
    The safer cities programme has brought together local authorities, the police, probation, business and the voluntary sector in an effective partnership to fight crime. It has tackled local issues that are of real concern to local people. Since 1988, it has sponsored more than 3,300 individual crime prevention schemes with Home Office grant amounting to more than £20 million. By next March, 16 of the 20 current projects will have been running for more than four years. They are to be succeeded by 40 new projects which will be set up in new areas so that other parts of the country can benefit.
    Safer cities is not the only Government contribution to local partnership. Another example appeared this month, when the Home Office published a "Practical Guide to Crime Prevention for Local Partnerships". As I have said,

    1011
    the Departments throughout Whitehall make their contribution to crime prevention through their local programmes.
    We also have to demonstrate a commitment to crime prevention through national partnership, which is undertaken by the Ministerial Group on Crime Prevention and by the recently formed National Board for Crime Prevention. We have recruited talented people to the national board to identify best practice and to produce creative, innovative but above all practical ideas to prevent crime. The board is concentrating in the first instance on retail crime, on youth and crime and on car crime.
    The Opposition motion also referred to families and schools. There is strong evidence that children's experience of family life and their relationship with their parents play a significant role in whether they offend. Strong relationships between parents and children, with good communication, firm, affectionate and consistent discipline, an interest in the children's activities and schooling and effective supervision, can all increase the chance that children will grow up to respect other people and the law, and be able to withstand the temptations of crime.
    Some parents need support in the vital task of bringing up their children to respect the law and the Government welcome and encourage that kind of support. We are also anxious to ensure that schools provide a clear moral framework in which pupils can be prepared for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Many schools run programmes which help to provide that sort of preparation.
    The Department of Education's grant for the education support and training programme is supporting expenditure of about £10 million on schemes to reduce truancy, and of £4 million on the youth action scheme which involves youth work with youngsters who are at risk in 29 local education authority areas. The Department of the Environment's urban programme supports many projects in its 57 inner city target areas which are aimed at diverting known offenders and young people who are at risk of offending. I shall allude once again to the Home Office safer cities projects. Among many of those projects we are funding schemes associated with truancy and crime and with providing summer activities for young people to keep them off the streets and out of trouble.
    Crime and drugs, as the House is aware, are often related. There is a great deal of public concern about drug misuse. Parents and young people are worried about the risks to people who take drugs. The Government put a high priority on action to tackle drugs misuse. There is an extensive programme of action against drugs. Our laws against drug traffickers are among the toughest in the world and they are made still tougher by the Criminal Justice Act. There are policies designed to give effective treatment to those who take drugs and a wide range of action is in hand to stop others at risk—especially young people—from becoming involved with drugs in the first place. The Home Office drugs prevention initiative is working with several local communities to mobilise activity to prevent drugs misuse. The police service is often involved, not only to enforce the laws against supply and possession of drugs or to deal with the network of dealers, but to increase awareness of the dangers of drugs.
    1012
    In conclusion, I hope that the House will now appreciate the nonsense of the suggestion that less than £20 million is spent on crime prevention. I hope that the House will appreciate the comprehensive extent of the Government's contribution to crime prevention and their fight against crime. The Government are determined to crack down on crime and criminals, but we are equally determined to do all that we can to prevent crime in the first place. The Opposition motion failed to acknowledge the large amount of work that is being done, with full Government support, throughout the country.
    5.43 pm
    Mr. Alun Michael: I am delighted to speak in a debate about crime and crime prevention. It is interesting to notice the way in which the words of my hon. Friend the Member Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) caught the mood of the country in the past year. When he called for the Government to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, he went to the heart of the subject that we are debating. I only wish that the Government would catch up and start to take responsibility for their mistakes and failures.
    Mr. Nicholls rose—
    Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman be patient for a moment and allow me to reach the first comma in my first sentence before I give way?
    I only wish that the Government would start to take responsibility for their failure to tackle and prevent crime during the past 14 years.
    Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Member for Sedgefield has caught the mood of the country, why has not he caught the mood of his own parliamentary party? While the hon. Gentleman is savouring what I might be alluding to, would he care to look behind him?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be well aware of the interest that my hon. Friend has taken. He is responding to many aspects of the Sheehy report. Today's debate is a minor debate initiated by a minority party. My hon. Friends have been working in their communities, with their local police, with the people who are affected by crime and with their local authorities. I only wish that the same could be said of Conservative Members, because we have been confronting the problem of crime while the Minister has only offered us what the Home Secretary does: rhetoric.
    To hear the Minister's complacency today, one would think that a party other than the Conservative party had been running the country for the past 14 years. If the Minister has been so successful, why do the, facts demonstrate 14 years of failure? He talks about protecting the public; it is at the top of his agenda. It is far too low on his list of priorities.
    I was especially surprised that the Minister was so dismissive of the problem of violent crime. He said that violent crime had stayed at only 5 per cent. of total crime. As it was 5 per cent. of a bigger bulk of crime, violent crime increased by 126 per cent. since 1979, when the Conservatives came to office. The Minister should not dismiss that so lightly.
    The bulk of crimes that are recorded by the police in England and Wales has increased by more than 121 per

    1013
    cent. since 1979. That is bad enough. Burglary of homes has increased by more than 180 per cent. Theft from vehicles has increased by 243 per cent.
    Only one crime in 50 now leads to a punishment in court. Is the Minister proud of that record?
    Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the main cause of crime today is the breakdown of people's respect for each other, which took root in the 1960s, and that our failure to combat crime has been a result of our failure to resist libertarian attitudes towards crime? Does he agree that if either of the two socialist parties had been in power for the past 14 years, the resistance to those attitudes would have been even weaker?
    Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the words of the Home Secretary before last, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), he would have heard him confess:
    "We have created a me society."
    Yes; it is selfishness, but under the Conservative Government that selfishness has not only flourished but been encouraged. If the Home Secretary before last could confess that, I wish that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister would be equally generous. I wish that they would consider the terrible consequences of their mismanagement of the country and consider what is happening in the criminal justice system.
    The Minister said that one of the most important crime prevention measures was the capture and punishment of the offender. The number of cases that came to the magistrates court decreased from 1.57 million in 1988–89 to 1.53 million last year, despite a 50 per cent. increase in crime; is that a sign of success? The number of cases that are withdrawn or dismissed at magistrates courts has increased by 50 per cent. since 1987; is that a cause for celebration? The number of cases that come to trial at the Crown court has decreased by 8,000 since 1986, in a period of rising crime. The number of cases that were discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service before they came to court has increased by 78 per cent. since 1987–88. Those are the facts—on the very ground that the Minister chooses—which show that the Government have failed to tackle crime.
    Despite the promise that some of us wrung out of the Home Secretary in February 1991, of secure places to end the scandal of youngsters being held in adult, prison accommodation, not one additional secure place for juvenile offenders has been provided during that time. Not only that, the statistics from the National Bed Bureau in Leeds, which co-ordinates requests from local authorities for secure places to house young offenders, show that during the past year more than 400 requests for such places had to be turned down. That does not count the requests which were not made because people knew what the answer would be. That is the extent of the Government's failure on the grounds that the Minister chooses to count as important.
    The Labour party's approach is to be tough on crime and tough on its causes. When people persist in crime, they must be punished. Projects based on partnership, where the police, local authorities and the public work together to fight crime, have been shown to work. I see that the Minister agrees with me about that.
    From the Government, we need the leadership to put practical measures into effect throughout the country. Labour has offered that leadership, yet the Home Secretary
    1014
    failed to implement the Home Office's report on crime prevention—the Morgan report—which offered a blueprint for putting partnership into operation nationwide.
    The Minister may come to the House and talk of partnership, but the Home Secretary and the Government have consistently thrown sensible plans into the waste paper basket.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: On the issue of the punishment fitting the crime, what is the hon. Gentleman's view of young offenders being taken abroad to France or Portugal, using charge payers' money, and re-offending when they come back into the community?
    Mr. Michael: Programmes for young offenders should be tough, should confront their behaviour and should construct the opportunity for youngsters to come back into the community less likely to re-offend because they have been offered an element of constructive hope and discipline during their time in either secure or local authority accommodation.
    Before the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked such a facile question he should have found out more about the details of schemes supported by the Government and the Home Office. The Labour party has made constructive proposals, which have been voted down by the Government—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen if they are interested in such issues—I believe that they are not. They voted down our proposals to cut offending while on bail, through bail enforcement and support schemes. They voted down the expansion of witness and victim support schemes. They voted down making the Crown Prosecution Service consult victims before dropping or reducing charges. They voted down faster action when youngsters start to get into trouble—with the cautioning plus schemes among others. They voted down speeding up the criminal justice system, to get quicker court decisions on persistent young offenders. And they voted down placing a statutory responsibility on local authorities to work with the police and local communities to fight crime. That is the Government's record—failure on the grounds that the Minister selected, and voting down the Opposition's positive proposals.
    Recently, the Home Secretary said that thousands of people live in fear of the burglar coming back and that too many people are imprisoned in their own homes, afraid to go out in case they are attacked or burgled. That is the legacy of 14 years of Tory rule.—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members want to gossip among themselves because they do not take these issues seriously. There has been a 120 per cent. increase in recorded crime, but all that they can do is gossip and laugh during this debate.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people are afraid to go out, especially in urban areas. In the city of Exeter, which is adjacent to my constituency, people are afraid to go into the shopping areas in the city centre. For seven years the crime prevention panel in Exeter has been trying to persuade Labour members of Exeter city council to agree to closed circuit television cameras, but in the interests of individual and civil liberties they have opposed them.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady should check her facts. She should also consider that Labour councillors often take the initiative, but that the finance is voted down by the

    1015
    Conservatives. I have found that out from my visits to Labour authorities throughout the country. The hon. Lady should be impressed by the initiatives that Labour councillors and Labour Members of Parliament have taken to tackle the problems of crime. If she is so interested in the subject, why did she join her colleagues in the Lobby to vote down the sensible proposals to which I referred?
    The Minister also referred to racially motivated violence and domestic violence. It made a sorry scene when Conservative Members laughed and mocked the references that have been made to those serious problems. Parliament has a duty to send out the sort of clear message that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has provided.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to at least a sentence he might understand some of my arguments. I realise that Conservative Members have been pushed into the Chamber to try to disrupt this debate. I am sure that that is a matter of regret to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who opened it. I understand their embarrassment—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is about time that the House settled down.
    Mr. Michael: Hon. Members will be aware that we have a limited amount of time for this debate. I am trying to offer a serious solution to the problem of racially motivated violence. Parliament has a duty to send out the sort of clear message that was provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and Conservative Members should realise that. I ask the Minister to take back this message and to accept the plea for legislation to bear down on racially motivated attacks.
    If the Minister is so proud of partnership measures, such as the safer cities programme, why did his Department send out a letter on 28 May to instruct co-ordinators of those projects not to provide information to a Member of Parliament who was trying to find out about their success and their future funding—open government, my foot! The Minister should be ashamed about that. Despite that instruction, we were able to study the progress of the safer cities programme, which confirmed something that the Labour party has been saying for years: if we put in a little extra money to enable a partnership to develop in inner cities, we will be able to reduce crime.
    So the project proved a point that we have been making to the Minister and his predecessors for some years. What has happened, however? The Minister boasted that he has doubled the number of safer city programmes. He knows full well that the original 16 projects are running out of cash this financial year and that finance is not available locally to pick up the burden. He knows that the new projects will not have sufficient finances. They are talking about an amount that is only 30 per cent. of the money provided to the original projects, which will also have fewer staff and have not been given a time scale. That is not doubling the programme, but cutting it. It is a cut masquerading as an increase.
    1016
    Should the Minister or the Home Secretary have wished to do so, they had the opportunity to answer parliamentary questions this week to show their commitment to the development of the safer cities programmes. They failed.
    Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If we are to have a partnership against crime, is it not time that the Labour party stopped making party political points and joined the Government in their fight against crime? Is it not time that they stopped voting against every measure that the Government introduce, supported us on the prevention of terrorism and said in strong words that the ringleaders of crime must be punished, and punished hard?
    Mr. Michael: Earlier in this debate the hon. Gentleman was giggling and gossiping with his colleagues when I listed the measures that he, his hon. Friends and Ministers voted down. They voted down a series of measures such as those intended to be tough on bail bandits.
    Mr. Heald rose—
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is not serious. If he were he would have joined us in the Lobby on that occasion—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That vote was before I came to the House. I was certainly not involved in it. However, I served on the Committee of the Criminal Justice Bill with the hon. Gentleman and heard the Labour party's namby-pamby posturing. It is time that Labour joined the Government and got tough on crime.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair and the hon. Gentleman should know that.
    Mr. Michael: Not only is it not a point of order, but it is not true. The hon. Gentleman was a Member in June and July this year and I believe that he was in attendance. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but the voting record in Hansard shows that he voted down the measures that we proposed and showed his lack of commitment to tough action on bail bandits. The Labour party has done precisely what he asked—consistently put forward constructive proposals to deal with crime and the causes of crime week in and week out in this Chamber and outside, and Ministers have not accepted our advice or suggestions.
    The Minister also suggested that drugs are a high priority. He should explain how the Government's irresponsible actions have helped the fight against drugs and drug-related crime. The Government have cut drugs education, voted down the use of money from drug trafficking to cut drug use, and cut cash and facilities for the rehabilitation of drug offenders.
    Victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system. Earlier this year we pointed out that money was needed if victim support schemes were to be developed around the country. The reply that I received from the Minister yesterday dealt a blow to any hope that he would act on his fine words by supporting victim support schemes. At this stage in the financial year just £200,000 would allow the expansion of those schemes to continue, but he has not come up with the money. Three vital services could be complete throughout England and Wales in two years if the Home Secretary came up with the extra £2.3 million for the next financial year. Those are: the

    1017
    basic service of victim support; upgrading services across the country so that they can deal with victims and those affected by serious crimes like rape and murder; and providing witness support schemes in each Crown court, because the system now only covers 50 per cent. of courts.
    So many prosecutions fail because of the lack of witnesses or because witnesses are afraid to come forward and give evidence. Our criminal justice system must make it easier for witnesses to come forward and help to bring criminals to justice. That is not a soft option, but an essential part of being tough on crime.
    In June the Home Secretary failed to respond to our plea. This week he gave the answer again: no change in the planning figure; no extra money. So the Minister must not just talk nicely about helping victims but must come up with the goods if he really believes what he says. I regret that we have had too many strong words and not enough action by the Minister and the Government to deal with those problems.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: What is my hon. Friend's response to the demands voiced in a number of English tabloids that anonymity should be removed from complainants in rape and sexual assault cases? Does he agree that, were the protection of anonymity removed from women in such cases, fewer women would be willing to report such dreadful crimes?
    Mr. Michael: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. There are grave dangers that one case may lead to ill-thought-out changes in the law. The present law is correcting a problem that has existed for many years—the discouragement of many women from reporting rape cases. I hope that the Minister agrees that that approach should be maintained. It is another matter that illustrates the fact that we need to get the law right to encourage people to be confident that the criminal justice system will help them in their difficulties.
    The criminal justice system deals with only 2 per cent. of offences. The whole of our society should be geared to preventing and reducing crime. The Government have not realised or accepted the extent to which they have encouraged the general problem in recent years. They have encouraged the failure of family life, selfishness and a great deal of lawlessness in our society. Ministers should face up to that.
    May I summarise briefly our approach because I have taken many interventions, which inevitably takes time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, we are determined to be tough on crime and the causes of crime. Unlike the Conservative party, we are determined not to be trapped into the nonsensical polarisation in which it is suggested that one party believes in punishment and the other in prevention. We believe in both and that a balance must be struck, but we also believe that it makes no sense for society to fail to prevent youngsters and adults from reaching the point where they must be locked up. As the Minister acknowledges, although not in legislation, a great deal can be done, but only if the causes are understood. Those include the direct causes that may be rooted in family or damaging experiences for the individual and the indirect causes, such as the environment—the street or estate—which appear to reward delinquency.
    In getting those things right the criminal justice system, in its wider sense, must give the right message to those who
    1018
    offend, especially youngsters when they first get involved in crime. If our own youngsters commit an offence or do something wrong we correct them and, if necessary, punish them. But we do it today, not tomorrow, next week, or in six or nine months' time, as so often happens within our criminal justice system. The quicker the intervention, the more logical it is, the more it relates directly to the event, and the less the need to rant, rave or punish. Moreover, it has a better effect on future behaviour.
    That is why it is so important that, in those aspects of dealing with young people and those who start to be involved in offending, and in the health of our communities, which has an influence on crime, the Government should take more action and recognise the interrelationship between education and crime. For instance, 50 per cent. of truants but only 16 per cent. of non-truants offend. The fragmentation of the education system is the Government's responsibility and Ministers should face up to that.
    I therefore call on the Minister, in responding to this debate, to recognise the Government's failings and the need for the criminal justice system, in its wider sense, in the courts and outside, to be fast, firm, fair and effective. The tough words are no use unless we have those positive actions. We need prevention as well as action after crime has been committed.
    6.6 pm
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) had caught the mood of the nation. He certainly has not caught the mood of his side of the House because there is no one here. Normally, when such a remark is made, as it was by one of my hon. Friends, a Labour Member goes out of the Chamber and brings hon. Members in from the Tea Room. Clearly, that could not be done because hon. Members are not even in the Tea Room.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware of the announcement that we heard today and the degree to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield must respond to it. I presume that that is why the hon. arid learned Gentleman was absent from the Chamber for a considerable part of the earlier debate.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I was not absent for more than five minutes, but that is not the point. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has not even inspired his party with the mood of the need for law and order.
    We have just heard a brave but impertinent speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, bearing in mind his party's history on law and order.
    This is the first time that I have ever seen the Liberal Democrats present in a law and order debate, except for the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). When they say that they are the party of law and order, it is interesting to note that they supported Labour against the Conservative Government in the Public Order Act 1986, when we sought to deal with street disorder; in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when we sought to strengthen police powers on stop and search; and in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, when we tried to introduce tough measures to stop the abuse of illegal immigrants.
    Goodness knows what they got up to in Tower Hamlets, but I am sure that their racial activity in that area did not

    1019
    calm law and order. The idea that the Liberal Democrat party is the party of law and order is as laughable as the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that the hon. Member for Sedgefield captured the mood of the nation. The mood of the nation shows concern about the high level of crime, but there are misconceptions about the issue and the debate is an opportunity to explain some of them.
    The level of crime is high in this country, but it is probably higher in most other countries in Europe and the civilised west. Britain is still one of the safest nations in which to walk the streets. Per head of population, we have half the number of murders in France. People are half as likely to be violently or sexually assaulted in this country as they are in Norway or Australia.
    Recently, a delegation from the Home Affairs Select Committee went to the United States—one of its distinguished members, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), is present—for advice on how best to deal with our hardcore of 300 to 400 persistent juvenile offenders. The Americans asked, "In which town or city are the 300 or 400 to be found?" The delegation replied that the figure referred to persistent juvenile offenders in the whole country. "You must be joking," the Americans replied, "we have that number in every town and city in the United States."
    I do not for one moment suggest that we should not be working with all our might to reduce the high level of crime in this country. However, we should bear in mind not only, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that only 5 per cent. of all our crime is violent but that the incidence of crime here is not as high as in other countries. We should also consider the fact that everybody now has telephones; there are 30,000 more policemen on the beat; there are 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, in which people look out for criminal offences; one cannot make an insurance claim unless the crime is first reported to the police. In addition, women now find it more acceptable to complain about sexual harassment and assault to the police, who are friendlier—as are the courts, and the judicial and criminal justice system. Those factors mean that a significant part of the apparent increase in crime is due to increased reporting.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is experienced in the subject and has introduced an interesting note into the debate. Did he contemplate making a speech on similar terms to the Conservative party conference?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: The speeches that were made at the Conservative party conference were much better than anything that I could make and attracted the massive support of the British people. If the Liberal party's debates on prostitution had received the same support from the public as those at the Conservative party conference, the Liberals would be overjoyed.
    I do not want to waste time on the absurd suggestion that the Government have been doing nothing about lawlessness as I know other hon. Members wish to speak. My hon. Friend the Minister set out a long list, not only of actions that have been taken by the Government, but of the achievements that have resulted. I shall give two examples of those achievements. There was a time when there was a
    1020
    massive incidence of crime on London transport. When one used the underground, one could not be sure that one would not be mugged. We debated the subject in the Chamber. That crime has practically been stopped as a result of Conservative Government measures.
    There was a time when we always complained about telephone kiosks being vandalised and the fact that we could never make a telephone call because telephone boxes were always full up, filthy or unusable. Now we can happily make telephone calls from public kiosks, which brings a great deal of credit not only to the Government but to the industries that have proliferated under a Conservative regime. There have been decisive improvements, apart from the statistical improvements listed by my hon. Friend the Minister.
    Other hon. Members have mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's 27 excellent pledges for action to tighten further the various existing measures to get to grips with the high crime rate. In the dying moments of my speech, I should like to draw attention to issues that will still require action. My right hon. and learned Friend must consider the necessary action in more depth.
    Identity cards would undoubtedly help to reduce crime. That instrument has been staring us in the face for years and we have ignored it. Now that it is possible to see the great savings that could be made through the reduction of social security fraud and people realise that nearly everybody already has some sort of identity card, it might be possible to persuade the public to accept identity cards. That would substantially reduce not only social security fraud but all types of crime, particularly terrorism.
    Two days ago, members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs were in Manchester. The Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into computer pornography. Appalling possibilities arise from our young children being confined to their rooms and watching computer video display units. They do not even have to have satellite television or video films, but can receive the most appalling and repulsive filth down the telephone line. I think that all members of the Select Committee, whatever their party, were appalled at the prospect. Something must be done about that problem. We must also do something about pornography generally, which is beginning to envelop our children. It is one thing for adults to have the freedom to get up to what they like in private; however, we are talking about children, young people, the next generation—the future of this country—who must be protected.
    Television violence is linked to the problem. We keep saying that something must be done about it, but actually do nothing. The Select Committee on Home Affairs went to the United States earlier this year during its inquiry into domestic violence. One of our interlocutors said that, in her assessment, the American child attending school for the first time had already seen more than 2,000 murders on his television at home. Such viewing brainwashes a child to accept the most repulsive violence.
    It is not enough to ask television companies not to broadcast violence until after 9 pm or even 10 pm. In today's society children stay up late and, if they know that there is to be a programme that they want to see, they will stay up late to watch it—heaven help the parent who tries to stop that happening. Postive action must be taken. If we have to legislate against the television companies to stop

    1021
    them showing such violence when children can watch television, the Government must seriously consider that alternative.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that when I complained to the Broadcasting Standards Council on behalf of my constituents about a particularly vile programme that had been broadcast on the public television network, I was told that the content was justified by its context? I responded by saying that if the network made programmes about foulmouthed people, the content would always be justified by the context. Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the job being done by the Broadcasting Standards Council?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I am not. We must look at the problem and take action. I see that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is a serious issue which must be addressed.
    On the issue of drugs, in Manchester the Select Committee on Home Affairs looked at racial attacks—a serious and worrying problem. We must take action to stop it. It was interesting that we were told by the Manchester police that there were 300,000 criminal incidents last year, of which 400 involved racial attacks and half—150,000 —were drug related. We are about to be overwhelmed—if we have not already been—by the problem of drugs; it has to be dealt with, and not by distinguished members of the judiciary suggesting legalising or licensing drugs, either. If we legalise cannabis, we will just whet the appetites of children for more and more hard drugs, and create more crime.
    Mrs. Browning: It has already been mentioned that the Liberal Democrat party's Scottish conference voted to legalise the possession of cannabis—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it was made clear to me only a few months ago by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that any resolution passed by Liberal Democrat conferences is official policy, whereas what appears in consultation documents is not.
    Is it not true that the young people who purchase cannabis in the street buy it from the very people who will also supply them with crack, cocaine and all the other hard drugs?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree. I must remind the House that the police have been active in this matter, as have Customs and Excise officials. The number of seizures rose from 200 in 1987 to 1,005 last year, and it continues to rise. We must direct more of our law enforcement agencies to the detection and prevention of drug trafficking. The courts must impose more savage sentences, too.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: I fully agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the courts. In my constituency, seven men were arrested for drug dealing, yet the courts let them off scot free. Thousands of man hours had been spent trying to catch those folk, and we managed to catch them —but the court sent them out again, and now they are back dealing in drugs.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: If we can achieve all-party support for strengthening the deterrents, this debate will have achieved a great deal.
    Removing the right to silence will not in itself prevent a great deal more crime, but it will reassure everyone that
    1022
    the criminal justice system is working. It will also reassure the police who will know, when they arrest criminals, that there is a reasonable chance of conviction in a court of law. They will know that it is worth doing what our police forces ought to do to bring people to justice. That will help to restore their morale.
    I deplore the intemperate, over-the-top statement made today by the president of the Law Society. He seems to be quite unaware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of judges are in favour of allowing the prosecution and the judges to comment on a failure to give an explanation when an explanation would be reasonably called for. The vast majority of the British people think likewise.
    It is a pity when some of our leading judicial personages make remarks that sound like they are saying that prison does not work or deter, so let us not bother about prisons. No one who has anything to do with the criminal justice system can believe for a moment that prison is not a deterrent to a large number of people. The longer a sentence, the more a deterrent it is likely to be, quite apart from the obvious fact that removing from society a burglar who would otherwise commit 13 burglaries in a year—that can be multiplied by 10,000—represents a great decrease in the amount of crime that will take place.
    More attention must be paid not to well-meaning judges, however distinguished, but to the whole judiciary and the whole legal profession, not to mention police officers and all who are concerned from day to day with crime. They all believe that one of the most effective ways of preventing crime is deterrence. Everyone knows that I am in favour of the restoration of capital punishment; it would do more than anything else to prevent violent crime. I accept that such restoration is unlikely, but for goodness sake let us build up a system of deterrents—in line with what the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) wants for drug traffickers—so that the message will go out from this place that we expect our judges to impose heavy deterrent sentences on the worst offenders.
    By no stretch of the imagination could it seriously be said that the Government are doing nothing about crime. The public will be reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister's speech today, and they will be in no doubt that this party intends to continue to be what it always has been, the party of law and order.
    6.24 pm
    Mrs. Diana Maddock: Politics is about people. It is not an exact science; unpredictable events take place and they can bring about great changes. One such event was the sad death at a relatively early age of my predecessor, Robert Adley. For Parliament, that has meant the loss of one of its more colourful Members, respected and admired on both sides of the House. For his wife and sons, it has meant the loss of a loved husband and father.
    Robert Adley was a Back Bencher, but I believe that he was better known than many of our junior Ministers. Once he took up a cause, he gave it his all. He opposed the Government on the poll tax and on the privatisation of hits great love, the railways. When he died, he was the Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, and he worked tirelessly on a report that gained all-party support.
    Robert Adley stood up for what he believed in. He was also a first-class constituency Member. He enjoyed overwhelming support ever since he was first elected as

    1023
    Member for Christchurch and Lymington in 1972. He continued to represent Christchurch after the 1982 boundary changes until his sad and untimely death.
    Robert once said of himself:
    "I don't take myself or life too seriously. I wouldn't mind appearing on 'Spitting Image' as long as I was portrayed wearing a train guard's hat and smoking my pipe."
    Recent events have led to a great deal of publicity for Christchurch, and many people will have gained the impression that my constituency is all coastal, with beautiful beaches, a magnificent harbour, an ancient priory church and a marvellous bowling green reminiscent of a previous age—not to mention a population all over 60.
    Some of those impressions are true, which is probably why tourism is one of the main industries in my constituency and why so many people have chosen to move to the area. Behind that image, however, the reality is a little different. The constituency stretches north away from the coast to include the communities of Ferndown, West Moors and Verwood. There are the villages of Burton and Hurn; there is part of the beautiful Avon valley; and there is also Bournemouth international airport. Twelve per cent. of the constituency is Forestry Commission land. Local people use the area for recreation, and they want to keep access to those forests.
    There are also many young people in the constituency. There are many people with young families, attracted to the area in the boom years. Many of them work in high-tech, high-skilled defence and aviation-related industries. But there are problems—including problems with schools, homes, jobs and travel. The children of Dorset are not getting a fair deal. Hampshire children just a few miles up the road receive on average £88 per pupil per year more in Government grant than do the children of Dorset. I hope that the Chancellor will redress that difference in next year's financial settlement for Dorset. The local citizens advice bureaux are dealing with more and more mortgage repossessions, and other families cannot move because of their negative equity. Meanwhile, our housing waiting lists are longer than ever.
    Unemployment in my constituency has trebled in the past two years. The biggest commercial letting in Christchurch this year was to the Government, doubling the size of the jobcentre. Many of the jobs that we have lost are in the defence and defence-related industries.
    There are many carers in my constituency, and many of them are elderly women who need support as they try to look after their elderly partners, many of whom have been dismissed from hospital far too early to make room for others. Here, too, I hope that we shall get a better settlement for Dorset from the Chancellor next year.
    Rail services are now non-existent in the northern part of my constituency and buses are also rare. Recently, the train service to Christchurch was cut. Many of my constituents rely on such services to get to hospitals in Southampton, Poole and Portsmouth, and many more travel to schools and colleges by train.
    Those are just some of the problems that I highlighted in my by-election campaign, and I intend to continue to highlight them and to fight for a fair deal for the people of Christchurch and east Dorset—the people who have given me support not only at my election but since that time whenever I have met them.
    1024
    I am fairly sure that the Government did not intend the timing of the by-election to be helpful to me, but in the almost three months before I signed the book in the House, I had a chance to meet many of my constituents. Therefore, I am in no doubt that the two main concerns in people's minds in Christchurch are the proposed imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and the fear of crime. There is absolutely no doubt that many elderly people and others on low incomes—often the people who most need heat—will be badly hit if the Government go ahead with their VAT plans. My constituents are angry, and they will be greatly disappointed if the Government fail to listen to the view that they expressed at the ballot box.
    In addition, for more and more people, the real fear of crime is destroying their quality of life. There must be action to prevent crime, and people must be able to feel safe in their homes and on their streets. Business men and women must feel that they can earn a living without their premises being burgled almost weekly, for that is the reality for some in my constituency.
    I am particularly pleased to have been given the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this Liberal Democrat-proposed debate on crime prevention. Much is being done in my constituency to cut crime through local crime prevention schemes. In Highcliffe, the local home beat officer has worked with local people to set up home watch schemes. He has worked with shopkeepers in the village to set up the Highcliffe traders shop watch scheme, which has been established to help local shop workers work together in an effort to deter the criminal element and prevent crimes such as shoplifting, fraud and theft.
    A similar scheme has been instigated in Christchurch. I was in my constituency yesterday and I understand that good progress is being made on that. People in the north of my constituency in Verwood have also been active in crime prevention and have won awards. The East Dorset district crime prevention panel has been most effective in cutting car park crime. If such schemes are to continue to prosper, and if the police and the community are to come together, to get other schemes off the ground, they will need Government support and recognition. Above all, they will need the tools to do the job.
    Last year in my county of Dorset, the chief constable was given no extra officers when he requested them from the Home Secretary. This year, he estimates that he will need 97 more officers to do the job properly, but so far all that he has had is the Sheehy report which he estimates would, in its original form, have cut his estimates by 48. I look forward to hearing in some detail from the Home Secretary exactly where the 3,000 extra officers that he spoke about will come from.
    That has not been all, because the Home Secretary's White Paper proposes to remove many of the elected members on our police authorities—500 throughout Britain. How can our police be responsive to local needs when their hands are tied at every turn? I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to the police and will support them. I hope that he will listen to the thousands of my constituents who want more police on their streets to deter the criminals and make people feel safer. I trust that he will give the chief constable of Dorset the extra policemen we need and for which the chief constable has asked. I hope that the Home Secretary will support the local councils and community groups that are coming together with the police to put into effect practical measures that cut crime. I hope

    1025
    that the Home Secretary will put crime prevention as high on his agenda as we put it on ours, and as high as my constituents put it.
    In the definition of the police constable's duty from Robert Peel's time to the present day, prevention has always come before detection. We can prevent crime if we all work together—the community, the police, local councils and central Government. The people of Christchurch and east Dorset elected me because I listened and spoke up about those concerns and real problems. I intend to go on doing that. I have brought their message here and I hope that the Government will listen and will act accordingly.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. Rupert Allason: I welcome the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) to the House. She succeeds a doughty campaigner and a greatly respected parliamentarian. Robert Adley was Chairman of the Select Committee and had an encyclopedic knowledge of the railways. He made consistently marvellous and independent contributions to our debates. I commend the hon. Lady on her eloquence and look forward to her future contributions. I hope that she will continue her predecessor's proud tradition of independence which ensured that the people of Dorset, and Christchurch in particular, were well represented in the House.
    I draw the House's attention to early-day motion 2448 which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. It was received with some astonishment in my constituency, and especially by the police, because it states:
    "That this House … notes in particular the reduction in the incidence of common crimes such as burglary and car theft of up to 80 per cent. at relatively little cost, such as those schemes operated by the Liberal Democrat-led authorities in Torbay, …"
    and it goes on to mention other places.
    I have come across several examples of political opportunism, but that early-day motion takes the cake. Quite apart from the fact that it is sheer nonsense because crime in my constituency has not been reduced by 80 per cent.—I wish that it had been—the idea that it was reduced as a result of a Liberal Democrat initiative is absolute hogwash. There has been a considerable reduction in vandalism on council property in Torbay, but that is no thanks to the Liberal Democrats.
    On the contrary, the one initiative in my constituency to prevent crime was the introduction of closed-circuit television. That was suggested by me in 1991, and at an emergency meeting of the council in June 1992 it was proposed that closed-circuit television should be introduced in car parks and other public areas in my constituency.
    I took that initiative because of an incident of crowd disorder outside a nightclub. Because a video camera was situated outside the entrance to the nightclub, the police were able to identify the person responsible for starting the fight and arrest him. Using the video tape, they managed to get a conviction. I was impressed by that. The emergency meeting of Torbay borough council was initiated by the Conservative group, and it introduced the widespread use of surveillance cameras. Remarkably, that measure was opposed by the Liberal Democrats. Not only was it opposed by the Liberal Democrats, but, because they had control of the council, they actually defeated the motion and they are now taking the credit for introducing it.
    1026
    I have come across a great deal of humbug in my time, but the proposition that 80 per cent. of common crime such as burglary and car theft has been eliminated caused derision in Paignton police station when I reported the text. It is certainly political opportunism.
    Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am delighted to know of his interest in crime prevention. Will he give Torbay borough council credit for introducing the vandal report phone line and the security controls which have had a striking effect in reducing vandalism, as has been recognised in the community?
    Mr. Allason: First, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that I have had a long involvement in crime prevention, including spending seven years as a Metropolitan police special constable, so I have a long interest in the subject. Secondly, in relation to the initiative taken by the police in my constituency in conjunction with Torbay borough council, it is quite true that damage caused to council property has been reduced from expenditure of around £180,000 to £70,000 or £80,000 last year. I welcome that. I am very much in favour of the prevention of crime, but I am not in favour of the political opportunism which stands in the hon. Gentleman's name.
    Let me draw the House's attention to the safe resort scheme of which that security initiative was part. We hope and intend to show visitors to and residents of resorts around the country that the English seaside resort is a place to which people can bring their children, which tourists can visit in safety and where local residents do not have to be afraid when they leave their homes.
    In my discussions with magistrates, the police and the probation service, one particular problem has been consistently highlighted. The greatest cause for concern is youth crime and young offenders. In Devon, there are only about 22 or 24 persistent young offenders who cause a large proportion of the crime, but the problem is greater in my constituency because some owners of residential homes have been importing problem children.
    One of the difficulties that I would like the Minister to address when he replies to the debate is the problem of young offenders, which is exacerbated by the fact that, provided that children's homes have fewer than four residents, they do not need to be registered with the local authority.
    A great deal of crime is committed in my constituency by very young offenders who take advantage of the current legislation which prevents them from being restrained if they are under 15. That means that on some occasions a youngster who has stolen a car and been arrested in pursuit by the police has been taken to the police station, released into the custody of the children's home, and then, within the same shift, has been caught for a second time later that evening committing another crime on the streets.
    It is not unusual for some young offenders under the age of 15 to be responsible for up to 200 burglaries. Near one establishment, a local resident has had his car broken into 20 times and has now given up reporting the break-ins to the police.
    Under current legislation, it is impossible for the owner of the home to restrain the children as standing in front of a child or in any way physically restraining a child could lead to a charge of assault. I hope that, when the Government take the initiative and introduce the new

    1027
    secure high supervision accommodation that is so desperately needed to deal with young offenders, they will ensure that the new establishments are up and running by June.
    Although the staff of the establishments are extremely dedicated and determined to solve the problems of the young people, they create a tremendous difficulty for local residents. I would like to manifest the anxiety that has been expressed by residents who live nearby.
    All too often there has been a tendency to criticise local authorities and people who are responsible for young offenders. Let me give the House an example. I am aware of the case of a 10-year-old girl who was brought to my constituency for respite and emergency care in a children's home. The problem at the heart of her offences was that she was having problems with her pimp.
    Another example involves a 14-year-old boy. I spent some time trying to sort out his problems. He has been shunted around the country by Avon social services who are only too pleased to get rid of him and park him on another authority. When I spoke to the youngster, I discovered that he had not seen a teacher or received any education for 10 months; he had been through half a dozen different children's homes and it was clear that Avon social services were not prepared to take responsibility for him. As a result of that, he was caught five times in one week driving up the motorway to Bristol in stolen cars.
    Some of the youngsters have very severe problems. It is too glib and superficial to say that the fact that somebody is willing to take such a youngster sailing on the North sea for two or three weeks while he is on remand is an expensive solution that provides the youngster with a holiday. The residents who live next door to residential establishments are pleased that some young offenders are in the North sea and not in the locality.
    There are no easy solutions, but the Government must establish facilities where young offenders can be supervised and those establishments must be running by June. There are few deterrents that work, but I believe that high supervision, high discipline and a high training regime will deter. It will also give youngsters who have had appalling lives and home backgrounds where nobody gives a damn about them some security and discipline.
    In reality, the greatest deterrent is the certainty of being caught. That means involving the whole community. The fact that somebody driving off the M25 can see a woman being attacked and drive past and ignore her shows what is happening to our community. We need a greater willingness by all members of the community to get involved and to prevent crime instead of looking the other way.
    Based on my own experience in the Metropolitan police special constabulary, let me say that it is a two-way street. The specials do a tremendous job; they also have a tremendous influence on the regulars. I welcome the Government's commitment to the special constabulary. It is not a cheap option, but the specials have a real contribution to make and in their local communities they can not only catch the criminals, but, more importantly, can prevent crime.
    I am grateful for having had the opportunity to catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the central worry that, to
    1028
    reduce crime, we have to tackle the problem of youth offenders, and to do that we must lock them up. We also have to ensure that the people who are responsible for those youngsters have the power to restrain them, instead of being in the ludicrous position that they could find themselves on assault charges simply by standing in their way as they leave home to commit a crime.
    6.49 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I will not intrude into the battle of Torbay, as to whether the Liberal Democrats or the Government are responsible for various welcome improvements. However, I will join the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in paying a well justified tribute to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), which was felicitously drafted and delivered, and which paid a well-deserved and glowing tribute to her predecessor—a well-loved, well-respected hon. Member who is sorely missed. I only hope that the hon. Lady follows proudly and independently in the path that her predecessor trod and builds up the same reputation that he enjoyed.
    Law and order and crime prevention are high on the agenda of our constituents, and Members of Parliament ignore that at their peril. Our constituents will not be impressed with the international comparisons drawn by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). They look at the situation in their own areas and see it worsening. I remind the hon. and learned Member that, in his own county of Staffordshire, since 1979 robberies have increased by 452 per cent., home burglaries by 356 per cent. and all offences by 164 per cent. Constituents will not be mollified or satisfied by comparisons or suggestions that matters are not as bad as they appear.
    The reality for our constituents is that they are less secure in their person and in their homes. I do not pretend to claim that is due to any particular party or policy over the years. In 1979, the then respected Home Secretary claimed that the answer to crime, which would deliver the goods, was the short, sharp shock. Recently, the Home Affairs Select Committee received evidence from the Home Office showing in clear terms that the reconviction rate of offenders who went through that process, which was promised to deliver so much, was no different from that of offenders who underwent other forms of treatment. We should have a little humility and a greater willingness to consider the facts and learn wherever we can about good practice elsewhere.
    Crime prevention can be viewed at various levels. Yesterday, the Lord Chief Justice said in another place that the greatest measure of crime prevention is detection and the greatest deterrent the prospect of detection. That should lead us to review police staffing, the tools available to the police, and the cries of chief constables throughout the country—as in Dorset—that they are not getting the officers that they seek.
    Only yesterday, the chief constable of South Wales pointed out that there will have to be a reduction in the civilian force and the transfer from operational duties of uniformed officers to compensate. That police authority has a deficit of million, which suggests that the force is not being given the tools for the job. Later, I can show the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department a report

    1029
    in my local newspaper revealing that South Wales' high-tech police forensic department is housed in a garden shed because of lack of resources.
    I accept that demands are infinite and that we can seek only to meet an ever-growing menace to our society. Another change worth making is to the architecture and lighting of housing estates, as well as making cars more burglar-proof.
    Members of the Home Affairs Select Committee were shocked at revelations made on their recent visit to Manchester of the increasing relationship between drugs and crime levels. What can be done to deal with that on both the supply and demand side? I checked some of the statistics given by Greater Manchester police with those provided by my local police force in South Wales. Although there is clearly much less of a menace from heroin in South Wales, some of the facts are just as relevant.
    Greater Manchester police produced a document charting the period from 1981–91 in relation to the use of heroin and the increase in crime, which purports to show how the average daily intake of heroin by addicts is necessarily linked to the inexorable rise in crime. All of us should examine those figures and learn the necessary lessons from them.
    The average addict uses 1 g of heroin per day at a cost of £80. The figure for South Wales is slightly more at about £90. Greater Manchester police calculated the cost to the public of passing on stolen goods, which is one of the main ways that addicts obtain the cash to feed their addiction. The average annual cost of heroin per addict is £29.200. Given that few people can obtain that sum legitimately, much of that money must come from crime.
    Stolen goods are often sold on for as little as one tenth their real value. Greater Manchester police modestly suggest a crime potential factor of three to one. Therefore, the amount necessary to feed the individual's addiction is £87,600 per annum. The police multiplied that figure by the number of addicts in the Manchester area.
    I accept that those calculations are somewhat crude, but they still produce the alarming result that the heroin-based crime potential for Greater Manchester alone amounts to more than £126 million per year. If one applies the same calculation to the country's other major drugs areas, one gains some idea of the linkage between crime and drugs. A chart supplied by Greater Manchester police shows a much closer correlation over the past decade between the rise in heroin addiction and that of crime.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to point to the dreadful nature of drug trafficking but does he agree that, contrary to his earlier remarks, the important factor is not detection but deterrence—action to deter drug trafficking or any other crime? Deterrence is far more important in preventing drug trafficking than detection.
    Mr. Anderson: An attempt must be made to deal with the problem across the board. It must be dealt with on the supply side, through international co-operation on the part of all the relevant agencies; it must also be dealt with on the demand side, through proper education. Young people at school must be informed, and the police must be trained to handle the problem. Under the caution referral scheme operating in our own South Wales force, for instance, when
    1030
    a young person holding a small amount of drugs for personal use is caught for the first time, he is normally referred to a relevant agency.
    The Minister described a panoply of crime prevention measures introduced by the Government. Distressingly, when trying to demonstrate the amount that had been spent, he failed to take account of the substantial cut in the sum that local authorities can devote to youth work and to other projects that can have a huge impact on the fight against drugs.
    I am president of a youth group in Wales. We have recently been hit by cuts in county expenditure, and that pattern is replicated in many other youth clubs and the like. This, too, is a crime prevention measure. I hope that the Government will not compartmentalise crime prevention, but will look at it in the round. I hope that they will think in terms of information in schools, educating and assisting the police and considering the problem of drunk driving —and, indeed, driving under the influence of drugs: it is possible for drugs to remain in the blood for up to a month.
    The Government should accept that the problem is a major scourge of our community, which is corrupting our youth and is clearly behind much organised and individual crime. Unless and until we recognise and deal with the close correlation between drugs and crime, we shall not hit the right target.
    7.12 pm
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall be brief, because I have been fortunate enough to make two interventions this afternoon.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the strength of the partnership approach. As one who represents a rural constituency in Devon, I feel that, although crime problems in rural areas may be more dissipated, they are nevertheless important. Attention is; focused very much on set-piece schemes for the prevention of crime in urban areas, but nowadays rural areas—Devon in particular—are visited by people on one-day sorties from the cities, who travel down the motorways to commit crimes, especially crimes against property. The partnership approach initiated by my hon. Friend has been welcomed by all those involved, particularly crime prevention panels.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) implied that the absence of Labour Members was due to the fact that they were all busy fighting crime in their constituencies. He demanded to know what Conservative Members had been doing on that front. I can inform him —I am sorry that he is not present to hear my reply—that my constituency contains a special school for boys with problems similar to those identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason): children with severe emotional disturbances, who cannot be educated in normal schools.
    My constituency had a serious crime problem. When all the interested parties joined forces—the schools, the police, local authorities, the probation service, the victim support schemes and myself—we managed to solve many of the problems that those difficult children caused. There has been a remarkable drop in the number of juvenile offences dealt with by the local magistrates court. It is not just a question of talking about certain measures; when the will exists to implement them they work very well, as we have seen in Devon.

    1031
    I have been particularly pleased to be associated with the Exeter crime prevention panel, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) is a member, and to see such schemes put into practice in the rural areas and the surrounding towns and cities.
    Much has been said about drug-related crime. I have already put on record my concern that the Liberal Democrats should take such a relaxed view of the legalisation of cannabis. I use the word "relaxed" deliberately: I understand that, when asked to support the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference decision, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that—although he did not support the move personally—he was "relaxed" about the idea. Let me make it clear that there is nothing relaxed about anyone who has ever come into contact with the victims of drug-related crime—or, for that matter, the young people to whom this wicked material is peddled by those who seek to make money and take advantage of it.
    Crime is often glamourised. I wish my hon. Friend to pay particular attention—this, too, involves the Liberal Democrats—to those on the periphery of crime who benefit financially from it. Let me highlight the recently reported case of Miss Smith and Miss Cahill, who were released from a Thai gaol on compassionate grounds, having admitted their involvement in international drug running. On their return, it just so happened—supposedly—that they attempted to sell their story to the tabloid newspapers.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: For £100,000.
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right. A judge put a stop to that, but the girls' solicitor nevertheless sought to sell the film rights to Hollywood. Such glamourisation of crime is entirely abhorrent to those who appreciate its seriousness.
    In the film, the two young ladies were portrayed as victims. I submit that the victims of international drug running are those who end up buying such materials on the street. I note with regret that Mr. Jakobi, the solicitor who acted for the two young ladies and sought to glamourise them, had stood as an official candidate for the Liberal Democrats on no fewer than seven occasions. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Lady is clearly being dictated to by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Has the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) given way?
    Mrs. Browning: I have finished my speech.
    7.6 pm
    Mr. David Alton: The House will wish me to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) for her generous tribute to the late Robert Adley. He would have especially approved of her references to local public transport services, particularly the railways. In calling for more police, my hon. Friend drew us back to the substance of the motion. Her maiden speech demonstrated that she will be an
    1032
    articulate, competent and formidable Member of Parliament, and I know that we all wish to welcome her today.
    I thank the Minister for indicating his willingness to keep his winding-up speech short to allow extra time for our own spokesman. He said that he felt that much of what the Opposition had said about law and order had been very negative. In his speech at Bournemouth—on virtually the same day as the Home Secretary's speech—my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) welcomed the burden of the Home Secretary's remarks. To follow up today's debate, we have already arranged a meeting with the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the Home Office in just 10 days' time. We shall then pursue a number of the points that we have raised, positively and constructively, in today's debate.
    Towards the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) made a number of comments about drugs. Let me make it clear to her that—despite the canard that has been thrown around throughout the debate, suggesting that my party in some way supports a drugs policy, and although a motion to which I am totally opposed was passed by a group of people at a conference in Scotland—party policy within the United Kingdom is by no means in favour of drugs. In the past month, I personally published an article in our party newspaper setting out my opposition to the proposal. Let me also tell the hon. Lady —as a vice-chairman of the all-party drug abuse group —I do not take a relaxed view. I know from discussions with my right hon. Friend the leader of my party that he does not take a relaxed view about drugs. He said that he took a relaxed view about a motion on possession. Although I disagree with the thrust of that motion, let me make it clear that it does not commit the Liberal Democrats to support the availability of drugs. Anybody who misrepresents it in that way does a disservice to the cause of truth.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the extraordinary event that the leader of the Conservative party should say that he was relaxed about the legalisation of drugs, and then sought to avoid criticism by saying that that was said about a slightly different point, and anyway it occurred north of the border, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not raise the matter on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Alton: Considering some of the comments the Prime Minister has recently made about his own colleagues, I know that the word "relaxed" is not one that would be attributed to him. Certainly I can understand that the leader of the Conservative party would be extremely angry if his party were to support the proposition that drugs should be made widely available.
    That is precisely the view of my right hon. Friend. Once again, the hon. Gentleman has deliberately misrepresented the position. What my right hon. Friend said was that he was relaxed about a motion on possession, but was strongly opposed to it. Let me make it clear that the motion does not represent the policy of our party.
    The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) dealt with the question of drugs, along with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and touched on the issues of computer pornography and

    1033
    television violence. Those are issues about which no one can be relaxed; they are at the heart of the cause of violence and the breakdown of law and order in the country today.
    This timely debate has been held against a backdrop of some of the most violent events in living memory. The atrocities in Northern Ireland; the shooting dead of a community policeman in London; the subsequent murder, 24 hours later, of a man who was shot outside Shepherds Bush tube station, which was possibly related to drug offences; and the ramming of a woman's car on the M25 by armed highwaymen, who subsequently robbed her—all of those events graphically illustrate the violence of our times.
    In Liverpool, preparations are in hand for the trial of those accused of murdering two-year-old James Bulger. The horror of that little boy's death caused us all to pause for a few moments to ask ourselves soul-searching questions about the health of our nation and the intensity of the culture of violence with which we now live.
    Tragically, James Bulger's death was not unique. In every year since 1982, between 31 and 73 children under the age of five have been murdered. One in three people born in the 1950s has a criminal conviction by the age of 31 and one in 14 of those convictions is for a violent crime. In a letter dated 26 October, Mr. A. J. Butler, the director of personnel and services, in Her Majesty's prison service, said:
    "Excluding those committed in default of payment of a fine some 49 per cent. of the total sentenced male and female prison population, for whom an offence was recorded, were serving sentences for violence against the person, robbery or for a sexual offence on 30 June 1993."
    The phenomenon of violence is not confined to any particular region of the country. Every day, regional or national newspapers reveal the same disturbing picture, with story after story about criminal or violent acts.
    While the incidence of crime has been rising inexorably, the number of cases brought to court has fallen. In 1992, only 28 per cent. of all reported crimes were cleared up, with just 16 per cent. resulting in a charge or a caution. Even fewer cases were successfully prosecuted. That is a wholly unacceptable level of attrition in any criminal justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, that raises disturbing questions about the value we receive for the money we spend on a criminal justice system that will cost £9 billion to administer this year.
    In addition to the cost of adminstering the system, crime incurs other costs. The Home Office has estimated that propery worth £3 billion was stolen last year alone, and anyone who has had their homes burgled or ransacked, cars broken into or stolen, or been on the receiving end of violent crime, will know that as well as the financial calculations there are the unquantifiable emotional costs —the climate of fear and insecurity—and the fortress mentality that has led us to spend £1.6 billion a year on security measures to defend ourselves in our homes and businesses.
    The political response is divided between knee-jerk reactions—which often reach a crescendo at well known seaside resorts during the party conference season—and hand-wringing defeatism that there is nothing we can do. Since 1979, Parliament has passed 64 measures to tackle crime, but during that time crime has doubled. The Minister paraded some of those measures before us today and claimed that we did not support all of them, and yet the
    1034
    Government are now bringing forward Bills to repeal many of the provisions of the laws that they have previously enacted.
    Surely the experience of the past 14 years shows that feeble posturing and partisan rivalry must be replaced by a coherent strategy that will restore public confidence in our system of law and order. As we divide into a society of predators and victims, we must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in her maiden speech, be prepared to listen to victims of crime, to people who live in fear of crime, to those responsible for young people, to those who fight crime and to those who deal with offenders.
    Despite all-party attempts to establish a royal commission, along the lines suggested by the Chief Rabbi and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, to look at the causes of violence in society, and despite the fact that more than 100 Members of Parliament, most of them Conservative Members, signed the all-party motion in support of that, the Government, sadly, rejected it. The Government should think again and respond to the public mood. They should look more deeply at the causes, especially given the terrible atrocities that are happening in the country day after day.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Alton: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
    Every citizen has a responsibility in the fight against crime. We need a much richer language than the language of rights, a language which also emphasises responsibility and duty. Ours is a nation where far too often selfishness is rewarded and responsibility is evaded. Crime breeds on a breakdown of personal responsibility and it is nurtured by our culture of violence.
    The hon. and learned Member for Burton quite rightly said that television brings images of violence into our living rooms. When murder and mugging is dressed up as entertainment, is it any wonder that people cannot distinguish between right and wrong? Earlier this year we were invited by the makers of the BBC's tale of everyday life in a hospital, "Casualty", to relish the prospect of thugs overrunning the hospital to destroy it by arson. Just a week ago, Channel 4 rejected the regulator's criticism of an episode of "Brookside", which was shown on a Saturday afternoon, well before the so-called watershed, which featured an attacker brandishing a kitchen knife as he attacked his victim. The former chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council, Lord Rees Mogg, said:
    "For the past 10 to 15 years film makers have been producing films which are ultra violent, exploiting violence of an extreme kind. The cumulative effect is antisocial."
    Too often, the Home Office and television programme makers have argued that those links cannot be proven and that the power of television is in some way underestimated. Details from the Independent Television Authority show that £1.7 billion was spent in the past year on television advertising by people trying to sell their wares through the power and pressure of television. If people think it is worth their while spending money in that way because of the influence of television, surely we should not underestimate the effect that it can have in our home. The public are not in any doubt. The TV Times published a survey in April that showed that 59 per cent. of those interviewed felt that there were undoubted links between television and real-life violence. Eighty-five per cent. said that the

    1035
    television companies are not careful enough in monitoring screen violence. In July, the new chairman of the BSC, Lady Elspeth Howe, confirmed that the number of complaints about violence from members of the public had trebled in the preceding 12 months.
    Other disturbing aspects of the culture of violence include freer and easier access for young people to vicious video and computer material. I am especially glad that the hon. and learned Member for Burton said that the Home Affairs Select Committee is considering computer pornography and the submission made by Care about that issue. I hope that the Committee will take that subject seriously.
    Added to the existing pornography that already portrays the violation, degradation and exploitation of women in such an unacceptable way, the increasing dependency on drugs of which we have heard so much in the debate, creates a climate of violence. Some neighbourhoods, as hon. Members who represent inner cities areas are all too aware, are awash with drugs, which are a powerful pressure for crime. People steal to pay the pusher and they steal from their own relatives and homes. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, drugs are one of the biggest reasons for increasing crime in many neighbourhoods and communities.
    On Tuesday, Merseyside police seized a terrifying haul in an arms raid on a flat in Toxteth. Among the firearms seized were five semi-automatic machine guns and a revolver and a stash of ammunition was found. Some of the guns were fitted with silencers. Many attacks and robberies involve replica guns that are openly advertised and freely bought without a licence. A sub-postmaster or a cashier does not stop to ask if a gun is real or fake when it is pointed at them. Fake guns clearly need regulating. If it looks like a gun, it should be treated like one. Let us learn from the miserable experience of America where more than 1,000 murders, mostly involving guns, occurred in Los Angeles during the past year.
    In Britain we need a common agenda to defeat lawlessness and to help us rediscover the intrinsic value of each person. The well-being of society should be judged more by the quality of human relationships than by material attainments; more by the richness of human lives than by the abundance of possessions. Our goal should be the realisation of human values and a strengthening of community life. We could pay for some of that by dedicating the £304 million paid in fines annually to the fight against crime. The money that is sequestrated from drug barons should be re-invested, especially to help the victims of drug abuse. Money should be used to establish crime prevention units in every locality and neighbourhood police stations should be re-opened. The removing of Dixon from the beat and the closure of Dock Green have been a calamity for many areas where people have lost the presence of local policemen who they knew so well. The money could be used to offer grants for burglar alarms and for security improvements for people who cannot afford to make their homes safe.
    Mr. David Harris: rose—
    Mr. Alton: May I conclude because time is against me? One in three people have a conviction for a crime by the age of 31 and one in 14 for violent crime, so we must
    1036
    especially target the young. Forms of community service may rekindle the positive aspects of citizenship that disappeared with the abolition of national service. The media, which have a powerful influence on the young, must give the young more positive images which they can live up to. Simply building more prisons when a 25 per cent. increase in gaolings would cut crime by one per cent. only and playing party-political games while we spend over £9 billion a year to run our criminal justice system fails to address the fundamental problems of crime, is defeatist and a betrayal of the public's trust.
    As with so many of the problems besetting our nation, the political will to deal with them is lacking in the House. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends have felt the need to table the motion and I am happy to commend it to the House.
    7.17 pm
    Mr. Charles Wardle: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak a second time.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to the terrible murder in the past week of Police Constable Patrick Dunne in Clapham while on duty serving his community. I join him and, I am sure, all right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to PC Dunne and expressing condolences to his family.
    I have undertaken to be brief and shall make three points. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on her eloquent speech and the powerful points that she made on behalf of her constituents. I welcome her to the House, and I enjoyed her generous tribute to her predecessor, Robert Adley, my late hon. Friend. I wish her every enjoyment of the parliamentary routine while she retains her seat.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the Morgan report. The Government welcome the report's emphasis on the partnership approach, but do not accept the recommendation that local authorities need a statutory responsibility for crime prevention.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) referred in a typically powerful speech to identity cards. A scheme to introduce ID cards is kept under regular review. The key concern is whether a compulsory scheme would bring significant benefits to the police in tackling crime.
    A number of my hon. Friends have spoken with realism about the many challenges we face in the fight against crime and have offered encouragement and support for my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for police reform and improvements to the criminal justice system. Some Opposition Members have bungled the arithmetic of crime prevention expenditure and have been less than convincing in their attempts to claim credit for a variety of local and regional crime prevention initiatives, many of which have been prompted either by Government expenditure or as a result of determined efforts by Conservative members of local authorities. Opposition Members will have every opportunity in the forthcoming Session to demonstrate their new-found sense of responsibility in supporting new Government legislation.
    Success in the fight against crime is being achieved by the police and the public working in partnership at local level. Many Government iniatives point the way. Neighbourhood watch, many other watch schemes, safer

    1037
    cities, parish constables, the national boards, coalitions against crime, Crime Concern and the crime prevention centre are all evidence of the Government's progress in a fight that calls for tough resolve and determination to protect the public, to safeguard victims and to hit criminals where it hurts. It is only the Government who display that resolve.
    I urge the House to reject the motion and support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Question put,That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided:Ayes 29, Noes 143.

    Division No. 374]

    [7.28 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Barnes, Harry

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Mahon, Alice

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Connarty, Michael

    Rendel, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Salmond, Alex

    Davidson, Ian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Spearing, Nigel

    Flynn, Paul

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Tyler, Paul

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Welsh, Andrew

    Harvey, Nick

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Mr. Simon Hughes.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Amess, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Congdon, David

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Conway, Derek

    Ashby, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Cran, James

    Bates, Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Devlin, Tim

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Booth, Hartley

    Dover, Den

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan, Alan

    Bowis, John

    Dykes, Hugh

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Elletson, Harold

    Bright, Graham

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Butcher, John

    Forman, Nigel

    Butterfill, John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Carttiss, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gallie, Phil

    Clapplson, James

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    1038

    Gorst, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hague, William

    Richards, Rod

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hannam, Sir John

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Harris, David

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hendry, Charles

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Horam, John

    Sims, Roger

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Steen, Anthony

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Stephen, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Stern, Michael

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Streeter, Gary

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Sweeney, Walter

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Sykes, John

    Knapman, Roger

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Thomason, Roy

    Legg, Barry

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Lidington, David

    Trend, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Trotter, Neville

    MacKay, Andrew

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Maginnis, Ken

    Viggers, Peter

    Malone, Gerald

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Waller, Gary

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Whittingdale, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Willetts, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Norris, Steve

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    Patnick, Irvine

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House commends the Government's determination to tackle crime through a broad range of measures aimed at preventing crime through a broad range of measures aimed at preventing crime, punishing offenders and helping the victims of crime; recognises that government support of crime prevention takes many forms, including support of the police and support through the programmes of several government departments, believes that the key to preventing crime lies in partnership between the police, other agencies and the public; and applauds the work being done by this Government to promote and support partnership at both local and national levels.

Cold Climate Allowance
7.39 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising that widespread fuel poverty means many more people on low or fixed incomes have to choose between malnutrition or hypothermia and that excess deaths rise during the winter months, calls on Her Majesty's Government to institute forthwith a cold climate allowance payable to those on basic state benefits; believes this should be an automatic payment during 17 weeks from December to March in addition to severe weather payments and should also take account of prevailing climatic conditions throughout the United Kingdom; believes that energy efficiency is best created by a programme of house-building, house renovation and house improvement which would save lives, save energy and create employment; and rejects current proposed price mechanisms such as value-added tax on domestic fuel which will further penalise the most vulnerable and which are morally and politically unacceptable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Ewing: It is with a great sense of anger that yet again I rise in the House to talk about the issue of fuel poverty and the need for a cold climate allowance, and the implications of that for health, for welfare and, most important of all, for people themselves. In the motion, I am, above all, talking about people. This is not a pious or esoteric issue. It is not a philosophical debate; it is about the quality of life. It is a question of where legislators place their moral responsibility, and the value that we place on each individual human life.
My anger relates to the long neglect of the matter. When I was first elected to the House in 1974, when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I were much younger—as were many other hon. Members—I was accused of scaremongering because I asked a series of parliamentary questions and made statements on the issue of cold-related deaths. Those accusations came from the then Labour Government and also from the official Opposition. Apparently it was not appropriate at that time to ask such questions.
Despite detailed questioning by myself and other hon. Members at that time, there was a refusal to recognise the extent of the problem about which we are still talking in 1993. For example, on 10 January 1978, the then Secretary of State for Social Services said:
"hypothermia was mentioned on fewer than 600 death certificates in England and Wales."—[Official Report, 10 January 1978; Vol. 941, c. 1422.]
Subsequently, in an article in The Observer of 16 December 1979, and in other newspapers, the former junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has received notification of the fact that I will mention his name tonight, admitted to political pressures being exerted on him. Departmental officials ruled that it was important not to issue information in this politically sensitive area which might be misleading and which could certainly be used against the Government. The hon. Gentleman was advised that it was almost certain that any reply suggesting that large numbers of old people were suffering from hypothermia would be used to bring pressure on the Government to improve heating provisions for old people.
That was the attitude that prevailed at that time. It was much easier to say that hypothermia related to deaths caused only as a result of accidents in Scottish, Welsh or
1040
English mountains. However, the reality, as we all know, is that the deaths of many of our old, our sick and our vulnerable are related to the extent of cold from which they suffer.
In an amended reply, the hon. Member for Oldham, West said that he was unable to give an estimate, but evidence from death certificates in England and Wales revealed that only 17 people died from hypothermia in 1974. He admitted subsequently that many people die from hypothermia, but that they are written off on their death certificates as heart attack victims.
It is my sincere hope that matters have moved on since then, both in the House and in our community as a whole. There is widespread interest and concern. I have stacks of files in my office—the equivalent of a mountain, so I have not brought all of them to the House—from various concerned organisations that represent the elderly, the disabled, health services and the Royal College of Nursing. They agree with us, some 20 years on, that there is a need to recognise the significance of cold as it relates to the welfare of our people.
I should also point out that the current Prime Minister, who in the 1970s and early 1980s acted as a junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, recognised that the cost of fuel was relevant to those on low incomes. He said:
"Fuel is clearly a basic necessity, especially for the elderly and the sick. I recognise the concern that is felt by many on low incomes when it comes to paying for fuel."—[Official Report, 16 December 1985; Vol. 89, c. 134.]
He went on to talk about the issue of excess deaths in our winter months. Later, he referred to
"the excess number of winter deaths that have perplexed successive Governments for years …The real problem, then as now … is not hypothermia, but the additional deaths from all causes, particularly heart disease, strokes and chest infections, which tend to occur in winter. It is a long-standing problem that our excess winter mortality rate is higher than that in other countries with severe winters, such as the United States of America and Sweden."—[Official Report, 2 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 834–35.]
The reality is that those excess winter deaths are still occurring. Here we are, looking forward to the millennium, another century, yet still the House and society as a whole are talking about people who will die because they are unable to heat their homes effectively and look after the welfare of their families.
According to Strathclyde Elderly Forum, every year between 3,000 and 5,000 Scots die from cold-related illnesses. Not all those people are aged or infirm. Let us take the years 1976 to 1984 and look beyond the boundaries of my country of Scotland at what happened elsewhere. The number of deaths in January in West Germany was 4 per cent. above the monthly average; in Sweden and Norway it was 7 per cent. above the monthly average; but in Scotland it was 16 per cent. above the average monthly rate. That shows quite clearly that we have still not remedied either the causes or the effects of fuel poverty in our nation. I must say to the Government —with sincerity and a great deal of passion because I regard this as a moral issue that is based on fundamental principles about people and their right to life—that unless the issue of fuel poverty is addressed effectively, we shall continue to have a situation whereby we have a Westminster euthanasia system for the most vulnerable in our society.
This is not an issue that pertains solely to Scotland, although I understand the situation there. I care about

1041
deaths and deprivation wherever they occur. This is a United Kingdom issue which affects every constituency represented in the House.
A recent survey from the university of Oxford points out that, according to figures collated by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, for every 1 deg. C the temperature is colder than average over the four months of December to March, there will be an additional 8,000 deaths. That was quoted in a book by Curwen and Devis in 1988, and confirmed subsequently in February 1991 when two weeks of severe weather resulted in an additional 4,000 deaths. That is not a record in which any Government or legislator can have any pride whatever. The problem has received increasing attention recently because of our concern about the likelihood that VAT will be imposed on domestic fuels. The imposition of VAT on domestic energy will have the same effect as a drop in external temperature because it will mean that it will cost more to run a warm healthy home.
I ask hon. Members to accept that we have a moral responsibility not only as constituency Members of Parliament but as sons and daughters. I speak as the daughter of a woman who will be 82 next month and who lives alone and on a state benefit. I know what the real situation is: my mother has a caring family, but I know that when I walk out of her house she automatically turns off the central heating system. My brother has had the same experience. People want to organise their lives independently, but we have a moral responsibility to ensure that none of them suffer.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Lady concede that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has already pledged that he will protect those on state benefit? Does she agree that the people most likely to suffer from the impositions of VAT on domestic fuel will be those whose income is just above the level at which state benefit is payable—those who have provided for their future to a small extent and who therefore receive no additional help from the state? Will the hon. Lady comment on that?
Mrs. Ewing: I certainly do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Given that he has spoken with such vehemence, I hope that he will support us in the Lobby tonight and also vote against the likely Budget provisions, especially as the Chancellor said that he would prefer to move straight to 17.5 per cent., rather than the 8 per cent. that is to be imposed next year. People at the margins of state benefit—people who have saved for their old age, or people who have small occupational pensions, or widows receiving a small additional payment as a result of contributions made by their husband during his lifetime —are too vulnerable. At this stage, however, we have no idea what form of compensation the Government propose to introduce. We argue that we must have a clear automatic payment to ensure that the most vulnerable—those whom we can reach—are assisted in the coming winter months.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that since 1984 Dr. Gordon Wilson and I have introduced no fewer than five cold climate allowance Bills, which have been objected to and disparaged in the House. They have met with no success because they have been opposed by those on the Government Benches. We are supposed to be a democracy. What sort of system is it that so readily rejects
1042
the basic principles of care and humanity? I condemn the House and I condemn successive Governments for their inhumanity to humanity.
The Government amendment refers to improvements in cold weather payments, but in 1986 the Prime Minister—in those days, a junior Minister at what was then the Department of Health and Social Security—admitted:
"Over the years the various systems for making payments has been contentious and unsuccessful. There is no dispute about that."
The then Minister went on:
"That is why we have tried to introduce a system which makes sense, judged by three criteria."
What were those three criteria? The then Minister said:
"First, there must be clear rules for help",
with
"an objective test of …coldness as the basic qualifying rule."
He said that the intention was to avoid a system
"which relies on local subjective judgments."
The severe weather payments scheme still relies on local subjective judgments. Look at what happened in the borders of Scotland last year. Temperatures taken at Eskdalemuir did not relate to other areas of the border because they were measured from Bulmer. Many people who were living in severe climatic conditions had no opportunity to claim severe weather payments.
The second criterion for which the right hon. Gentleman argued was "certainty and speed of response". He said:
"Claimants must know quickly when a period of exceptionally cold weather has been declared and for how much they will qualify."—[Official Report, 2 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 837.]
It is obvious to my constituents when weather conditions are severe; they do not need to walk outside with a thermometer to find out, and they do not need to rely on readings taken somewhere else. I represent the highest village in the highlands of Scotland, Tomintoul—a name that people recognise from weather forecasts and weather reports. People know when they are living in severe climatic conditions, yet many many of them do not qualify for severe weather payments.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that we must concentrate help on the groups on whom most concern about risks has focused—the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the very young. No one can disagree with that philosophy. But if that is the Government's philosophy, why do hon. Members still constantly receive in their mailbags correspondence from voluntary organisations representing those groups of people that expresses deep concern about the failure of successive Governments to recognise their needs? The elderly, sick and disabled and those who care for the very young are still being deprived of the finance necessary to heat their homes.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Lady has referred to her constituents, who live hundreds of feet above sea level. Is she satisfied with the location of the local weather station?
Mrs. Ewing: No, indeed. I live in Lossiemouth, which is on the Moray firth. Anyone who lives on the coast knows that the cliamte is substantially warmer there than in the uplands, yet the measurements are taken from the same point. That shows how ludicrous is the system of measurement used to trigger the severe weather payments.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On the subject of ludicrosity, if that is the correct word, can the hon. Lady imagine anything more ridiculous than asking

1043
old people to work out the temperature, then work out whether they are cold, then whether they have been cold for five hours, then whether, because they have been cold for five hours and 10 minutes, they qualify to go to a bureaucratic office and fill in a claim form in the hope that they will eventually be reimbursed? Can the hon. Lady imagine anything more contrary to human nature?
Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has supported the motion in his comments. He and I yesterday attended a meeting about VAT on domestic fuel at which he made a similar point. I will come later in my remarks to the mechanisms for claiming. The hon. and learned Gentleman has emphasised the very fundamental point that there must be automatic payments, which must be readily available and which must not be on the basis of a reclaim involving endless bureaucratic form filling.
Way back in the 1980s the Prime Minister referred to the need for certainty. My argument revolves around precisely that need. I do not argue for the reclaim system to which the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) referred. We know that all people—in particular, people whose family includes a disabled member—look with dismay at the forms, which run to eight, 10 and sometimes 20 pages. They do not know how to fill them in. They do not always have family members who can help them to fill them in. They do not know when they are supposed to fill them in or to whom they are supposed to give them. Our social security system is so complex that many people do not claim that to which they are entitled.
We seek to ensure that there is certainty for everyone who needs assistance. We are proposing an automatic payment for 17 weeks from December to April, which are regarded as the months when climatic conditions are such that people need assistance with their heating. I do not believe that we must rely on the severe cold weather snaps which can exist anywhere within the United Kingdom. We must have an automatic payment system.
Any payment that is given should also take account of the prevailing climatic conditions within the United Kingdom. Since the Government began talking about the possible imposition of VAT on fuel, it has been interesting to see many of the reports which have emerged from organisations which are not politically involved, but which are concerned about the implications of the Budget for the people whom they serve.
In particular, I refer to the Gas Consumers Council which last week published substantial figures in Scotland on Sunday relating to the issue of VAT on domestic fuel. The council compared average heating costs and considered how VAT would affect them. It is perhaps right to look at gas for an example as the figures have come from the Gas Consumers Council. The effect of 17.5 per cent. on VAT in the south would increase average heating costs to £36.57. In Glasgow, average costs would increase to £43.75, while in Aberdeen the figure would increase to £47.42. In Lerwick in Shetland—the area from which the former Chancellor of the Exchequer comes—the figure would be as high as £81.77.
The figures are based on comparing large homes in different areas throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we believe that it is essential that any automatic
1044
payment must take account of the prevailing weather and climatic conditions. It is not just when the snow falls or when there is a sudden drop in temperatures, and we all wake up in the morning and have to chip ice off the windows of our homes and cars. I am talking about the prevailing weather conditions. We must take account of dampness, of wind and of what happens generally in each area.
Other people have come up with different statistics contrasting different areas in the United Kingdom. For example, analysis undertaken by the Department of Energy and by other organisations has suggested that it costs as much as 35 per cent. more to heat a house in Glasgow to the same level as an identical house in Bristol. In places such as Aberdeen, the figures are obviously higher. The statistics have not been denied. Even Professor Marcus, formerly of the department of building and architecture at Strathclyde university, who many years ago drew attention to those aspects, has never had his figures challenged.
It should be evident to all hon. Members that the further north one travels in the United Kingdom, the colder and more severe the weather generally becomes. We should remember that the distance from Shetland to Southampton is roughly the same as it is from Southampton to Madrid. Can anyone deny that Madrid is generally much warmer than Southampton?
I wish to make clear that I do not want the severe weather payments to be replaced; they must and should remain. I am talking about an additional automatic payment which takes account of prevailing weather conditions.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Would the hon. Lady tell the House which areas of the United Kingdom should qualify for the automatic cold weather payment? Will she also say where the cut-off point would be and why?
Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is fairly new to the House, but I do not mean that in a disparaging way. I would be happy to send him copies of the Bill, which clearly details each area of the United Kingdom and how those would be zoned. I will make a brief reference to that matter later in my speech.
I am not talking solely about my area, where of course I have concerns as the local representative. Those are concerns that all hon. Members share for the vulnerable in society throughout the United Kingdom. Other figures which support the contention for zoning in the United Kingdom come from the Meteorological Office. Those figures show that average temperatures in Scotland between November and December are consistently lower than in England and Wales. In November 1992, the average temperature was 6 deg C in Scotland compared with 7.9 deg C in England and Wales.
The official figures on deaths caused by hypothermia —the Prime Minister has admitted that they represent merely the tip of an iceberg—show that the levels are consistently higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. In 1991, 101 direct deaths from hypothermia were recorded in Scotland, compared with 534 in England and Wales, which means that one in six of the deaths from hypothermia were in Scotland. Strathclyde Elderly Forum recognises that between 3,000 and 5,000 cold-related

1045
deaths occur in Scotland during the winter months. We must concentrate not just on hypothermia but on other cold-related diseases.
When the Minister responds, he will probably make great play of the fact that gas and electricity prices have apparently fallen. The Government choose to ignore the fact that consumption in Scotland is consistently higher because of our climate. For example, I visited Scottish Hydro-Electric last week and it points out that it has the lowest costs, but the highest consumption. It is also the most "green" of all the electricity companies, yet it is on our area that the blow of VAT will fall most heavily. The Government must look seriously at the matter. The northern Scotland electricity consumers committee pointed out in a recent report that
"in the north of Scotland area, due to a more severe climate the requirement for heating is higher than elsewhere in Great Britain. This higher demand leads to higher fuel consumption."
There is a knock-on effect. People in the north of Scotland receive the same state benefits, but they have an automatic built-in necessity to spend extra to keep their homes warm.
The report from Sutherland Associates—I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has also received a copy—compared heating costs for different parts of the United Kingdom and showed that levels of energy consumption were higher for Scotland than for the south-east of England. The report compared an average two-bedroom house in Scotland with an identical house in the south-east. In the south-east it took 9,500 kWh to ensure adequate heating levels, whereas in Scotland it took 11,100 kWh. That shows the additional requirements we have in Scotland, yet no concession whatever is made.
I could go on to give more statistics, but other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Our proposals for a cold climate allowance recognise that the elements are no respecters of national boundaries. It is not just people who live in Scotland who suffer the effects of cold weather.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) might listen at this point, as I outline our suggestions. We are proposing that there should be four zones within the United Kingdom, ranging from the north of Scotland to the south of England. Zone 1 would cover southern England, where there would be no additional cold climate allowance because of the prevailing conditions. That does not rule out severe weather payments, because I accept that Devon can have horrendous cold snaps with snow, ice and frost while the sun may be shining in Lossiemouth. We are not proposing that severe weather payments be replaced, but instead are proposing an automatic payment.
Zone 2 would cover central England and an extra cold climate allowance of £3.50 per week would be payable. Zone 3 would cover northern England, Northern Ireland, central and southern Scotland where an additional cold climate allowance of £7 per week would be payable. In zone 4, which covers northern Scotland, an additional cold climate allowance of £10.51 per week would be paid.
Mr. John Marshall: As an emigre Scot, I find the hon. Lady's speech interesting. She is known for being precise with her figures. Can she tell the House how much this would all cost?
Mrs. Ewing: As I sat down I said, "I bet he is going to ask me the cost." If the hon. Gentleman would care to listen, I am not afraid to argue on the statistics. It is not
1046
merely a matter of Government expenditure. It is about human lives. It is about people. We as legislators must decide our own priorities.
Mr. Duncan: How much?
Mrs. Ewing: I am coming to that. Just wait. There is such a thing as manners, I hope. This is something about which I feel passionately. I am happy to give the House the statistics, which have been assessed, checked and discussed in great detail with the organisations involved.
I believe that manners are important in debates, especially on serious matters such as this. This is not party-political knockabout stuff. It is about people. It is about elderly people frightened to put on their fires. It is about people with a handicapped child who know that they need additional heating but are uncertain whether they will receive any extra help. I ask for an element of manners from Conservative Members.
The allowance would be paid for 17 weeks between December and April. The estimate of the total cost is £625 million per annum for the whole of the United Kingdom and, for Scotland alone, £155 million per annum Those are our figures from January this year. An element of increase may have to be allowed for as a result of a small increase in inflation, but the figures are serious estimates. I am happy to lay them before the House and to ask Conservative Members, "Is that a price worth paying?". There are many who would prefer to see Trident come to our shores. One estimate of the cost of servicing Trident is £380 million per annum. I should like to see that £380 million diverted into a scheme of cold climate allowances because that is where my political priorities happen to lie.
Other countries manage to run cold climate allowance schemes. Conservative Members are often happy to deride the small Republic of Ireland, but in Eire during the winter months, the Government readily and automatically pay cold climate allowances to a variety of people. The people who are eligible include those on old age pension, retirement pension, widow's pension, blind person's pension, invalidity pension, deserted wife's benefit allowance, lone parent's allowance, pre-retirement allowance, prisoner's wife allowance, social security pension, benefit from another country, long-term unemployment assistance, disabled person's allowance, infectious diseases maintenance allowance, basic supplementary welfare allowance and special department of defence allowance. All those people are entitled to a cold climate allowance in the small Republic of Ireland, but in the United Kingdom no one is entitled to such an automatic payment.
I hope that my hon. Friends will have time to develop other aspects of our motion such as energy efficiency in our homes. It was clear from discussions in Scottish Questions yesterday that the Government have not yet examined the housing conditions survey which was undertaken in Scotland by Scottish Homes. That survey showed that almost a third of our housing stock suffered from dampness, condensation or mould.
It is also important to tell the Government as they plan the Budget that VAT on domestic fuel is not the best way to conserve energy. The best way to conserve energy is to increase the energy efficiency of our housing stock. That

1047
would save lives, save energy and create jobs. If we create jobs, we build up the tax base for the country so that we can assist those who so desperately need our assistance.
I conclude by repeating that I regard this as an issue of morality and principle. I was not elected to the House merely to go along with what was happening. I have argued the case with a great deal of feeling not only for the many hundreds of people in my constituency who have written to me, but for the people whom I know as family members and as friends who suffer great difficulties during our winter months.
When we talk about some form of compensation, we all have a responsibility placed on our shoulders to analyse effectively and caringly what compensation we shall give to our people. I say simply, "What cost is a human life?"
8.15 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'commends Her Majesty's Government on its range of policies designed to protect the most vulnerable from the effects of cold weather and to stimulate energy conservation measures in the United Kingdom; and in particular welcomes the improvements in the Cold Weather Payments Scheme, the increased resources devoted to improving insulation for homes, and the extra help amounting to more than £1 billion given to poorer pensioners.'.
I listened with keen interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). She knows the personal respect that I have for her. She argued with her usual clarity and passion a case which I do not believe to be particularly defensible. I hope that I can convince the House that the proposal that she has put before us this evening is likely to be ill targeted, extremely expensive and probably would not achieve the aim that she has set out.
The hon. Lady used words such as "anger" and "neglect" in her speech. In the past two decades, both parties of government have considered the matter. Both turned down the approach which the hon. Lady has again advocated this evening. The Conservative Government have consistently improved the shape and pattern of the exceptional cold weather payments scheme, and I shall return to that point in a moment. We have sought to ensure that those who need help with the cost of fuel during cold weather in their area are properly compensated and protected.
I must make it clear that I do not accept the case that the hon. Member for Moray made for a cold climate allowance. Any help that we give for extra fuel costs resulting from cold weather should be based on precisely that—actual cold weather at the time and in that location. That is precisely what our cold weather payments system does, and does well. It is well-targeted help for the people most likely to need it in those places where the weather is very cold.
Although the hon. Lady made it clear that she was not speaking exclusively for Scotland, understandably she made particular mention of Scotland. The pattern of expenditure on fuel across the United Kingdom as a whole shows that there is little difference between the amount of money spent, particularly by poorer people but also in general, in Scotland and the amount of money spent in the rest of the United Kingdom. The south-east of England obviously has a pattern of temperatures which is distinct
1048
from that in the northern parts of England and Wales, but the overall pattern is not very different in Scotland from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In essence, we need to examine the case that the hon. Lady made not on the basis of the position in Scotland but by considering the argument that the allowance should be introduced throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that that would be a move against the whole flow of social security policy in this country and against seeking to ensure that social protection policies are affordable by the taxpayer who, at the end of the day, must pay the bill. Throughout the developed world, we are all having to consider our social protection policies to ensure that they are affordable and that we are not placing burdens on this and future generations which they may find unacceptable.
The kind of policy that the hon. Member for Moray has advocated this evening would be ill targeted in the extreme. It would be a scatter-gun approach to the delivery of help. I believe that the Government's present policy of cold weather payments is well targeted and affordable within the context of our overall social security policy.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister made a very spurious point when he argued that weekly expenditure in the cold areas is not much different from that in other areas. Similarly, he could argue that poor people spend less each week than rich people on their heating bills. The key figures relate to the percentage of weekly expenditure. On that basis, the poor and people in colder areas spend dramatically more than the rich and those in warmer areas as a percentage of their household expenditure. The reason why the absolute figures are different is quite simple: people cannot afford to buy the heating that they need. The Minister is talking about under heating. I hope that he will move on from his totally spurious point.
Mr. Scott: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument on a regional basis, as I have explained. The statistics are clear. If the hon. Gentleman would like to ask me specific questions, I will answer them.
With regard to people who receive benefits, the difference between the amount of money spent on fuel in Scotland hardly differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the figure upon which we must work. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point that that means that people cannot afford those payments. If the weather is cold in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom during a particular period, people are given extra help with those costs. The idea that we should select a number of months and, whatever the temperature may be in a particular part of the United Kingdom, simply pay an extra benefit is the reverse of what we have been trying to achieve in social security as a whole, which is to ensure that the available resources are targeted on those who really need them at a specific time.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I hope to speak in the debate later, so I will not take up much of the Minister's time now, but does he realise that the housing stock in Scotland is disastrous? More than 250,000 houses suffer from damp and condensation. In the winter months, people cannot afford to heat their houses, so they retreat into one room and try to live there. They pay for that. I will refer to that later in the debate and refer to my personal experiences.
Mr. Scott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, I have examined with great care the issue in relation to the different parts of Great Britain and to the United Kingdom as a whole. There is no significant regional difference in the expenditure on fuel costs in the different parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend noted regional differences in electricity tariffs? Is he aware that, due to the nature of hydro-electricity which is the dominant system in the north of Scotland, Scottish electricity tariffs are 10 per cent. lower than in the rest of the country?
Mr. Scott: I accept my hon. Friend's point. That difference is manifestly an incontrovertible fact.
I want to return to the main theme of the hon. Member for Moray, which was whether there should be a special allowance, paid irrespective of the temperature in any part of the United Kingdom, simply because we are moving into a certain calendar period. I do not believe that that would be right. It would be ill targeted and random.
The hon. Lady referred to a cost of about £0.5 billion a year to introduce her scheme. However, the scheme that she advanced in previous years also included about £1.5 billion of capital costs up front. The hon. Lady may have removed herself from her previous argument. The cost of £0.5 billion would be very significant and we would have to take that into account.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister define capital costs?
Mr. Scott: Having read what the hon. Lady said before and what those who have campaigned for the cold climate scheme have said, I understood that the capital costs of the first part related to the energy efficiency programme. That involved insulating large numbers of houses in the United Kingdom. The costs of that were established very clearly two or three years ago at about £1.5 billion in capital expenditure up front before the £0.5 billion a year in running costs for the scheme which the hon. Lady has advocated today.
Mrs. Ewing: I am interested in what the Minister is saying, but I believe that he has confused different messages. If there was substantial expenditure on energy efficiency which, as I have said, would save lives, save energy and create jobs and thereby increase the tax base, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that ultimately the arguments for a cold climate allowance would probably disappear? If the housing stock was brought up to the necessary level, we would not need to consider this point. However, the insulation standards of the housing stock in Scotland is currently equivalent to the position in Sweden in the 1940s.
Mr. Scott: I will return to the question of energy efficiency later. However, the case as presented in earlier years ran the two schemes together and involved the cost of up-front expenditure of £1.5 billion and running expenses of about £0.5 billion.
To return to the theme that I want to present to the House tonight, the factors that influence a person's need for help with heating are many and varied. The weather is certainly a factor which we must obviously take into account and that is reflected in our cold weather payments scheme. However, much also depends on the size of the home, the type of heating system and the standards of insulation.
1050
The picture is complex and I do not believe that it is susceptible to the rather simplistic approach that the hon. Member for Moray has adopted this evening. Over the years, the Government have developed a range of targeted policies designed to address the different factors about which we are concerned when we talk about the undoubted problems that cold weather causes for a significant number of families in the United Kingdom. I recognise those problems and the Government's responsibility to adopt sensible policies to deal with them.
We already provide considerable help with energy efficiency measures for low-income households. As the House will be aware, we continue to put extra resources into the home energy efficiency scheme for which the budget has increased by more than 50 per cent. since 1991. That scheme operates throughout Great Britain and provides grants towards the cost of loft, tank and pipe insulation. It also provides for draught proofing and energy advice for low-income households who receive income-related benefits. It aims to provide for improvements for some 240,000 homes this year, and nearly £38 million will be available for grants in that area.
Private sector households which receive the same benefits are also eligible for minor works assistance. Those grants, which are part of the house renovation system administered by local authorities, frequently cover the provision or improvement of thermal insulation. Further assistance is also available through local authorities' mainstream council housing repair and improvement programmes as well as through programmes such as Estate Action and Green House programmes.
The Government have made the drive to improve—
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Ewing rose—
Mr. Scott: One at a time, please. I will give way when I have finished my sentence.
The Government, by their provision of resources for those programmes, have recognised that standards of insulation are below what is necessary, but they are providing resources steadily to improve the standard that is achieved.
Mr. Welsh: Under the Minister's programme, when will the one in eight households in Scotland cease to live in dampness?
Mr. Scott: A great deal will depend on the efficiency of local authorities in Scotland in tackling problems with their housing stock. In Scotland, it is generally local authority housing which suffers most from that problem. It will depend on local authorities' willingness and determination, within the resources that they are allowed, to tackle the problem.
Energy efficiency and energy saving are particularly important. The Energy Saving Trust, which was set up in November to propose, develop and manage programmes and to promote the efficient use of electricity in the domestic and small business sector, is developing schemes particularly directed at the needs of low-income families to ensure that affordable warmth can be achieved through the better insulation of their homes.
The Government have been particularly active in running the "Keep warm, keep well" scheme in recent years. I understand the hon. Lady's point about the

1051
vulnerability of many people, in particular the elderly and people living alone, during periods of cold weather. Although the "Keep well, keep warm" campaign in England and Wales and the "Keep warm this winter" equivalent north of the border are concerned with a range of services, one of the points that I have always emphasised as I have played my part in promoting our campaign has been good neighbourliness. If only people who live close to individuals who might be particularly vulnerable to the impact of cold weather would keep an eye on their neighbours and give them advice, help and support and look out for signs that others might be under some threat, we could do much to counter the impact of cold weather, particularly on elderly people who live alone.
The "Keep well, keep warm" scheme, which is run in conjunction with Age Concern, Help the Aged and Neighbourhood Energy Action, has had a significant effect north and south of the border on our approach to coping with the problems of cold weather and how to minimise its effects and provide advice to those who need it.
Mr. Eric Martlew: The Minister mentioned Age Concern. What representations have the Government received from Age Concern about VAT on fuel?
Mr. Scott: The House will no doubt have opportunities in future to discuss VAT on fuel. My right hon. Friends will announce in due course the precise details of the scheme to compensate the most vulnerable people for the impact of VAT on fuel. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security and others have made that clear. I am not in a position today to say what the details of that scheme will be, but it will be an effective scheme and it will be well targeted at people who need help.
Mrs. Ewing: Obviously, we do not expect the Minister to give notice, but we assume that the Government are talking about an increase of only £1 in the basic state pension. Does he believe that that will be enough to cope with the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel? According to Hansard, in 1991, he promised to review the system of assistance to the most vulnerable and to examine the operation of the current system. Surely he is building in poverty in such a way that it will be absolutely impossible to eradicate it.
Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady is seeking to lure me down a path that I have no intention of treading. Indeed, I am not in a position to do that. More senior colleagues will announce in due course what the package will be. The £1 increase which the hon. Lady mentioned and which has been mentioned in the public prints is simply taking forward the RPI for—
Mrs. Ewing rose—
Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me finish the sentence—the increase in the retirement pension that would flow from taking the 1.8 per cent. figure in September through to the uprating in the new year, totally outwith and ignoring any compensation that we might introduce for the impact of VAT upon fuel costs for those people.
Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister accept that built into state benefits is an element for heating? As account has
1052
been taken of the RPI, there has been a reduced heating element in the state premiums paid to people on invalidity benefit and pensions, for example, in proportion to their income and expenditure.
Mr. Scott: That is a different point. The compensation for people responding to the impact of VAT on fuel will be totally distinct from and additional to the ordinary uprating that the Government will be making to the retirement pension and other benefits next April. That is the essence of the argument. I have to ask the hon. Lady and others who are rightly concerned about the matter to await the announcement in due course by my right hon. Friend.
Dr. Godman: With regard to the eligibility criteria for the system of financial support, is the Minister satisfied that local Benefits Agency officers are able to help vulnerable individuals who come into the community from long-term institutional care? What guidelines are given to those local officers of his Department in respect of the heating needs and, indeed, other needs of that vulnerable element in the community?
Mr. Scott: I acknowledge that the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised about people leaving institutional care means that it is incumbent upon our local offices to identify those cases and make sure that they are included in the system, but, in general, the automatic system of identifying customers who are eligible for cold weather payments has worked remarkably successfully and accurately since it was introduced. It is now automatic. It is now available to people, not just in retrospect for a period of cold weather but when a cold weather period of seven days is forecast.
Without the need to apply, people can receive cold weather payments simply, automatically and fairly. Those are almost the words that the hon. Member for Moray used when she advocated her scheme. The cold weather scheme might not be exactly what she would like, but simple, automatic and fair are certainly three of the qualities of the cold weather payment scheme as it exists today.
Dr. Godman: People coming into the community from long-term care are an important issue. Recently, I had the case of a woman living in the most appalling conditions —no heating at all. Is the Minister satisfied with the development of the relationship vis a vis care in the community between Benefits Agency officials and local social workers? In just about all cases now, those individuals are, in a very real sense, protected by social workers. Is the Minister satisfied with the arrangements that have been established between Benefits Agency officers and social work and, south of the border, social services departments?
Mr. Scott: Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I know that he would not raise that as a trivial point; it is a matter that he takes seriously. I have no evidence that the system is not working properly, but I will certainly make inquiries to ensure that the aspect that he raised is examined very carefully. It is obviously a matter between Departments —the Department of Health concerned with social services provision and ourselves who are concerned with benefits payments. I take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously. As I have said, we have made several important improvements to the scheme and obviously we monitor its effects. A point was made about weather stations, especially Eskdalemuir. We monitor the system year by

1053
year. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Moray has seen Statutory Instrument No. 2450, which includes a number of changes made to the areas covered by the Eskdalemuir weather station.
Every year, I receive a number of representations from hon. Members to the effect that their areas need a more finely tuned system to meet the needs of their constituents. Despite my meteorological training in the Royal Air Force many years ago, I am not able to make such judgments; I rely heavily on the Meteorological Office, which is helpful and considerate. If hon. Members look at the schedule to the order, they will see that we have altered the boundaries of many areas covered by specific meteorological stations to make them more sensitive to the needs of people living in those areas.
Mrs. Ewing: Has the Minister increased the number of stations?
Mr. Scott: No. We still have about 60 meteorological stations throughout Great Britain to cover those areas. I think that that is right. I rely on the professional advice of the Meteorological Office in these matters. As long as we listen to any local complaints and local experiences, we are doing well.
The Government's record in this respect is a good one. We have improved the cold weather payments scheme. We have ensured that income support, through its premium structure, enables us to give extra help to groups that are recognised as having special needs, such as families, disabled people and the elderly. The total extra help above the normal upratings that we have made available to pensioners on income-related benefits since 1989 is now worth about £1 billion a year. The same is broadly true of families on income-related benefits.
The scheme advanced by the hon. Lady, with her persuasive arguments, would be expensive to introduce and administer, and would not focus help accurately on those who need it most. It is vital that our huge social security budget is used to the best effect. Total social security expenditure in the current year is expected to be in the order of £80 billion. We owe a duty to the taxpayer and to the public at large to ensure that that money is properly targeted and sensibly used. I do not believe that the introduction of the scheme proposed by the hon. Lady would fit that pattern.
8.42 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: This is an important debate dealing with an issue of genuine and growing importance not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. The debate must be seen against the background of an alarming growth in fuel poverty in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom and the threats now being posed to low-income families as the Government seek to extract themselves from the £50 billion deficit that they created. Sadly, that seems to be based on attacking some of the poorest families, whether they are in Scotland or throughout the United Kingdom.
The key issues that lie at the heart of the debate are certainly the cold weather payments and the motion relating to the cold weather allowance. But we must go much deeper than that and consider some other issues: first, the growing income inequality in British society, manifested especially in Scotland—I shall give some figures on that later—and, secondly, the question of
1054
housing conditions and how they impact on the issue of fuel poverty. Some of my hon. Friends have already raised this matter. It is important that it should not be missed in any series of strategies to tackle the issue.
I shall stress the crazy, corrupt and cynical proposal to impose VAT on fuel because, in any debate about fuel poverty and cold weather allowances, it is vital to consider the wider canvas. Clearly, any Government who impose VAT on fuel on the majority of families in this country have little regard for the genuine issues.
Earlier, I said that the cold weather payments scheme certainly has weaknesses—the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) pointed them out to the House. When one considers that something like £50 million was spent In 2.5 million cases in Great Britain in the last year for which figures are available, it is clear that that is an insignificant amount, relative to the whole social security budget and the whole area of need.
The crucial issue is not to dwell on the payment for exceptional or severe weather but to consider the wider background of fuel poverty generally. Most people agree that in the society in which we live, it is an obscenity that, in 1993, people must make agonising choices every day about whether they eat or heat. That is a trite way—some would say that it is an exaggerated way—of raising the issue. However, it is a reality for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends who feel that people should not have to make such choices.
Another issue is the growing inability of people simply to face their fuel bills. What a situation! To think that families which may have sick people, disabled people and large families must think about the level at which the heating in their homes operates. We have economic problems in Britain, but surely we cannot argue that millions of our fellow citizens must make such decisions day in and day out. Sadly, it can be a life or death situation for some elderly people. When I visit some of my constituents their houses are absolutely frozen. They spend half their days in bed—they simply do not have enough income to spend on fuel. This issue is a political one—it is about the resources of the nation—but it is also a human issue and it underlines the whole question of fuel poverty.
Earlier, I referred to income inequality. By any standard, Scotland produces figures that are absolutely frightening. One of the key hallmarks of the Government is the reinforcement of the dependency culture in Scotland. One quarter of a million Scots are out of work. Two thirds of them are on income support and one third are on benefits. What income do they have to make choices about heating? The Department's figures show that 900,000 Scots—that is one out of every six—live in families where income support is the only source of income. I think that the Government will agree that income support is not a generous allowance—it is a basic allowance. I am sure that the figures are similar in other regions of the United Kingdom.
A much more debatable point is the fact that nearly 600,000 Scots work for less than £4 per hour, which is not a large sum. However, they must make decisions about what they spend and what they do not spend, and that is atrocious.
The Government should recognise that before we talk about cold weather payments and NAT on fuel, we should look at fuel debt as part of income support. The Department's figures show that in Scotland in May 1991, £2 million a month was deducted from income support

1055
payments to pay off fuel debt. So at present we have figures from the Department of Social Security which confirm that people do not have enough money to pay and amounts are being deducted from their income support. That reinforces our case that income support and part of the income inequality issue is crucial to any reasonable understanding of where we are in terms of fuel poverty.
If that is not bad enough, what is startling is that we top the European cold winter deaths league. In a modern society that looks over the developed world and into Europe, we have more old people dying in the winter period in Britain. Many factors may be at work. It would not be wise to single out one cause, but the problem deserves an investigation. It worries Opposition Members and I am sure that it worries the Government.
The key, however, when discussing the Government's fiscal policy, is always to remember that those groups at the bottom of the income ladder are spending roughly four times as much on fuel as a proportion of their income as are those at the top. The point was well made earlier, that that is a crucial ingredient when we consider VAT, as I shall in a minute. Surely the Government are aware of the figures. Why cannot they accept that those people in Scotland on income support, in unemployment or on low pay, have no choice; they have to heat their houses? It is not a luxury item. When we consider how much those people spend on fuel as a proportion of their household income, it should impress upon us that we should be cautious in what we do, especially when raising taxes. Taxes may reduce the deficit, but they may have punitive effects on the people on whom they are imposed.
One would expect the Government to be energetic about energy conservation, and the Minister has highlighted some of the developments that have been made, but they are simply not enough.
Let us consider the Scottish housing condition survey—which has just been published—in terms of energy conservation and modernisation. The survey shows that 28.7 per cent. of the occupied stock in Scotland—584,000 houses—show some evidence of dampness, condensation or mould. One in eight Scottish households live in damp housing and one in five households live in dwellings affected by condensation. Tragically, 70,000 households that are occupied by pensioners are in those categories.
That knowledge must be a substantial contribution to any issue relating to fuel poverty, but it is simply not being tackled on the scale that is required. Any degree of insensitivity in tackling that problem will only mean that five or 10 years down the road the problems will be much worse and will acquire a degree of investment. I challenge the Under-Secretary of State to mention that problem when he sums up. I appreciate that it is not part of his wider remit because it is a housing problem, but I hope that, with his hon. Friends, he will be able to tackle that concern.
Following the privatisation of electricity and gas, there are people in the marketplace who want to provide more and more fuel. The major generators should be concerned about conservation and should be considering energy supplies. Why cannot they be more involved in ensuring proper insulation and helping the Government to tackle, in particular, the public sector housing problem?
1056
Any energetic Government would be considering farsighted policies to tackle those problems, but that is not the case here. Instead there is the draconian proposal to impose a tax on fuel. We have listed the worries of people who are unable to pay their bills at the existing levels. What on earth can the application of a tax of, on average, £2.40 per week do for those people who are already struggling at the bottom of the income ladder? The tax will reinforce the crisis that confronts poorer families in Scotland. It will simply help to kill more elderly people in the winters after the tax has been imposed at the full 17.5 per cent.
The tax is apparently being imposed regardless of its practical consequences. The Treasury may think that the problem is a fiscal one and that the tax will reduce the deficit—my God, the deficit has to be reduced, but at whose expense? Is there no serious solution that the Government could conjure up without causing more problems for those who are already in difficulties?
The issue of VAT is quite remarkable. We know that poorer families spend a disproportionate amount of their income on heating and fuel. The household expenditure of such families will increase proportionately much more dramatically than those earning a great deal more at the top of the income scale. What should be done about that?
The Government say that they will help out the people who have problems, but will they help out the quarter of a million Scots who are on the dole? Will they help out the 900,000 people who are living in families with income support? Will they help out those who are on low pay, earning less than £3 or £4 per hour? Will they help the 1.1 million pensioners in Scotland, some of whom are on income support and some of whom get by on an occupational pension which merely takes them above levels at which benefits are paid? Of course they will not. It would be crazy for the people in the Treasury to conjure up a punitive tax and then have to spend huge sums of money to compensate people for what the Government inflict upon them. I believe that that is morally and politically offensive in relation to the people whom I have described. It is a punishment for most people because everyone will pay that ludicrous tax, but we have to have concern for those who are in greatest need.
The Government should seriously consider all the matters that we have highlighted this evening, including the subject of cold weather payments, but it would not make one iota of difference in a real sense to tinker with proposals against the massive income inequalities that are growing, and against the deplorable housing conditions that generate fuel poverty. Of course the Government would be better served, even at this stage, by abandoning the imposition of VAT on fuel. We think that we have a strong case. It is a moral and a political case. I sincerely hope that when the Minister winds up tonight he wilt tackle some of the deeper, more significant issues that I have raised in my contribution.
8.55 pm
Mr. George Kynoch: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on cold weather. I speak as a Member for a constituency which contains perhaps one of the coldest villages in Britain, Braemar, but I shall mention that later.
Having heard the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) open this debate—I am sorry that she is no longer in her

1057
seat to hear the rest of the debate—I have a lot of sympathy with many of the emotions that she expressed. There is no doubt about it; we are very anxious to protect the old, and especially those on low incomes, from the ravages of cold weather. Having listened to the hon. Lady, however, one would imagine that the Government had done nothing to help them. She is wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has already listed significant improvements to the cold weather payments scheme which were introduced some years ago.
I must also correct the hon. Member for Moray because she will be aware that before I became a Member of the House I used to live in her constituency and I therefore know the area quite well. She will perhaps be aware of the monitoring points for the cold weather payments for her constituency. She spoke about there being one monitoring point for the entire constituency, from the highlands up to Aviemore—although I know that Aviemore is outwith her constituency—down to the coastal belt of the Moray firth. I understand that her constituency has a similar coverage to mine and that the coastal area is covered from a monitoring point at Aberdeen, on the coast, whereas the highlands are covered from Aviemore.
I shall return to that later. First, I must deal with her suggestion of a cold weather payment allowance. She mentioned four zones, with the fourth—northern Scotland —having the highest allowance. As I said, before the election I used to live in Moray and I know what the temperatures there are like. Moray consists of the Spey valley. I have now moved across a set of hills to the Dee valley. My goodness, the temperature there is significantly lower than the temperature in Moray. Yet, under the hon. Lady's proposed cold weather allowance, everyone would be paid the same. Is it right and proper that my constituents, who live in a much colder area, should be given the same as her constituents? I do not think that it is.
If we impose that sort of blanket coverage, there will be inequalities, and that does not apply only to Scotland. I am sure that some of the coldest areas of England can match the temperature in parts of Scotland, although they could not match the coldest area in my constituency. If we introduce blanket coverage, we will open up a hornet's nest. I stand by the Government's cold weather payments scheme, targeted at cold areas and those who need them most.
Mr. Salmond: If I were the hon. Gentleman I would start to worry about the political temperature in my constituency. Will he carry his concern about cold in his constituency into the Lobby against the Government when we vote on value added tax on domestic fuel, or will he vote against his constituency interest, as he did on fishing, oil workers and the regiments?
Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) says, but perhaps I am rather more sensible than him. As I have heard only half of the equation for VAT on fuel, I look forward with great interest to hearing the other half when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us the balancing factor—the benefits for those in need. To criticise the tax when one knows that we have to raise taxes is totally wrong and misleading, but it is typical of the Scottish National party. The nationalists are trying to stir
1058
up emotions and worry people. They are trying to tell people that they will not get something that has not even been announced yet.
On the details of the cold weather payments scheme, I had some sympathy for the hon. Member for Moray when she mentioned the monitoring points. I have referred to Braemar—a village in my constituency, which nestles in the Dee valley about 60 miles west of Aberdeen. Braemar is a particularly cold part of Scotland. I have here some temperatures for the past three years, which were recorded in Braemar by the local primary school, which is a climatic monitoring station for the Meteorological Office. It might interest my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to know that the minimum daily temperature was less than freezing on 116 days in 1991—that is one third of the year. In 1992, the number of days below freezing dropped slightly to 102, and this year there had already been 38 days below 0 deg C by August. During the past three years the minimum average monthly temperature has risen to above 10 deg C—48 deg F for those of us who deal in older units—only once, in July 1991.
I am worried about the residents of Braemar because the cold weather payments scheme is geared to look after people like them. There are many retired people and people on low incomes in Braemar. It is important that we ensure that the cold weather payments scheme works and applies to those people. I am sure that the Government are concerned about that.
I then looked at the average mean temperature in Braemar during the past three years, to find out how many times the cold weather payments would have been triggered if the monitoring point had been there. I found out from a particularly helpful gentleman at the Meteorological Office this morning—a Mr. Davis—that the cold weather payment would have been triggered by a consecutive period of seven cold days on six occasions in 1991, if the temperature had been recorded at Braemar. In 1992 there would have been one payment and in 1993 there would have been three. As I said, the monitoring station is at Aviemore and the payments for my constituency were triggered less often. In 1991 they were triggered only twice; in 1991–92 there was no payment; and in 1992–93, when the winter must have been somewhat warmer or more uniform, the payment was triggered three times, which is what would have happened if Braemar had been the monitoring point.
I am greatly concerned. We have a scheme that deals with the problems caused by the effects of cold on people on low incomes and the elderly. We must make absolutely sure that it works.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that he will consider upgrading the monitoring station for the Braemar end of the Dee valley. When I picked up the phone this morning the same Mr. Davis said, "Ah, yes. Braemar would be the ideal spot for monitoring cold weather payments in that area but it puts in its record only monthly". It puts in its record monthly because a primary school is recording temperatures on a daily basis and is asked for the record only monthly. Any difficulty lies in who will pay the telephone calls to submit the daily figures to Bracknell. I may be wrong but, if that is so, I urge my hon. Friend to overcome that problem so that the current system, which I believe is good, works and protects those whom it is designed to protect.
I understand that a cold period lasting seven days, in which the mean temperature is below zero, is needed

1059
before the cold weather payment is triggered. What happens if we have a period of, say, nine days when the mean temperature is below zero? Under the existing rules, I understand that seven days' payment is then made and a fresh period of seven days then begins in which one must requalify. In my constituency and the Dee valley, a significant number of cold days fall between trigger points —between seven and 14 days or between 14 and 21 days—and thus cannot become qualifying periods. We should pay for that intervening period.
The hon. Member for Moray referred to automatic payments. I understand that the payments are made automatically by computer if one is eligible for benefit and that one does not have to claim for them. They can also be paid on days on which the temperature is forecast below zero.
The hon. Lady unintentionally distorted some of the benefits of the cold weather payments scheme. There is a lot of good in the scheme. Although I believe that she is seriously concerned for her constituents and I share her concern, I do not share her solution because it would have to be paid for at the expense of those whom she is trying to protect.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to upgrade the Braemar primary school station to a met station capable of being the monitoring point for that area and to review the seven-day period so that, when a cold spell lasts longer than seven days, parts of that period can also be covered.
9.7 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: It is important to put on record the fact that cold weather is not stopped by Hadrian's wall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on bringing this debate before the House.
On Monday morning, before I came down to Westminster, I went to Carlisle city centre where the excellent pensioners' rights organisation was organising a petition against VAT on fuel. I signed the petition and stayed to talk to some of the pensioners. It was a cold, bright day in Carlisle and a north wind was blowing from the Scottish mountains. But VAT on fuel was sending a shiver down the backs of the pensioners in my constituency. It should also send a shiver down the backs of Conservative Members.
Mrs. Ewing: I was not in Scotland over the weekend and did not deliberately send down a cold wind in the direction of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I have a great deal of love and affection for Carlisle as many members of my family live in that area. I happened to be in Carmarthen in Wales, where people were chipping the ice off their car windows on that morning. We recognise the fact that climatic conditions can affect all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Martlew: There is no doubt that it is a British problem. Shivers should be running down the backs of Conservative Members——
Mrs. Ewing: They have no spine.
Mr. Martlew: I take the hon. Lady's point. Shivers should be going down the spines of Conservative Members
1060
because many of the people that I talked to had voted Conservative in the previous election, but many said that they would not do so again.
An elderly gentleman, who had worked for most of his life, had a small works pension, had put away a bit of money and had fought in the last war. He told me that, although he would have liked to, he did not receive income support because he received a pension. He said that dramatic interest rates cuts may have helped mortgage payers, but had cut the interest on his small amount of savings. He also commented on the fact that German pensioners who had also fought in the last war were treated better by their Government than he was by ours.
We have heard that tale on many occasions, but it is still true. That gentleman knew that he was being badly treated by the Government and that he would have to tighten his belt in order to afford to heat his house after the introduction of VAT on fuel. VAT on fuel is wicked, evil and should never have been considered. Conservative Members agree with that, but they do so because they consider the issue in political terms; we agree because we see it in social terms—VAT on fuel will bring devastation to many people.
People die of cold in the winter. The statistics prove that, in this country, 35,000 people, many of them elderly, die in the winter months. What does the Government do to help? They do nothing to help, but instead decide to put VAT on fuel. That will have only one effect; it will mean that more people will die next winter when VAT comes in at 8 per cent. and even more will die when VAT goes up to 17.5 per cent. in the following winter. However, that is what the Government are contemplating.
The present cold weather payment arrangements do not work well. Reference has been made to Eskdalemuir. It is probably one of the better stations, and better than the one in Northumberland. Eskdalemuir is 400 ft above sea level and last year triggered cold weather payments three or four times. The weather station in my constituency is at sea level. I believe that cold weather payments were triggered on only one occasion. That meant that the people of Gretna received cold weather payments four times, but those who live just over the bridge and across the river in England received only one cold weather payment. There must be something wrong with a system that allows that to happen. Nobody will convince me that temperatures vary from one side of a bridge to another. I know that it has been exciting on the bridge, but that was 300 years ago, and we have calmed down a lot since then.
Recently, the National Lottery Bill went through the House. The cold weather payment system is a lottery—the Government's decisions on where the temperatures are to be taken constitute a lottery. It cannot be seen as a fair system. Unless the Government are prepared to introduce more stations or another system, the cold weather payment arrangements will be seen as unjust by the people who should benefit.
The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) referred to the fact that seven days in a row of cold weather are required before payments are made. Do not people spend extra money on fuel during six days of cold weather? Do they spend extra money only on the seventh day? What if there are six days of cold weather, the temperature rises 1 deg C above the limit for one day and then there are another six days of cold weather? Will that mean that those in the district do not use extra fuel? It will mean that they receive no extra payment. The system is not

1061
fair and it is seen not to be fair. We have a lottery, but the seven-day system is like the football pools—if one gets seven draws, one gets a dividend, albeit a low one of £6. But if one gets six draws, one gets nothing.
Perhaps the system advocated by the hon. Member for Moray is not the right one, but we must arrive at a just system for the whole country. There should of course be fewer people on income support; that can be achieved only by providing more work for those without it. We need the basic pension to be set at a level that allows people to dispense with income support or special allowances of any kind. The people who receive such allowances do not want special treatment: they just want fair treatment.
I am glad that today's motion was tabled. The people in my constituency are angry about VAT on fuel and distressed because they often miss out on cold weather payments. Conservative Members have said that we know only half the equation. That is not our fault. Why did not the Government announce what they were going to do for the vulnerable when they announced the imposition of VAT on fuel? Actually, they did announce it—they intended to do nothing. It is only because of public pressure and the realisation by some Conservative Members that they are likely to lose their seats—they have been looking over the water to Canada and they have seen how cold it can be there—that the Government have thought again.
We must get rid of VAT on fuel. It is no good the Minister being so urbane at the Dispatch Box and giving way all the time when he gives nothing away to the people whom I represent.
9.15 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes as I do not wish to deny Opposition Members the chance to speak.
I have watched the debate with interest and the Minister has already said most of what I wanted to say. At the risk of destroying his political prospects, I hope that the House will allow me to commend the performance by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), whom I have not seen before at the Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that we will see him there again, however.
I believe that the proposal by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is fatally flawed because it advocates the delivery of a benefit that does not meet the problem which she described to the House. The hon. Lady speaks in terms of the deaths of elderly people who are deprived of the ability to heat their homes. There is no doubt that any sort of poverty presents risks of that sort, but to defuse that risk the hon. Lady has presented us with a system that massively increases public spending—by her own admission, by hundreds of millions of pounds. That expenditure will not, however, solve the problem that she has so energetically and passionately defined. That is why I want to take her to task and to put this debate in its correct context.
There are two distinct aspects to the motion. The first is the VAT on fuel announced in the Budget; the second is the hon. Lady's proposal for a cold climate allowance. I fear that too many extraneous issues have been introduced to this debate without a proper presentation of the facts.
Over the past few years the costs of domestic fuel have fallen dramatically, partly as a result of privatisation, and partly as a result of world energy prices. Anyone with a constituency in Scotland will know about the oil price
1062
movements of the past few years. Domestic energy prices have fallen. Gas prices have fallen by 21 per cent. since 1986, the price of oil has fallen, and the price of electricity, strictly controlled by the regulations included in the privatisation legislation, is also beginning to fall.
Mrs. Ewing: Irrespective of the cost of domestic fuel —I have already mentioned the implications of the RPI for benefits—does the hon. Gentleman dispute the fact that the 10 per cent. of households with the lowest incomes will be hit seven times harder by VAT on domestic fuel than will the richest 10 per cent.—a statistic produced by the university of Cambridge?
Mr. Duncan: I shall shortly deal with that when I examine the percentage of household income that is spent on fuel, because that issue is crucial to the argument. VAT will be levied initially at 8 per cent. and it is planned to raise it to 17.5 per cent. I have discovered from the Library the estimate of how much a household spends on fuel. I have all the figures, but I shall deal with just one category —a retired couple in a household who depend mainly on state benefits. It is said that they spend 7.9 per cent. of their household income on domestic fuel, of which VAT will represent an increase of about 1.5 per cent.
VAT on fuel will be about £1 to £2 a week per household. For most people that is affordable, as it represents the price of a pint of beer or a bit more. However, for many people it will not be affordable and the Government are directing their efforts and targeting money at those people. The cost of the hon. Lady's proposal is excessive, but its benefit to the people that I have described is not particularly effective. The Government can best deliver that benefit to those who are most in need. That is exactly what we on the Select Committee on Social Security are studying and we shall openly recommend to the House what we think is the most effective way to do it.
The hon. Lady and her party have pre-empted the debate by introducing scares and excitement and by examining only one side of the equation by refusing properly to discuss what the Government might be able to introduce. The hon. Lady has done the public a disservice by not presenting the facts equitably.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) said, there is already a cold climate allowance and it is working increasingly effectively. My hon. Friend described how it will be delivered automatically to those on benefit. However, he did say—and it should be said—that, thanks to the amendments that we have tabled, that allowance will be delivered within five to 10 days, probably even before bills are received. Therefore, the Government have directed considerable effort towards making sure that the specific delivery of benefits, payments and compensation is targeted to those who are most in need. That is better than the random, massive arbitrary benefit that has been recommended by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.
The motion is sloppily worded. It does not clearly say how the money is to be raised, although now that the Trident refit has moved to Rosyth, the Scottish Nationalists are happy to say that the money could come from that programme. The hon. Lady failed to say that if independence for Scotland is granted the revenue that she described will no longer be available to it. She is calling for

1063
a massive and inefficient increase in the subsidies for Scotland and perhaps for other parts of the United Kingdom.
We must consider carefully how these benefits are to be delivered and we must take the debate away from massive, universal benefits.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan: No, because I am coming to the end of my speech.
Expenditure must be much more closely directed to those in need. Those are the people that the hon. Lady has well described but by her motion has not helped.
9.23 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: There is not enough time to cover all the issues that I should like to cover, but I shall highlight one or two matters. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on her excellent speech. She genuinely believes, as we all do, in the worth of what she says.
The debate is about people, about the elderly and disabled, and especially the latter who incur additional costs for daily heating and hot water and need a constant, warm environment.
The way to end fuel poverty is to invest massively in the housing stock and provide basic insulation. There are particular problems with the home energy efficiency scheme in rural areas.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that contractors are reluctant to undertake work in more remote areas because the maximum grant is not sufficient to cover costs. The additional cost has to be absorbed by the installer or borne by the customer, so contractors tend to keep people in rural areas waiting until they have several jobs to do in one area. Individual jobs in rural areas can sometimes cost many hundreds of pounds more than the maximum grant. For that reason, the energy action grants agency has never been able to find a contractor for the Western Isles.
Most customers have to pay substantially more than the £16 for loft insulation and draughtproofing specified by the energy action grants agency. Many customers, such as those on income support, have had to give up having the work done because they can see no way of paying for it. Clearly, the grants are not enough to help the very people whom they are intended to benefit.
The Government should understand by now that their extraordinarily unpopular suggestion that they put VAT on power and fuel is frightening many people, particularly the elderly.
Let me draw attention to two letters that I have received from constituents. I have had many more letters on this particular subject than I ever had about the poll tax because so many people are genuinely worried about what is going to happen. I received a letter from a 69-year-old pensioner who wrote:
"I now dread the winter. I often sit without heating or with only the limited heating of a storage heater, only putting on one bar of my electric fire. The rest of the house stays cold and I know what hypothermia feels like".
Another writes:
"As a … pensioner I feel not welcome in my own country. I don't feel safe or secure over the future. I speak to local elderly
1064
folk who just about manage to pay their fuel bills and who did have pride in their meagre independence. They are shocked and hurt over this tax on fuel."
Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Michie: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way as we are short of time. We want to wind up the debate and I am specifically trying to be brief.
The problems that I have outlined are genuinely worrying my constituents and many others. I am aware that there are cold parts throughout the United Kingdom, but it is significant that most Members of Parliament who have spoken tonight represent constituencies in Scotland. It is a very cold place. We have long, cold winters and very short, often also cold, summers. I received a copy of a letter from the Paymaster General to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) who had written to him making clear his worry about the imposition of VAT on fuel. The Paymaster General wrote back to him, particularly about the highlands and islands, saying
"However, it should be noted that though the cost of heating in the North may be more expensive this is only one aspect of the overall cost of living. Other day-to-day expenses may be considerably less costly in, for example, Scotland than in the South of England."
It sounds as though the Paymaster General has never been to the north of Scotland, where the cost of food, transport and ferry services make the cost of living much higher. I hope that the Minister will take on board all the points made tonight.
9.30 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: This debate has certainly justified the decision of my hon. Friends and myself to centre it on not just the imposition of value added tax on fuel but a whole range of issues connected with fuel poverty. The existing situation is intolerable and VAT on fuel will make it much worse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) dealt with the social security aspects of our proposals, so I shall concentrate on energy efficiency. The statistics on both are damning and should remove any vestiges of complacency of the kind shown by Government Members this evening.
In the United Kingdom, 7 million homes have heating problems and the figure for Scotland is 750,000. During Scottish Questions yesterday, it emerged almost casually that no fewer than 70,000 homes in Scotland with damp problems are homes where the head of the household is a pensioner. My hon. Friend quoted the latest frightening estimate that 3,000 to 5,000 deaths occur in Scotland each and every year from cold-related medical conditions.
Any Government with a shred of humanity would act to tackle those appalling statistics—not make them worse by imposing VAT on domestic fuel. The complacency on the Tory Benches was epitomised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who revealed at the start of the debate that he had not even bothered to read any of the cold climate Bills that we have presented to the House over the past few years. He ended his speech by inadvertently revealing that he had no knowledge of the Scottish budget, in which our proposals for a cold climate allowance are part and parcel of the calculations.
Even worse than the hon. Gentleman's ignorance was the Minister's display of complacency this evening. He basically said that the Scots are exaggerating the nature of

1065
the problem—that the poor in general spend less in absolute terms on fuel bills and that the Scots do not spend much more. The Minister betrayed his lack of understanding of the very nature of the problem.
The family expenditure survey figures show that in 1992, 5.4 per cent. of household income in Scotland goes on fuel expenditure, whereas the figure is 4 per cent. for the south of England and the United Kingdom average is 4.8 per cent. The poorest 10 per cent. spend seven times more as a percentage of household income on trying desperately to heat their homes compared with the top 10 per cent. The paradox is that the poor spend less in absolute terms because—as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said—they retreat to live in one room and to their beds because they cannot afford adequately to heat their whole houses.
If members of the Government Front Bench claim that we are exaggerating, perhaps they will heed the Northern Scotland Consumers Council (Electricity), which in its submission on VAT on fuel made the same point in respect of absolute expenditure:
"We suggest that this figure could indicate that, through lack of funds, the proportion of underheated homes is much greater in Scotland."
I hope that Government Members who argued this evening that the problem is being tackled through the existing system will feel thoroughly ashamed when they return to face their constituents. Those hon. Members were of course merely echoing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that it is a question of proportion and that those who argue against VAT on fuel are getting matters out of proportion. Of course, it is a matter of proportion—in the sense that, as a percentage of income, a pensioner in Scotland will be affected six times as much as the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the imposition of VAT on fuel. That assumes that the Chancellor will pay his own heating bills, rather than their being met at the public expense.
The Chancellor says—and his view has been echoed this evening—that no sensible person would condemn the proposal for VAT on domestic fuel without knowing the nature of the compensation scheme. We are here this evening to say that no sane Chancellor would threaten such a measure without a precise examination of the vulnerable sections of the community that it would put at risk.
As I think we all know, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer was being disingenuous when he said in his Budget statement that it was all a matter of trying to save the world by cutting carbon dioxide emissions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray pointed out, an area in the north of Scotland that is the greenest in the country in terms of electricity generation will be the hardest hit by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. In the Hydro area, some 0.28 kg of kwH of carbon emissions are generated. The average for the United Kingdom is 0.83—three times as much. The greenest area will be hardest hit and will suffer most. It is in this area that the Scottish paradox of fuel poverty amid energy plenty is at its worst.
It is possible to sit shivering at home in the north-east of Scotland, while looking out to sea and observing cheap gas supplies being piped round the coast without benefiting those experiencing fuel poverty. In rural areas in the north, people cannot even obtain a gas supply to gain access to a cheaper form of heating, because British Gas has ordered the Scottish area to increase connection charges by adjusting the previous formula. The Government are on a
1066
collision course with the Scottish people: perhaps that is why, according to tonight's latest survey, their support in Scotland stands at 14 per cent. For the benefit of numerate Tories from English constituencies, let me say that that is one-four per cent.
Mr. Graham: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested that the amount involved was only the cost of a pint of beer. How insulting that is to elderly people in Scotland. Do Conservative Members think that such people can go out every night and pay £2 for a pint of beer? The hon. Gentleman clearly has not a clue about the price of a bottle of Calorgas, which is £11.75. Let me tell him, if he does not know, that a hundredweight of coal costs between £5.75 and £6.75.
Mr. Salmond: As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made his point very well and requires only an endorsement from me.
I spent a happy few years on the Energy Select. Committee, which I considered one of the most successful Back-Bench Select Committees. A measure of its success was the Government's anxiety to abolish it: that must say something for the reports it produced. Two examples brought home to me the shameful position in regard to energy use and energy efficiency in the United Kingdom. The first came from Andrew Warren of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, who said in evidence that, without any question, on the basis of a range of statistics and examinations, the standards of thermal insulation in Scandinavia were higher in the 1930s than they are in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, 60 years later.
We need look no further for the explanation of another frightening statistic, mentioned earlier. In Scandinavia—which has a much colder climate than parts of the United Kingdom—the percentage rise in deaths in the more vulnerable sections of the community is much less during the coldest winter months. What have the Government proposed? What is the Minister so proud of? In his opening speech he listed a whole range of measures. He said that the Government will engage in the local authorities investment programme, but that has been severely cut across the range of initiatives that local authorities are prepared to make. He mentioned the Green House initiative, but that budget is to be cut in the next financial year to a mere £5 million. Then he mentioned the Energy Saving Trust—which is chaired by the former golden boy, John Moore—but its budget is only £5 million. The much-vaunted home energy efficiency scheme has a total budget of £35 million.
Those measures and budgets are paltry when compared with the billions of pounds of profits generated by the energy industry. The Government should introduce two measures to help them finance a significant programme of energy conservation. First—for this programme and a range of others—they should arrange the transfer of local authority housing capital debt from local authorities to central Government, which would release funds over a period and enable the local authorities to put their housing stock in proper order.
Secondly, we need tougher regulation of the massive energy utilities. At the moment those utilities have an incentive to sell energy to inadequately insulated homes. Energy utilities are not allowed to sell appliances which are inefficient and dangerous, so why should the same utilities be allowed to sell energy to homes which are energy inefficient and dangerous to the occupants? As a strict

1067
condition of their licence, the energy utilities should be required to provide an input of investment into the proper insulation of the homes to which they sell their energy.
The semblance of unity that the Government have managed so far on the issue of VAT on domestic fuel is a facade. They have heard enough muted sounds from the Tory Back Benches this evening to know the key concerns that many Tory Members have. Even within the Government there is only a facade of unity, a barely held together position on the question of VAT on domestic fuel.
Not everyone in the House buys a weekly copy of the Turriff Advertiser, so for the edification of those who have not read it, I will read a section from the issue of 8 October this year. Under the headline "MP Sproat in Turriff' it reads:
"Arts minister lain Sproat expressed concern over government proposals to put VAT on to heating bills, while in Turriff at the weekend.
Speaking at Banff and Buchan Conservatives West branch's cheese and wine, the former Aberdeen South MP was applauded when he said he hoped the Chancellor would not tax domestic fuel.
'It is unfair to put this added burden on the elderly and retired,' he added."
That was said by a Minister in Turriff earlier this month.
I have written to the Prime Minister welcoming the freedom of speech that Ministers are allowed and I am looking forward to the free vote that will be allowed when the issue of VAT on domestic fuel comes to the crunch.
The Minister was dissembling in Turriff because he understands the tidal wave of anger that has been generated by the VAT on domestic fuel issue. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was right to say that it is a greater issue than the poll tax was in 1989 and 1990. If the Government do not change course on this issue they will be swept aside by that tidal wave of anger. Those on the Treasury Bench may threaten a long cold winter for the elderly and vulnerable in Scotland and elsewhere, but I can promise the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the heartless Secretary of State for Scotland a long hot political winter unless they change course on this particular issue.
9.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): It gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate and to support the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who gave a typically understated performance. He raised a number of matters which had been mentioned by other hon. Members and I shall comment on them. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues spoke about inhumanity, and such comments are rather galling to me and my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. We are sick and tired of that sort of stuff.
Over the years we have spent substantial amounts of money on social security and on health. In fact, we spend more on those services than has ever been spent. It is rather unbecoming of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to rail constantly on the same sort of lines with such emotional stuff.
All the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan can do is to greet every problem with other people's money, which
1068
would fall through his fingers like water. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), yet again bumped up the cost of the cold weather credit scheme to £645 million, which is larger than even we had anticipated. We are all rather tired of the speeches that are given on this subject by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I shall comment in detail on the hon. Gentleman's proposals later.
Obviously, I listened with great interest to all the points that were made in the debate. I am afraid that I heard nothing, however, that would convince me that a cold climate allowance would improve conditions for vulnerable people in cold weather. Our current methods of providing help are far better. They deal with the real problems and focus the money on those who need it most. Income support provides for normal heating needs throughout the year and it is supplemented by cold weather payments when there is a sustained period of cold weather in a particular area.
The home energy efficiency scheme addresses the problems of fuel efficiency in homes and the Government combine their effort with other agencies to spread to vulnerable people advice on how to cope with cold weather. The current package of help is well designed and focused.
The hon. Member for Moray, who opened the debate, spoke with her usual passion and concern on this issue. In common with other colleagues, however, I am not convinced that her scheme would do the job that she intends. As we all appreciate, and as was said in the debate, the cost of heating is affected by many factors other than climate, including the size of the home, the type of heating, the standard of insulation and the like. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, I do not believe that a cold climate heating allowance would be properly targeted. It would introduce new inequities into the scheme. In common with previous Governments, we believe that it would not be right to deviate from the principle of national benefits levels, but that would be the effect of a cold climate allowance.
I must also take issue with the hon. Member for Moray, as other colleagues have done, on the problem of temperature variations between respective parts of the United Kingdom. Matters are not always as clear as they sometimes appear. The mean temperature variation between parts of the United Kingdom does not tend to be that great. Such variation is as much due to higher temperatures experienced during the year in the southern parts of the United Kingdom as opposed to necessarily much lower temperatures in Scotland in the colder months.
I have one example to cite in answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Moray. I studied the average mean temperatures between 1961 and 1990 for the four coldest months of the year—November, December, January and February—and I found out that the temperatures were lower in the English region that spread from Northumberland to Lincolnshire than they were in a Scottish region which included Orkney, Shetland, the northern areas, Ross, Cromarty and Inverness. Under the hon. Lady's proposed system, however, the Scottish area would have received higher payments of the cold climate allowance. I suggest that those figures reveal that it would not be a well-targeted scheme. It would not do the job that the hon. Lady intends.
Mrs. Ewing: I am listening to the Minister with great interest because it is obvious that he does not understand that it is colder in the north of Scotland in general than it is elsewhere. Is he challenging figures that have been supplied by the Meteorological Office, the Social Security Advisory Committee and a variety of organisations that are concerned for the welfare of the elderly and the handicapped? Does he disbelieve their statistics? Is he cooking up his own figures to suit his argument?
Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady should think twice about querying the figures that were given to me by the Meteorological Office. I have cited the mean average temperatures between 1961 and 1990 to illustrate my point that it is not easy to make generalisations, asunder the cold climate allowance scheme, because temperatures vary in different parts of the country. I am afraid that, in some cases, those variations would not do the job that the hon. Lady intends. I am sorry; I shall reiterate the point that in the four coldest months, in two of the areas that the hon. Lady chose, the area in England, to which she would give less money, was colder than the area in Scotland, to which she would give more money. If she would like to query the figures, I would gladly let her have them.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised the issue of how much is spent on fuel. He quoted the 1992 figures from the family expenditure survey. I have the 1993–94 figures before me. The average expenditure on fuel and power for those who claim benefit in Scotland in pounds per week is around £10.60. In Yorkshire and on Humberside it is £11, in the north-west and in the east midlands it is £10.80. Those figures suggest that to claim that fuel and power expenditure in Scotland is so far above that in other parts of the country is simply wrong.
Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard that I quoted the key figures from the expenditure survey—those as a proportion of income. On that basis, they are correct, and I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not disagree. He does not seem to appreciate the central point that has been made throughout the debate, that absolute figures, whether they apply to the poor or to people in colder regions, can of course be lower or marginally higher because people cannot afford to heat their homes. The limitation of those figures is that people switch off their fires because they are frightened of having a fuel debt.
Mr. Burt: Let us not change the argument; I shall deal with the cost of fuel in a moment. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that when one considers average expenditure as a percentage of net income for the years 1992 to 1994, in Scotland it is 5.1 per cent., compared with 5.4 per cent. in the north, in Yorkshire and Humberside and in Wales. The Scots do not necessarily come out on top.
I enjoyed, as always, the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who made his points in a clear and straightforward manner which I respect. Fuel poverty is a matter of concern to us all, and trying to come to grips with how the poorest manage their budgets remains a serious issue. I went to Ireland about three weeks ago and looked at some poverty projects in Northern Ireland and in southern Ireland where there is tremendous emphasis at local level on basic budgetary work. We do not do that nearly as well in the United Kingdom and there are lessons to be learned. For the poorest, budgeting for fuel can be extremely difficult and budget control is essential.
1070
The incidence of winter deaths is a sensitive issue and should be handled sensitively by the House, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central did. He was right: a variety of factors cause deaths during winter. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government were interested in doing anything about it. I am glad to tell him that the Department of Health has commissioned the Medical Research Council to undertake research into excess winter mortality and we await the results of the study into that complex issue, which should be handled in a complex manner.
I shall refer later to points made about VAT on fuel, but I would find the concern about fuel costs easier to take from the Labour party if it had not been in office when electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. every six weeks and there was nothing like the comprehensive scheme that we offer to look after people in such situations.
I am grateful for the information from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who raised the issue of housing in Scotland and said that that was a problem that any Government would wish to address. It is a problem that we are addressing.
Local authorities have been allocated £393 million for their own stock and £120 million for improvement and repair grants in the private sector. It is for them to allocate the money in the manner we suggest in order to tackle the most difficult conditions highlighted by the Scottish house: conditions survey. In addition, Scottish Homes, with substantial funding, already has about 40 strategic agreements with local authorities to meet housing needs. We accept what the hon. Member for Fife, Central said: housing problems cannot be solved overnight, but the Government are strongly committed to doing everything that they can.
Dr. Godman: The Minister mentioned a research project whose findings will, of course, be of considerable interest to us all. What institution is carrying out the research, what funding does the institution receive and when are the findings likely to be published?
Mr. Burt: The information from the Department of Health states that the research is being carried out by the Medicial Research Coouncil. I do not have information about funding or dates, but I shall ensure that it is sent to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) made an important contribution to the debate, in which he rightly took the hon. Member for Moray to task over what she said about the scheme. It is clear that Braemar primary school provides an extremely important service for the local community. I was interested in what he said about the problems in his area. I can tell him that the scheme is reviewed regularly, but the issue affecting his constituents has been noted and I shall ensure that it is examined.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke about shivers down the spine. He has them because of the Boundary Commission proposals—we have Carlisle marked out as a Tory gain at the next election, so I know that he feels the chill wind pretty keenly. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the cold weather payment scheme and moaned about its boundaries and fairness. We all accept that trying to ensure that the 60 stations cover the regions properly will involve an element of selection. However, the hon. Gentleman did not spend

1071
much time telling us about his party's cold weather payment scheme, and the reason is that it does not have one.
Mr. Martlew: I shall probably not be facing the Minister across the Dispatch Box after the next election because he will not be here. Why are there only 60 stations? Could the number not be increased?
Mr. Burt: With respect, that is mere nit-picking. One could argue for more stations, but the point is that we have a scheme that uses the stations to trigger cold weather payments, in a manner that the Labour Government could not have contemplated or afforded. The scheme is clearly—
Mr. Graham rose—
Mr. Burt: I apologise for not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have only a few minutes left.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton made two important points in his extremely helpful contribution. As any oil analyst of worth should, he correctly analysed the defects in the cold weather allowance mentioned by the hon. Member for Moray. He also pointed out that there has been a reduction in real terms in the cost of domestic fuel—it has been reduced by 17.5 per cent. in real terms over the past few years, which is a considerable contrast to the Labour party's record when it controlled fuel costs.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) raised the Liberal head above the parapet. We regard comments by the Liberals on VAT and fuel with considerable scepticism. It is only fair that I remind the House of the words of the Liberal policy paper entitled "Costing the Earth", which was published in August 1991.
It mentioned as a first priority
"the imposition of a tax on energy".
It stated:
"The UK is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT on to domestic fuels … If it proved completely impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nevertheless press forward … by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel".
Is it any wonder that so few of the hon. Lady's colleagues were prepared to grace the Benches tonight, because of their shame over that?
The comprehensive scheme offered by Her Majesty's Government in relation to cold weather payments is simple, fair, fast, responsive, sensitive and improved, and it is generous compared to any scheme offered by previous Governments. I commend it and the amendment to the House.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 119.

Division No. 375]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cryer, Bob

Barnes, Harry

Davidson, Ian

Bayley, Hugh

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Graham, Thomas

Canavan, Dennis

Gunnell, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Johnston, Sir Russell

Connarty, Michael

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

1072

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Rendel, David

Kirkwood, Archy

Salmond, Alex

Macdonald, Calum

Skinner, Dennis

Maclennan, Robert

Tyler, Paul

McWilliam, John

Watson, Mike

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Mahon, Alice

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Mr. Andrew Welsh and

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Ms Liz Lynne.

Paisley, Rev Ian

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Amess, David

Hunter, Andrew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jenkin, Bernard

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Ashby, David

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Bates, Michael

Knapman, Roger

Beresford, Sir Paul

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Booth, Hartley

Legg, Barry

Boswell, Tim

Lidington, David

Bowis, John

Lightbown, David

Brandreth, Gyles

MacKay, Andrew

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Malone, Gerald

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Merchant, Piers

Burt, Alistair

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Nicholls, Patrick

Carttiss, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Porter, David (Waveney)

Chapman, Sydney

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Rathbone, Tim

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Richards, Rod

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Robathan, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Congdon, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Conway, Derek

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Cran, James

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Sims, Roger

Devlin, Tim

Speed, Sir Keith

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Spencer, Sir Derek

Dover, Den

Spink, Dr Robert

Duncan, Alan

Steen, Anthony

Elletson, Harold

Stephen, Michael

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Stern, Michael

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Streeter, Gary

Fabricant, Michael

Sweeney, Walter

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Sykes, John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Forman, Nigel

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Thomason, Roy

French, Douglas

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Gallie, Phil

Trend, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Twinn, Dr Ian

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Viggers, Peter

Gorst, John

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Waller, Gary

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Watts, John

Hague, William

Whittingdale, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Widdecombe, Ann

Hannam, Sir John

Willetts, David

Harris, David

Wood, Timothy

Hawksley, Warren

Hayes, Jerry

Tellers for the Noes:

Heald, Oliver

Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

Hendry, Charles

Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Horam, John

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House commends Her Majesty's Government on its range of policies designed to protect the most vulnerable from the effects of cold weather and to stimulate energy conservation measures in the United Kingdom; and in particular welcomes the improvements in the Cold Weather Payments Scheme, the increased resources devoted to improving insulation for homes, and the extra help amounting to more than £1 billion given to poorer pensioners.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
COMPANIES
That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX
That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2001), a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
Question agreed to.

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

PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8426/92 and 8682/93, on packaging and packaging waste; and supports the Government's view that a harmonising measure is required in this area, and that the amended proposal for a Council Directive provides a good basis for negotiation, but that elements of it will need further amendment if it is to be acceptable.—[Mr. Conway.]
Question agreed to.

Low Pay (Lancashire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
10.11 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am grateful, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the matter of low pay in Lancashire. I also raised the matter in the House last Tuesday when, in my view, I received an unsatisfactory answer from the Minister of State, Department of Employment.
I had asked the Minister in a written question whether he had had any discussions with jobcentres in Lancashire with regard to the subject of low pay. Due to the summer recess, that question had been on the Order Paper longer than the normal period of 10 working days. However, the Minister stated that he had had no discussions on the subject. In response to my supplementary question, he, gave me what, in my view, was an insulting reply by referring to something that had been advertised in Victoria street in London. His reply had little or no relevance to the situation in Lancashire or to my constituency.
I feel that the issue is of such importance that I immediately sought to raise it on the Adjournment. I am grateful for the opportunity of having a different ministerial response to the case.
Low pay is a scandal affecting the whole of Lancashire. The incidence of low pay in Lancashire is far higher than it is in the country as a whole; indeed, the whole of the north-west is in a similar position. Low pay is just one example of the way in which the Government have eroded working conditions since 1979. They have eroded protection for workers, and they have introduced policies which I find totally unacceptable. The Government's taxation policy is one example. They have moved from direct taxation to indirect taxation, which penalises in particular people on low pay. Those on low pay must use a high percentage of their income—indeed all of their income—because otherwise they cannot survive.
The Government's policies on privatisation and compulsory competitive tendering lead to job losses and cuts in pay and working conditions. There is not one bus worker in Lancashire who, as a result of the Transport Act 1985, now enjoys the same working conditions as he did prior to the Act.
I have not simply raised the issue recently; I have raised it continuously. I have been fortunate enough in the past 12 months or so to be able to raise the issue of low pay in Lancashire on three separate occasions with the Prime Minister. Even when I raised the matter with him, I received an unsatisfactory reply to the points that I made. The issue is extremely important and I hope that the Minister will respond to my points.
Earlier this year, in early-day motion 1442, I drew attention to a programme shown on Channel 4 on 15 February produced by Hard Cash Productions, Cutting Edge. In the programme the journalist Sima Ray drew attention to the scandal of low pay in Burnley, Pendle, Blackburn and Preston. It gave specific examples of some appalling instances of low pay.
The Lancashire 1993 economic situation report said:
"The deterioration of average earnings in Lancashire is reflected by figures produced by the Low Pay Unit in Greater Manchester, based upon unpublished data from the 1992 New

1075
Earnings Survey, which revealed that more than half of Lancashire employees, (51.8 per cent …), earn below the low pay threshold."
For its purpose, the low pay threshold was £197.27 per week.
When I refer to low pay, I do not mean pay of £197.27, which is £5.19 an hour; I mean pay of £3 an hour or less. It is a scandal and a disgrace. The Low Pay Unit showed that in Lancashire 11.4 per cent. of the jobs on offer in five jobcentres in September 1992 were at £2.60 an hour or less and 85.5 per cent. were at £3.50 an hour or less. Those jobcentres were Blackpool south, Blackpool central, Preston, Blackburn and Burnley—a fair selection of jobcentres.
In Blackpool central and Blackpool south, a high percentage of the jobs offered wages of just over £3 an hour because they were protected by the wages councils. But now the wages councils have been abolished. Already a larger number of jobs in Blackpool are being offered at less than £3 an hour—jobs in the hotel and catering trade, which were some of the last to be protected by the wages councils.
When we consider the effect of abolishing the wages councils, we must bear it in mind that many of the people who were protected were women. The Trades Union Congress said:
"By abolishing Wages Councils on August 30, the Government has removed one of the last remaining forms of protection against wage-cutting and contravention of the equal pay principle for these vulnerable workers."
That is an extremely important point. The Government's record is outrageous and is out of step with other countries in Europe.
The Lancashire economic situation report for 1993 said that a high proportion of employees and advertised jobs in Lancashire were at wages below the contribution level for national insurance. Therefore, those people do not qualify for sick pay, unemployment pay or maternity benefit. That will cause them problems with their pension in the years ahead. It is disgraceful.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) cannot be here for the debate tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) also could not be present. They would have wished to speak in the debate, time permitting. My hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) are here to support my argument.
We all have people who come to our advice bureaux about low pay. A young married man with two children came to my advice bureau two years ago, not about his wages but about safety aspects at the factory in which he worked. He did not work in my constituency; he worked in a small footwear factory in the constituency of Pendle which is adjacent to my constituency. He was very concerned about several safety aspects, but he dared not complain. He had been out of work for a long time and he wanted to keep his job. He was terrified of raising the question of safety with his employer because he was afraid that he would lose his job if he did.
As that man was leaving my surgery he suddenly said, "At the top line, my pay is £40 for a 40 hour week." I asked him whether all the workers received that sum and he told me that the foreman received £50 a week. I asked him whether he was a member of a union and whether he
1076
wanted me to do something. He said, "Oh no. I don't want to lose the job. I've been out of work two years and it's better to be working than to be out of work." What a disgraceful and shameful position that is.
Ms Janet Anderson: I must emphasise that problems like that continue. My hon. Friend referred to someone who was paid £1 an hour two years ago. Only two weeks ago, a constituent of mine came to see me in my surgery. Two years on, she had been offered a job at £1 an hour.
As my hon. Friend has said, the problem is widespread across Lancashire and it has now reached scandalous proportions. To illustrate that, let me point out that a recent survey in the Bacup and Rawtenstall jobcentre area carried out by Labour-controlled Rossendale borough council showed that 75 per cent. of the 239 jobs available paid less than £3.50 an hour. That is a scandal which my constituents can no longer tolerate.
Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. She has underlined my case. This is a scandal. It is wrong to call these wages low wages. They are poverty wages and disgracefully low wages, and we must focus attention on them.
I want now to concentrate on examples in a document published in September by the Lancashire and Cumbria citizens advice bureau. The Government sometimes believe that the Low Pay Unit and others are politically biased. The last thing that the citizens advice bureau can be accused of is political bias. I will refer to some of the cases and then state briefly what the Government should do.
The document states that a client from a Lancashire bureau had worked three years for a local solicitor for an hourly wage of £3.54. Her employer paid no tax or national insurance for her and refused to give her a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment. She was dismissed for asking for holiday pay.
A client from another bureau in Lancashire worked for his employer for four and a half years, sometimes up to 60 hours a week, and was paid an hourly rate of £1.86. His comment was:
"If I could get another job or if another employer existed, I would go there."
In another case, a client said that he worked 77 hours a week at an hourly rate of £1.50. He said:
"I had to work seven days a week for three weeks to get my weekend off."
A citizens advice bureau in another part of Lancashire said that a male client working as a hotel cleaner was paid £50 for an 18-hour week which works out at £2.77 an hour. He was told that if he was to receive family credit, his wage would be reduced to take account of that.
There are many examples of such cases. A full-time hairdresser earned £30 a week. That is absolutely outrageous. An 18-year-old client in a fabric company was paid £1 an hour. If he had been covered by a wages council, he would have received £2.72 if he was over 21. Another CAB in Lancashire reported someone working a 39-hour week in a shoe shop for £90.
The document contains page after page of cases like that. The Minister must accept that the problem is not small. We are not talking about people who are working for reasonable levels of pay. We are talking about people who are working for poverty levels. I could produce pages and pages of statistics from citizens advice bureaux, Lancashire

1077
county council, the Low Pay Unit and from Burnley borough council. People cannot impove their houses because they do not have enough money to do it.
The Government have rejected the case for a national minimum wage. It is time that we had a national minimum wage. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes her head. She will say that a national minimum wage will threaten jobs and that the idea is a load of nonsense. Every other country in Europe has a form of pay protection—not necessarily a national minimum wage—for workers.
When the legislation that abolished wages councils was being considered, several companies in my constituency wrote, through me, to the Minister, saying, "We are paying people this amount. It is outrageous that we should have to face competition from people who pay £1 or £1.50 an hour less for what is effectively slave labour." It is time that the Government talked of fair pay and fair working conditions for a fair day's work. It is time that the Government recognised that working people in this country are entitled to fair treatment. They have not had fair treatment from the Conservative Government. If it is not too late, the Government must change track and show that they are prepared to tackle these problems and do something to eliminate low pay as speedily as possible.
10.26 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on obtaining this debate. It is also right to acknowledge the presence of other hon. Members at this hour—the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and, until I stood up, when for some unaccountable reason they left, the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). I appreciate their interest in this extremely serious subject.
I totally reject the criticisms that the hon. Member for Burnley levelled at my hon. Friend the Minister of State. When my hon. Friend replied to the hon. Gentleman, he pointed out quite reasonably that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues had advertised a job at no pay at all but that there was nothing disgraceful about that because the person concerned, as a result of the experience that he gained, went on to gain a full-time job. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was trying to point out that there are various patterns of entry into the labour market.
It makes no sense at all, at a time of recession, to try to eliminate low pay if the result is no pay. Firms which have been struggling to survive might find that they can keep jobs if they are able to keep their wages bills low. It is better for the country, for Lancashire and for the people who are employed as well as for employers if firms can stay in existence and maintain jobs so that they are ready to take the fullest possible advantage for themselves and their employees of the recovery which nobody now doubts is happening.
I was most interested to hear of the hon. Gentleman's investigations of the jobcentres in his constituency. I make an offer to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that, some years ago, I had a connection with Burnley, but it is a long time since I have been back there. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like me to visit his constituency in due course when the diary permits and we could examine some of the pay rates offered in Lancashire.
Mr. Pike: I recall when the Minister was the candidate for the Burnley constituency—I was then the agent—in 1979. I would be more than happy to welcome her to Burnley. Should not jobcentres make it clear what the rate is for every job so that applicants know exactly what remuneration is being offered?
Miss Widdecombe: I certainly share with the hon. Gentleman an ambition that people who go to a jobcentre should get the fullest possible information not simply about the rates of pay but everything connected with a job, which it is reasonable to assume one would get. I have no information at all to the effect that that is not what is happening in our jobcentre in Burnley. However, I listened to the hon. Gentleman and I am prepared to follow up the matter. Perhaps he will allow me to write to him in due course on that specific point. I will not be visiting Lancashire in the next few days or weeks but, in view of his warmish welcome, I will certainly put a visit on my schedule.
Perhaps I could make some general points. Much of the hon. Gentleman's thesis tonight is based on the reports of the Low Pay Unit. Clearly, he is trying to satisfy himself that the situation that the Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit attempted to describe in September 1992 somehow still exists. Indeed, he is sure that it exists because he has found a number of vacancies that offer less than £100, if I did my calculations correctly. He therefore reached the conclusion that low pay is widespread in Lancashire.
By making that extrapolation, the hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake that the Manchester Low Pay Unit made last year—that is, that advertised rates of pay somehow represent actual remuneration in the local labour market. By basing his arguments about the level of pay on the reports of the Low Pay Unit, he does not get the full picture of the current situation. Not only is the specific report more than one year old; as with so many reports produced by low pay units up and down the country, it is based on research restricted to a survey of vacancies displayed only in jobcentres.
The report of the Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit compared the wages on offer to potential recruits with various thresholds—in this case, national insurance contributions at £54 a week and approximate income tax thresholds of £66 per week for single people and £99 per week for married persons. The Low Pay Unit adds to those benchmarks entirely arbitrary weekly rates of £135 and £155 per week and its spurious low pay threshold of £197 per week. The hon. Gentleman appears to have swallowed whole the assumptions, methodology, reports and conclusions of what I consider to be not very scientific analysis.
Mr. Conn Pickthall: With permission, can the Minister estimate what she considers to be a low-pay threshold?
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is not asking a sensible question because what is low pay does not mean that that is the income on which a household must live. A lot of the low pay that is identified is the income of young, single people still living at home and deliberately chosen part-time work on the part of second and third wage earners. One of the ironies is that, if we adopt the policy of a national minimum wage as proposed by the hon. Member

1079
for Burnley, because of the amount of low earning among second and third wage earners, we would benefit the richest 30 per cent. of the population, not the poorest 30 per cent.
Naturally, the hon. Gentleman looked to Europe. I notice that Labour Members always look to Europe when they think that it is convenient, and look sharply away when we have statistics that they do not like. The hon. Gentleman pointed to countries which have minimum wages. The country with the closest to what the Labour party is proposing is Spain. Spain has a statutory minimum along the lines that a Labour Government would go. The fact is that Spain has 22 per cent. unemployment.
If the hon. Gentleman surveyed his constituents—I do not think that they have changed much in intelligence since I was up there, which means that they are a sharp bunch —and said, "Come on constituents of Burnley, would you prefer not to have your job or would you prefer that there were some low-paid vacancies in Lancashire?", I think that they would opt for the latter. People up there are quite wise and I commend their wisdom to their Member of Parliament.
Mr. Pike: Although I realise that the Minister has focused her attention on what the Low Pay Unit said, would she be prepared to look at the evidence of cases that go to the citizens advice bureaux? If I send her a copy of that document, will she respond to it?
Miss Widdecombe: Whatever the document the hon. Gentleman sent me, whether from the citizens advice bureaux or anywhere else, I would certainly look at it and respond to it. I should not dare to throw anything that the hon. Gentleman sent to me in the wastepaper basket. I look forward to responding to that communication in due course.
Earnings constituency by constituency are not as thoroughly documented as earnings by region so I shall consider earnings in the north west region, which will interest those in neighbouring constituencies. The 1993 new earnings survey shows that average weekly gross earnings for both men and women in the north west are higher than in any other region except the south east, including London. In the north west, average gross earnings have grown by 4.5 per cent. for men and 5.8 per cent. for women since the 1992 new earnings survey. People in real jobs in the north west of England are not low paid. On average, they are better paid than people in most of the rest of the country.
Ms Janet Anderson: The Minister has implied that "poverty wages", as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) rightly described them, are generally paid to single people. However, featured in the Darwen Advertiser in my constituency last week was a family man with an MA from Cambridge, who had been offered £1.66 an hour as a packer, which was the only job he could get. The Minister implied that the jobs on offer in the local jobcentres do not necessarily reflect the overall picture in the area. Where do the unemployed go for jobs? They go to the jobcentre. Indeed, the Government force them to go
1080
there. In the jobcentre in my constituency, a third of the jobs on offer pay less than £2.60 an hour and 75 per cent. pay less than £3.50 an hour.
Miss Widdecombe: The unemployed may have to go to the jobcentre but the Government certainly do not restrict them to the jobcentre. A general fallacy prevalent among Opposition Members—not just in this debate but in a number of arguments that they raise—is that somehow all the information on trends and jobs can be extrapolated just from the vacancies that occur in jobcentres. For example, Opposition Members are always asking me how I account for the large number of people chasing one job. But when one asks what each figure is based on, it is simply on jobcentre vacancies, whereas they are but a proportion of the labour market. I commend Opposition Members to study carefully the high turnover in the labour market and the number of vacancies. Just by looking at the number of vacancies that are filled and created every month they will realise that they cannot possibly be restricted to jobcentres alone.
Although I do not dispute the fact that Opposition Members can come up with examples of low pay, I have disputed throughout that, from those, extrapolations can be made suggesting that the problem is widespread, is worse in Lancashire than elsewhere and is not improving. My statistics, which are thoroughly independent and well validated by the earnings survey, clearly show that the position is improving, Lancashire does well compared with the rest of the country, and low pay is not widespread.
Neither the Government nor any previous Government, of whatever party, have defined low pay. Definitions of low pay, such as those used by the Low Pay Unit, the Trades Union Congress or the Council of Europe, are entirely arbitrary and fail to take account of the particular circumstances of individuals or households. For example, if the Council of Europe's so called "decency threshold" —68 per cent. of the national weekly wage, which was £215 in April 1993—had been held constant in real terms, the numbers earning below it would have fallen by more than 3 million since 1979. Therefore, on those figures, the number of people earning below the decency threshold has fallen. There is a clear lesson to be learnt from that: living standards depend upon a range of factors, not just pay alone. Low pay is relative; there will always be some workers who are lower paid than others.
It is utter wishful thinking to suppose that every wage packet represents a family's whole income. The low paid are the young, single people and part-time workers, many of whom are second, third or even fourth earners in their households. Consequently, only 7 per cent. of those in the bottom tenth of the earnings distribution live in the poorest tenth of the population based on household income. Low pay is not synonymous with low income or poverty, however defined. Having no job is the single most important cause of poverty—only some one fifth of the poorest tenth of the population live in households where the head or spouse is a full-time worker.
Those are the important facts. I thank the hon. Member for Burnley for raising the issue, but I believe that he has done so in a misguided way.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Parish Funding
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' proposals to reduce the funding support for parishes over the next five years.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners are currently discussing with dioceses what action will be needed over the next few years to correct the over-distribution of Commissioners' funds in previous years and to bring their income and expenditure into balance. This is likely to involve a mixture of reductions in allocations and the transfer to dioceses of responsibility for some categories of expenditure. The mission and ministry of the Church will depend increasingly on the giving of church members.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  War Crimes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases are actively under consideration for possible prosecution under the War Crimes Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Metropolitan police war crimes unit has submitted interim reports to the DPP in 10 cases. Inquiries into those 10 cases are still being actively pursued. The inquiries are not yet complete and the question of a possible prosecution cannot be considered until they are concluded.

  Siemion Serafimowicz
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given to the case of Siemion Serafimowicz by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The police are actively inquiring into allegations against Siemion Serafimowicz and as soon as those inquiries are completed, the question of any possible prosecution will be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Mrs. Lubov Voronovich
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration is being given to launching a prosecution in respect of the murder of members of the family of Mrs. Lubov Voronovich; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Metropolitan police war crimes unit is actively pursuing inquiries in respect of this and a number of other allegations. When those inquiries are complete, the Director of Public Prosecutions will consider whether prosecutions should follow.

  Treason Allegation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision in respect of the complaint of alleged treason by Mr. Rodney Atkinson; how long the DPP has now been considering the complaint; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Complaints of alleged treason made by Mr. Rodney Atkinson and Mr. Norris McWhirter were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the clerk to the justices at Hexham, Northumberland, on 9 September 1993. The Crown Prosecution Service wrote to the clerk to the justices on 22 October 1993 stating that, although it was entirely appropriate for the clerk to have referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service, the complaints themselves were misconceived and totally without foundation.

  Racial Hatred Incitement
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 he has authorised in each year since 1987; and on how many occasions the prosecution was successful.

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1987, the Law Officers have consented to the prosecution of offences contrary to part III of the Public Order Act 1986 in respect of the following numbers of persons:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  0

  1988

  2

  1989

  1

  1990

  2

  1991

  3

  1992

  3

  1993

  2

  Seven cases resulted in a finding of guilty and one of acquittal. In addition, one defendant was bound over, one died before trial and one case was discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service. Prosecutions have been started, but have not been concluded, in two cases.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Rape
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to ending the right to anonymity of victims in rape trials; what current provisions govern this right; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Anonymity for complainants in rape trials is governed by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that victims of all sexual offences are encouraged to report these crimes and are well treated by the criminal justice system when they do so. In 1992, the Government supported private Member's legislation—now the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992—which extended the right to anonymity to victims of all sexual offences.
  709
  However, the Government recognise that difficult questions can arise when a defendant is acquitted and there has been substantial publicity surrounding the case. My right hon. and learned Friend has recently indicated his intention to review the arguments for and against the current anonymity provisions as they relate both to complainants and defendants.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have been tried on

  Males tried at the Crown Court and found guilty at all courts of rape offences by type of offence and type of court 1985 to 19921

  England and Wales

  Found guilty

  Class

  Year/Description

  Act and section

  Tried at the Crown Court

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown Court

  All courts

  1985

  19.02

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 section 127

  4

  —

  4

  4

  19.03

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female patient

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(a)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.04

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(1)(b)

  1

  —

  1

  1

  19.05

  Rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  474

  1

  338

  339

  19.06

  Attempted rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  86

  7

  75

  82

  Total

  565

  8

  418

  426

  1986

  19.02

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 section 127

  7

  —

  6

  6

  19.03

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female patient

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(a)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.04

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(b)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.05

  Rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  503

  —

  329

  329

  19.06

  Attempted rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  80

  2

  63

  65

  Total

  590

  2

  398

  400

  1987

  19.02

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 section 127

  5

  —

  5

  5

  19.03

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female patient

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(a)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.04

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(1 )(b)

  1

  —

  1

  1

  19.05

  Rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  551

  2

  347

  349

  19.06

  Attempted rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  89

  —

  70

  70

  Total

  646

  2

  423

  425

  1988

  19.02

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 section 127

  7

  —

  6

  6

  710
  charges of (a) rape and (b) attempted rape (i) in the current year using the most recent statistics and (ii) for each preceding year from 1985, inclusive;

  (2) how many people have been found guilty of (a) rape and (b) attempted rape (i) in the current year, using the most recent available statistics and (ii) for each preceding year from 1985, inclusive.

  Mr. Mclean
  Information from 1985 to 1992—which is provisional—is given in the table. The 1993 data will not be available until the autumn of 1994.
  711

  Found guilty

  Class

  Year/Description

  Act and section

  Tried at the Crown Court

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown Court

  All courts

  19.03

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female patient

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(a)

  1

  —

  1

  1

  19.04

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(b)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.05

  Rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  670

  2

  411

  413

  19.06

  Attempted rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  114

  —

  79

  79

  Total

  792

  2

  497

  499

  1989

  19.02

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 section 127

  6

  —

  4

  4

  19.03

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female patient

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(a)

  1

  —

  1

  1

  19.04

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(b)

  1

  —

  1

  1

  19.05

  Rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  777

  3

  468

  471

  19.06

  Attempted rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  139

  1

  110

  111

  Total

  924

  4

  584

  588

  1990

  19.02

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 section 127

  8

  —

  7

  7

  19.03

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female patient

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(a)

  1

  —

  1

  1

  19.04

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(1)(b)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.05

  Rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  799

  1

  454

  455

  19.06

  Attempted rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  103

  2

  76

  78

  Total

  911

  3

  538

  541

  1991

  19.02

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 section 127

  8

  —

  5

  5

  19.03

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female patient

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(a)

  2

  —

  2

  2

  19.04

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(b)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.05

  Rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  842

  1

  465

  466

  19.06

  Attempted rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  102

  —

  64

  64

  Total

  954

  1

  536

  537

  19921

  19.02

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 section 127

  6

  —

  4

  4

  19.03

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with a female patient

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(l)(a)

  1

  —

  1

  1

  712 713

  Found guilty

  Class

  Year/Description

  Act and section

  Tried at the Crown Court

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown Court

  All courts

  19.04

  Man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care

  Mental Health Act 1959 section 128(1)(b)

  1

  —

  1

  1

  19.05

  Rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  827

  1

  424

  425

  19.06

  Attempted rape

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1

  96

  —

  61

  61

  Other2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  —

  931

  2

  491

  493

  1 Provisional.

  2 Details of offence not known.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of(a) rape and (b) attempted rape are recorded in (i) the most recent crime statistics for the current year and (ii) for each preceding year from 1985, inclusive.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for attempted rape are included in the rape offence classification and are not separately available. There were 4,142 recorded rapes in England and Wales in 1992. Figures for 1985–91 are published in table 2.16 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1991", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name each voluntary organisation which assisted in the reception of Bosnian refugees in 1992; and how much grant each received.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1992, the Home Office funded the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross to provide reception arrangements for ex-detainees and other humanitarian cases, and their dependants, whom the Government brought here from the former Yugoslavia at the request of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In 1992–93, grants of £476,000 and £86,000 were paid to the Refugee Council and British Red Cross, respectively for this purpose.

  A full list of organisations making their own arrangements to assist individuals from Bosnia is not available.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation took place with representatives of the ethnic minority communities in(a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west and (c) England before the Government decided to reduce the share of section 11 funding for projects funded jointly with local authorities from 75 to 57 per cent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Decisions made in the public expenditure round reflect the general economic situation and consultation with particular interest groups would not be practicable in the course of that process. However, we have subsequently sought the views of all interested parties on how the available funding should be used in order to achieve maximum benefit for members of ethnic minorities.

  National Identity Card
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the banks about the viability of smart card technology as a basis for a national identity card system.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions with banks.

  Young People (Custody)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) 15 and 16-year-olds and (b) 17 to 21-year-olds were held under sentence or remand in gaols in England and Wales at the latest date available; and what were the corresponding numbers during each of the preceding 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Jean Corston, dated 28 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) 15 and 16 year olds and (b) 17 to 21 year olds were held under sentence or remand in jails in England and Wales at the latest date available; and what the corresponding numbers were during each of the preceding twelve months.
  The information you have requested is only available for 30 June 1992 and 30 June 1993. I enclose a table detailing the population aged 15 to 20, by type of custody in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on those dates.

  Population1 aged under 21 by type of custody in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1993

  Age

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Sentenced2

  15–16

  85

  36

  308

  17–20

  1,890

  784

  4,773

  TOTAL

  1,975

  820

  5,081

  1 Provisional data.

  2 Includes those sentenced for non payment of a fine.

  715

  Population1 aged under 21 by type of custody in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 19922

  Age

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Sentenced2

  15–16

  77

  20

  261

  17–20

  1,881

  746

  5,296

  TOTAL

  1,958

  766

  5,557

  1 Provisional data.

  2 Excludes those held in police cells (140 untried, 2 convicted unsentenced and 32 sentenced on 30 June 1992).

  3 Includes those sentenced for non payment of a fine.

  European Police Information Centre
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much it has cost to set up the European police information centre; and what is the annual running cost.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Total capital costs have been £68,000. Running costs are expected to be £2,000 per annum.

  Police (Protective Clothing)
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been carried out to ascertain the effectiveness of issuing the Metropolitan police and other forces with protective clothing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The operational use of protective clothing is primarily a matter for chief officers of police. So far as I am aware no investigations into its effectiveness have been carried out by police forces. The police scientific development branch offers advice to chief constables on protective clothing which is based on trials. It has also partly completed a project to assemble information about public order injuries from which it will be possible to assess the effectiveness of protective equipment.

  Siemion Serafimowicz
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will withdraw the passport of Siemion Serafimowicz.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Records relating to the issue and possession of a British passport are confidential. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on this particular case.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give details of all complaints made by persons at Blakenhurst prison during the disturbances at that prison on 9 October;

  (2) what reports he has received concerning assaults on prisoners by prison officers in the segregation unit of 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.
  716
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 28 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about assaults on prisoners by prison officers in the segregation unit, and about complaints of assaults made by persons during the disturbances on 9 October, at Blakenhurst prison.
  Six prisoners at HMP Blakenhurst have made complaints of assault allegedly committed by prisoner custody officers on 9 October. These are being investigated by the Controller as required by Section 85(4)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal action is pending by prisoners at Blakenhurst prison against prison 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 from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 28 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what legal action is pending by prisoners at Blakenhurst prison agaisnt prison officers.
  I am not aware of any such action.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ask Her Majesty's chief inspectors of prisons to visit Blakenhurst prison and to report on the running of the prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State, it is for Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons to decide when he wishes to visit and report to the Secretary of State on the running of any prison.

  Each prison should be inspected about every five years.

  Aero-engines
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pusuant to his reply of 21 October,Official Report, column 271–72, if he will specify the animals used to test impact consequences on aero-engines.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Ducks.

  Racial Incidents
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police force area in England and Wales, reported racial incidents so far in 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not yet available. It is collated centrally on an annual basis and will be made available for the whole of 1993. All available earlier data have already been provided for years up to 1992.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to implement the improvements to the administration and enforcement of the Data Protection Act 1984 recommended by the National Audit Office report on data protection controls and safeguards.
  717
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The recommendations in the National Audit Office report are primarily directed to the Data Protection Registrar. I understand that he is considering the implications of the report for the work of his office.

  Racist Attacks
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women have been killed as a result of racist attacks in England and Wales in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available. The police are required to make returns of each known homicide to the Home Office, but are not specifically requested to note whether they consider the attack was a racist one.

  Young Offenders
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many 15-year-olds categorised as a suicide risk were placed in a strip cell(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 to date;

  (2) how many 15-year-old inmates were categorised as a suicide risk in (a) 1992 and (b) 1993 to the latest available date;

  (3) how many reported instances of self-injury there were in prisons and young offender institutions involving 15-year-olds (a) remanded into custody and (b) sentenced to custody in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answers 19 October 1993]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 28 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about 15 year olds in prison custody who have self injured, been categorised as a suicide risk or placed in strip cells.
  The number of incidents of self injury by 15 year olds in Prison Service custody in 1992 and 1993 is as follows:

  1992

  11993

  Remand

  1

  2

  Sentenced

  19

  32

  TOTAL

  20

  34

  1 To 30 September.

  There has been no self-inflicted death by a 15 year old prisoner in 1992 or 1993.
  Information about the number of 15 year old prisoners who have been categorised as a suicide risk, and about the number of such prisoners placed in unfurnished or protective accommodation, is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from local authorities concerning his review of standard spending assessments.
  718
  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 197 local authorities have responded to our invitation to make representations on the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the current differential in grant and standard spending assessments between different authorities for primary and secondary education(a) are excessive or (b) relate accurately to the different needs of pupils in different authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The standard spending assessment element for education is based on detailed research and analysis fully discussed with the local authority associations. Both the primary and secondary education assessments incorporate an index of additional educational need which is based on indicators reflecting the social and economic characteristics of the population of each authority.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the range of standard spending assessments for other district level services.

  Mr. Baldry
  The standard spending assessments of individual authorities for other district level services are based on the formula set out in the Local Government Finance Report for 1993–94, which was approved by the House in February. The formula reflects those social and demographic characteristics of each area considered to be relevant in the provision of this group of services.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current timetable for the review of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  Work on the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95 has now finished. My right hon. Friend will announce the outcome of the review later in the autumn as part of his proposals for revenue support grant for 1994–95. There will then be a period of consultation on those proposals, as in previous years.

  Sheltered Housing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the private ownership of occupied sheltered housing; what help is available to those living in non-regulated/non-registered accommodation; and if he will set up an ombudsman scheme.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has received written representations from elderly leaseholders—directly or through their residents' asociations and via hon. Members.

  All leaseholders are protected by the contractual terms of their lease which setout the rights and duties of landlords and tenants and the basis of the service charges. In addition, the existing legislation in the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1985 and 1987 gives leaseholders additional statutory rights.

  This protection will be augmented by new provisions in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Qualifying tenants may jointly purchase the freehold of their flats. It also enables the Secretary of State to approve codes of management practice governing

  719
  property management and gives tenants the right to a management audit of their landlord by an independent accountant or surveyor.

  The Government are not persuaded of the case for an ombudsman scheme for privately owned sheltered housing, nor of the practicality of that approach.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the regional total of capital expenditure by the local authorities in England for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region;

  (2) what was the capital allocation for each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (3) what was the national total of capital allocations for other services to local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London;

  (4) what was the regional total of capital expenditure on other services by the local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region;

  (5) what was the capital expenditure on other services by each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988.-89;

  (6) what was the national total of capital expenditure by local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London;

  (7) what was the regional total of capital allocations for other services to the local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region;

  (8) what was the capital expenditure by each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (9) what was the national total of capital expenditure on other services by local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London;

  (10) what was the capital allocation for other services for each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (11) what was the national total of capital allocations to local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London;

  (12) what was the regional total of capital allocations to the local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region.
  720
  Mr. Baldry
  I will write to the hon. Member and put the replies in the Library.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the regional total of capital expenditure on housing by the local authorities in England for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region;

  (2) what was the capital expenditure on housing by each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (3) what was the national total of capital expenditure on housing by local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London.

  Sir George Young
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the revenue support grant given to Barnet and Wandsworth in 1993–94; and what is the amount expressed relative to the respective populations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows.

  Local authority

  Revenue Support Grant,1993–94

  £ million

  £ per head

  Barnet

  93·823

  314·93

  Wandsworth

  160·203

  619 18

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cars there are in the Government car service; and how many(a) use lead free petrol, (b) are fitted with catalytic converters and (c) are electric powered.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are currently 193 cars in the Government car service fleet; 181 use lead-free petrol and 144 are equipped with catalytic converters. With the exception of some vehicles which cannot be readily replaced, the entire GCS fleet will use unleaded petrol with catalytic converters by 1 April 1994.

  No electric-powered vehicles are currently in use by the GCS. Electric-powered vehicles were trialled, but were not found to be capable of the required operating range.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what quantities of plutonium-contaminated radioactive waste material is currently stored at the Drigg site; and what plans there are to remove this material to Sellafield.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much plutonium-contaminated material is currently being stored at Drigg low-level waste dump; whether this material is intended to be moved to Sellafielcl ; and to what extent the containers currently intended to be used for these transports comply with IAEA regulations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.
  721
  The Drigg site is owned and operated by British Nuclear Fuels plc and is used for the disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste. It has also been used for the storage of plutonium-contaminated material, a category of intermediate level waste. I understand that the company is planning to move this material to Sellafield for interim storage and pre-disposal treatment. Any such movements are subject to regulation by the Department of Transport as the national competent authority.

  Wood Report
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his response to the Wood report.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: The Government have carefully considered the Wood report on the rating of plant and machinery, and industry's responses to it. The committee has produced a package of measures to update the law, to harmonise the rating systems, and to remove the substantial differences between the rules in the various parts of the United Kingdom.

  We have decided that the major recommendations of the report should be implemented throughout Great Britain for the 1995 rating revaluation of all non-domestic property. The main change to the committee's propoals will be to apply these rating rules whatever the valuation technique used.

  Implementation of the recommendations will involve replacing secondary legislation in England and Wales, and amending primary legislation in Scotland. The Government will consult interested people shortly on the way in which this will be done.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Reprocessed Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of reprocessed uranium have been returned to overseas customers with reprocessing contracts with British Nuclear Fuels plc to date; what quantities remain stored in the United Kingdom and at which locations; and what arrangements have been put in place for the future management of reprocessed uranium arising from foreign contracts.

  Mr. Eggar
  Except for small quantities which have already been returned, uranium arising from reprocessing to date by British Nuclear Fuels plc of irradiated nuclear fuel on behalf of overseas customers is stored under international safeguards by the company at its various sites.

  Plans for the usage of current and future uranium from reprocessing are a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers. The new oxide fuels complex at Springfields has the capability to fabricate nuclear fuels using recycled uranium from the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals to require(a) the nuclear installations inspectorate and (b) Nuclear Electric to
  722
  publish data on routine radioactive combination caused by the decommissioning of the Berkeley nuclear power station.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. Decommissioning of Berkeley nuclear power station is regulated by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate by means of conditions attached to the nuclear site licence. These include the need for consideration of a safety case for decommissioning and arrangements for reporting incidents including those involving radioactive contamination. No significant radioactive contamination incidents have arisen during the decommissioning of Berkeley. Routine monitoring for contamination off site is carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the data are published annually.

  Disqualified Directors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to ensure that Companies House keeps the register of disqualified directors up to date.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The register of disqualified directors is maintained and updated by Companies House from information supplied to it on new disqualifications from the various courts throughout the country. The register currently contains the names of all those directors notified to Companies House by the courts.

  Companies House is working with the Lord Chancellor's Department to improve reporting by the courts.

  Newspapers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will commission research into the arrangements for the supply and distribution of newspapers in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no plans to commission research into the arrangements for the supply and distribution of newspapers in Northern Ireland.

  On 19 August 1992 the Director General of Fair Trading referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—MMC—the supply of newspapers from publishers to wholesalers and wholesalers to retailers in England and Wales. The MMC reported to the President of the Board of Trade on 30 July. Its recommendations are still under consideration and until the report is published it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  The terms of reference of the MMC's inquiry exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland, primarily because newspaper distribution arrangements there are different. However, the Office of Fair Trading continues to keep these markets under review and, when the MMC's report is published, will examine the general principles arising from its conclusions to see whether any action is warranted.

  Prescribed Quantities
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to seek to amend the United Kingdom's national legislation on prescribed
  723
  quantities; and what action he proposes to make in relation to current EC legislation on prescribed quantities and unit pricing.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Under the existing national legislation certain pre-packed goods, including products such as biscuits, breakfast cereals, pasta and bread, must be produced in specified standard sizes. This restricts choice for the consumer—the standard sizes may not always suit their needs—and can impose an unnecessary burden on business.

  Accordingly, the Government are today issuing a consultation document to interested parties about abolishing these requirements where this would not conflict with mandatory EC legislation.

  With similar concerns in mind, the Government also propose to discuss with the European Commission ways of reducing the burden of the EC's legislation on standard sizes and on related unit pricing. This requires retailers to display the price per unit of measurement for certain categories of pre-packed goods where they are not made up in standard sizes.

  European Regional Aid
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which areas he has proposed to the European Commission should be designated under objectives 2 and 5(b) of the European structural funds.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I placed in the Library of the House on 11 October a detailed list of the areas that have been proposed. In summary, the population coverage of the proposals is as follows:

  '000s

  Objective 2

  Objective 5(b)

  Scotland and Wales

  5,211

  1,087

  Northern England

  9,866

  409

  English Midlands

  4,822

  415

  Southern England

  3,525

  909

  Gibraltar

  30

  —

  The Government have taken careful account of the many representations received, a list of which I have also placed in the Library. Most of the current objective 2 and 5(b) areas, with the exception of the highlands and islands of Scotland and Merseyside, are included. These two areas, like Northern Ireland, have already been designated as objective 1 areas.

  A number of urban areas not previously designated, including parts of London, are included under the objective 2 criteria, which allow for the designation of urban areas with very high unemployment or industrial dereliction.

  The areas proposed under objective 5(b) represent a significant increase in the coverage of British rural areas. This is made possible both by the promotion of the highlands and islands to objective 1 and the increase in financial allocations agreed at the Edinburgh Council last December. A number of areas dependent on fishing have also been proposed under both objectives, as specifically provided for in the regulations agreed by the Council in July.

  Further detailed information about the extent of the proposed areas may be obtained from Mr. G. Roach in my Department—telephone 071–215 2659 or 2556.

  There will now be consultation between the Commission and the Government before the Commission
  724
  publish its decision probably in early December. The Commission may want to reduce the coverage of the United Kingdom's and other member states' proposals to keep allocations across the Community as a whole to a reasonable limit.

  The Government's proposals are however realistic arid I look forward to the structural funds continuing to make a significant contribution to the economic development of the United Kingdom's priority industrial, urban and rural areas.

  The Government sent their proposals to Brussels on 6 October in order to meet the deadline set by the European Commission.

  Beer and Cider
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's review of policy on section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 relating to froth on beer or cider.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) announced on 29 March,Official Report, columns 50–51 that, as part of the Government's deregulation initiative, the Department of Trade and Industry was reassessing the costs and benefits of the implementation of section 43 and that interested parties had been asked to provide information relevant to this reassessment.

  We have now completed our reassessment of the commencement order which was made last year and which would bring section 43 into force from next April. After reviewing the costs of complying with the order, and considering the views of consumers, enforcement authorities and business we have concluded that these costs are disproportionate to the consumer benefit. They would include the cost to licensees of replacing brim measure glasses with new lined glasses or installing meters. It was also clear from the consultations that in most cases the costs of extra beer would be passed on to the consumer, with price increases amounting to about 7p a pint in pubs now using brim measures.

  Accordingly, I have today revoked the commencement order thus allowing the continuation of the existing case law that a pint of beer may consist of liquid and a reasonable head. We will also bring forward, as soon as parliamentary time permits, legislation to repeal section 43.

  I understand that the Brewers' Society is issuing revised guidance to its members on the dispense of draught beer. It will say that a pint of draught beer with a head should contain a minimum of 95 per cent. liquid. This guidance is issued in conjunction with organisations representing licensees. Trading standards officers will be able to refer to the guidance in court cases about short measure and the courts can be expected to attach considerable weight to it.

  If customers are unhappy with the amount of liquid beer they have received they are already able to ask for, and should get, a top-up. The Brewers' Society's revised guidance will state that such requests should always be received with good grace.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the letter sent to him on 4 August by Professor Horlock in his capacity of
  725
  chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations on nuclear waste management in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: I have sent a copy of Professor Horlock's letter of 4 August, and of my reply, to the hon. Member and have placed a copy of each in the Library of the House.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of reports from insolvency practitioners were rejected by the Insolvency Service in the latest available year; and if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers and percentages of rejected reports according to each principal reason for rejection.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: The percentage of reports from insolvency practitioners rejected at the vetting stage during the 12 months to 30 September 1993 was 80.3 per cent.—3,345 reports.

  Of those reports, 70 per cent. identified elements of unfit conduct, but the case was not considered to be sufficiently serious or evidentially strong enough to justify proceeding in the public interest or there was clear mitigation or some other relevant factor; 24 per cent. were linked with one or more other companies/individuals subject to other insolvency procedures or proceedings; 5 per cent. were submitted with insufficient time remaining to prepare the evidence and with an insufficient basis to seek leave to extend the statutory time limit; and 1 per cent. where the whereabouts of the director were not known and service would be unlikely to be effected.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Overseas Staff and Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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 12 months ago.

  Mr. David Davis
  The expenditure by my Department on premises and personnel overseas is as follows:

  Current financial year (estimated) £

  Previous financial year £

  Premises1

  10,044

  7,323

  Personnel2

  1,037,086

  956,991

  Notes:

  1 These costs relate to HMSO's recently opened European Sales Office in Germany.

  2 These costs include the staffing of HMSO's European Sales Office (an estimated £43,551 in 1993 and £29,654 in 1992). The remainder covers the cost of British civil servants serving with European Community institutions in furtherance of the Government's initiative for wider representation in Europe.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications have taken place between his Department and the German authorities concerning the German experience of operating a computerised low flying management system.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department holds frequent discussions with the German authorities, at all levels. These cover a wide range of topics of mutual interest, and have included the German experience of operating a computerised low flying management system. The system in use in Germany is, however, somewhat different in scope and purpose to the automated low flying, flight planning, inquiry and notification system currently being developed for use in the United Kingdom.

  Nuclear Weapons Accidents
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will declassify the RN manual BR4022 and the RAF manual AP 110A-0103-IAI, both relating to accident procedures, and subsequent amendments lists; and if he will make those documents available to civilian emergency services and local authorities with emergency planning responsibility.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. The documents are already available to students on the relevant MOD training courses. Furthermore, the MOD document for local authorities and emergency services, issued in December 1992, gives appropriate guidance on contingency planning and the countermeasures that should be taken to protect the public.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will organise a nuclear weapon transport accident exercise in Scotland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Officers from Scottish emergency services and local authorities already participate in the exercises that are an integral part of the MOD's regular nuclear accident response training courses. The MOD also conducts a programme of other nuclear accident response exercises with relevant authorities throughout the United Kingdom. A variety of scenarios are addressed in such exercises, including nuclear weapon transport accidents. An exercise addressing nuclear weapon contingency planning at Coulport was held earlier this year; a nuclear weapon transport exercise will be held in due course in Scotland.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on liaison arrangements and communications equipment which would be used between the RAF incident team and local civilian services and authorities in the event of a nuclear weapons accident in(a) Scotland and (b) other parts of the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will make a statement on contingency planning for an accident involving a nuclear weapon transported by air over Scotland; and if such weapons are transported by air over Scotland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Contingency plans for all forms of nuclear weapon transport are described in the MOD guidance
  727
  document for local authorities and emergency services, issued in December 1992. A copy has already been placed in the Library.

  It is the long-standing policy of successive Governments to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place or time; this applies also to the routes that are used for their transportation.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum amount of time during which traffic on a public road might have to be stopped in a worst case scenario nuclear weapon transport accident.

  Mr. Hanley
  The duration of traffic restrictions would clearly be entirely dependent on the specific circumstances of an accident.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will incorporate his Department's guidance to local authorities on response to nuclear weapon transport accidents into the nuclear accident procedures course.

  Mr. Hanley
  The guidance document for local authorities and emergency services was issued in December 1992. It has already been incorporated into the nuclear accident procedures course.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend the scope and participation of the nuclear accident procedures course to provide local authority input on the same basis as the special safety study period.

  Mr. Hanley
  Local authority emergency planning officers already lecture to both courses, and equally organisers of both courses encourage constructive inputs from the officers and officials, whether from local authorities or elsewhere, who attend the courses.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide for participation by health boards and regional health authorities in nuclear accident procedures courses and special safety study periods in future.

  Mr. Hanley
  Officials from health boards and regional health authorities already attend both courses, and have done so for some years.

  5 Airborne Brigade
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 328,if he will list the wheeled and tracked transport currently available to 5 Airborne Brigade, showing specifically the number of (a) six-wheeled buggies, (b) Land-Rovers, (c) light-wheeled tractors and (d) eager-beavers; if he has any plans to increase the on-ground mobility of the brigade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  5 Airborne Brigade's current peacetime establishments for the vehicles listed are:

  (a) All Terrain Mobile Platforms ("six wheeled buggies"): although 5 Airborne Brigade has no formal establishment for these vehicles, 39 are currently available for the Brigade's use.

  (b) Trucks Utility Light/Medium ("Land Rovers")—663.

  (c) Light Wheeled Tractors—13

  728

  (d) Rough Terrain Forklifts (formerly known as "Eager Beavers")—22.

  In addition, 5 Airborne Brigade uses the following types of wheeled and tracked vehicles:

  Motorcycles

  Ambulances

  Cars and Vans

  Minibuses

  Recovery Vehicles

  Trucks 1 Tonne, 4 Tonne, 8 Tonne

  Trucks Utility Heavy

  Demountable Rack Offloading and Pick-Up System

  (DROPS) Medium Mobility Load Carriers

  Trailers

  Earth Moving Plant

  Barrack Mechanical Handling Equipment

  The wheeled and tracked transport currently provided for the brigade is sufficient to meet its training and operational needs.

  Normandy Landings
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he proposes to take to commemorate the 50th anniversary in 1994 of the Normandy landings.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence has overall responsibility for organising the Government's participation in commemorative events marking the 50th anniverasary of the D-Day landings. An announcement of our plans will be made shortly.

  Battle of Arnhem
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he proposes to take to commemorate the 50th anniversary in 1994 of the battle of Arnhem.

  Mr. Hanley
  The anniversary of the battle of Arnhem is commemorated each year in the Netherlands. The British Government will be represented at an appropriate level at the 50th anniversary in 1994. In addition, the occasion will be marked by a parachute drop by members of 5 Airborne Brigade.

  Armed Services Suppliers
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of ammunition and propellants supplied to the armed services are procured from foreign companies; how many of those foreign companies are incorporated in EC states; and what is the value of these contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  Less than 5 per cent. by value of our current contracts for ammunition and propellants have been placed directly with foreign companies. Four companies are involved, three of which are incorporated in EC states. The total value of the overseas contracts is £10 million.

  Wartime Command Centre
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to date of the construction of a wartime command centre underneath the Ministry of Defence building in Whitehall.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total cost to date of the construction and equipping of the command centre underneath the
  729
  Ministry of Defence building in Whitehall is some £126 million, of which £66 million was for construction which has now been completed.

  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the improvements made to Russian anti-ballistic missile defences around Moscow since 1990 and of whether Russia is still acting in strict compliance with the terms of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current Moscow ballistic missile defence system, which became operational in 1989, includes the Gazelle short-range and Gorgon long-range interceptors and conforms to the 1972 treaty and its protocols. This is a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia, and we are not aware of any compliance concerns at present.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of Russia's capability to counter ballistic missile attack in areas of its territory which lie outside the operational range of the anti-ballistic missile defences that it deploys around Moscow.

  Mr. Hanley
  In accordance with the 1972 ABM treaty, there are no strategic missile defences deployed outside of the Moscow ABM system. Some Russian surface-to-air missiles do however have a capability against short-range tactical ballistic missiles, but these are assessed as ineffective against strategic missiles.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the requirement to test fire the United Kingdom's Trident D5 missiles will be significantly less than that for the Polaris missiles;

  (2) if the proportion of spare Trident missiles compared to the overall United Kingdom Trident missile buy will be significantly different from that of the United Kingdom's Polaris missile purchase.

  Mr. Aitken
  There will be no spare Trident missiles. All will be deployed operationally, test fired or form part of a processing margin. The proportion of missiles in the second and third categories is expected to be significantly less than for Polaris.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Trident submarines will be capable of deploying a sub-strategic nuclear capability upon entering operational service.

  Mr. Aitken
  Trident will be able to contribute to our sub-strategic capability on entering service.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government can deploy the Trident system as an effective minimum nuclear deterrent with the number of Trident D5 missiles that have already been purchased from the United States; and whether there is a continuing requirement to purchase further Trident D5 missiles from the United States.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom's Trident strategic nuclear deterrent is not yet ready for operational 730
  deployment. As previously announced, further Trident D5 missiles are planned to be purchased from the United States in due course to meet the overall requirements of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 October,Official Report, columnns 34–25, if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to deploy only Trident D5 missiles in the nuclear role when the WE177 eventually leaves service; and what are the implications of the decision for (a) the number of Trident D5 missiles required and (b) the overall number of nuclear warheads deployed by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  On current plans, the Trident D5 missile will be the only United Kingdom nuclear system after the WE177 is eventually withdrawn for service. My right hon. and learned Friend's announcement on 18 October does not alter our previous commitment that each Trident submarine will carry no more than 128 warheads. It is not our practice to comment on future plans for the purchase of missiles.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the order for the next batch of Trident D5 missiles from the United States.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to reveal our future missile procurement plans.

  Tornado
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Tornado GR1s are withheld from conventional military duties in order to fulfil the sub-strategic nuclear role.

  Mr. Hanley
  None. All nuclear capable Tornado GR1s are dual-roled and would undertake conventional military duties in wartime until required to fulfil the sub-strategic nuclear role.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of(a) the nuclear weapon programmes of (i) Iran, (ii) Iraq, (iii) Libya and (iv) Syria and (b) the earliest date by which (1) Iran, (2) Libya and (3) Syria could develop a crude nuclear weapon and develop the means of delivering a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.

  Mr. Hanley
  The UN inspection teams found incontrovertible evidence that Iraq was developing a crude nuclear weapon and there is concern that Iraq could reinstate its nuclear weapons programme if current UN sanctions were to be lifted. As states which are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—NPT—Iran, Libya and Syria have undertaken formal commitments not to acquire nuclear weapons which we expect them to honour in full. The experience with Iraq has demonstrated however that membership of the NPT alone is not a guarantee of non-proliferation. We therefore take every opportunity both bilaterally and in international fora to stress the significance we attach to all states which are parties to the NPT complying fully with their obligations.
  731
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the number of air-launched sub-strategic nuclear weapons currently deployed by Russia.

  Mr. Hanley
  An assessment of the number of air-launched sub-strategic nuclear weapons currently deployed by Russia is complicated by the fact that many are being withdrawn from service and are earmarked for dismantlement. We estimate that a total of 11,000 to 12,000 sub-strategic warheads of all types remain, but it is likely that some are non-operational.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of staff of the DRA at the Woolwich Arsenal site are on paid leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have, therefore, asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 28 October 1993:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question about DRA staff at the Woolwich Arsenal sites.
  In answer to the first part of your question, there are no DRA staff members on special paid leave at the Woolwich Arsenal sites, although 10 MOD staff who were until recently on loan to the DRA but have been returned to MOD are on special paid leave whilst MOD examines their future employment.
  You also asked for a statement on the DRA situation at Woolwich. As I explained in my letter to you of 5 August commercial pressures have caused me to accelerate plans for the withdrawal of DRA staff from the Woolwich sites. Steps to achieve this withdrawal are in hand. Those scientific and technical staff from Woolwich for whom the DRA has a continuing requirement have now been transferred to the management of other Sectors within the DRA. The staff for whom we regrettably have no jobs have either been given letters of redundancy or have been informed that they will be returning to MOD. The last DRA staff will have left the Woolwich West site by 31 March 1994; a small number will remain on the East site until the end of March 1995.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya (Refugees)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government on the problems now being faced in that country as a result of refugees crossing the border from Somalia to Kenya; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development discussed this issue recently with the Kenyan Foreign Minister. In 1992–23, we provided over £2.4 million via UN agencies and non-governmental organisations as aid to refugees in northern Kenya, over 85 per cent. of whom were Somalis.

  Pergau Hydro-electric Project
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the factors underlying his decision to issue a ministerial directive to the accounting officer in his Department to incur expenditure on the Pergau hydro-electric project.

  Mr. Hurd
  The accounting officer correctly carried out his responsibilities. I reached my decision against the wider background of Britain's interests in Malaysia. I had to take into account that an undertaking had been given at the highest level, and that we had made a formal offer of aid support for the Pergau project to the Malaysian Government. The Malaysians wanted to proceed. It would have been damaging to British companies and to British exports to Malaysia to renege on our undertaking. Later developments including the rapid expansion of our trade indicate that this was the right decision.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations underlay his Department's decision to arrange for the loan agreement for the Pergau hydro-electric project to be made directly with Tenaga Nasional; and what consideration was given to arranging it with the Government of Malaysia.

  Mr. Hurd
  The reasons for the loan agreement in respect of the Pergau project being with Tenaga Nasional rather than the Government of Malaysia are set out fully in paragraphs 40 to 42 of the National Audit Office report on the project, laid before the House on 22 October.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what options for financing the Pergau dam were considered; what was the cost of each; which was chosen; and what considerations underlay the choice.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the right hon. Member to paragraphs 4, 5, 35–29 and 57 and appendix 2 of the National Audit Office report on the project, laid before the House on 22 October.

  Aid and Trade
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each individual scheme which received financial assistance under aid and trade provision since the programme began, in each case giving(a) the sum provided, (b) the date of project approval and (c) the project's location.

  Mr. Hurd
  A list has been placed in the Library of the House. Central records on ATP projects include the dates of each formal ATP aid agreement concluded with an overseas government, but not the dates of approval of individual projects.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current relations between India and Her Majesty's Government.
  733
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our relations with India are excellent.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Governments of Pakistan and India regarding the situation in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have regularly discussed the situation in Kashmir with the Governments of India and Pakistan, most recently at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus. We have encouraged both Governments to resolve their differences through bilateral dialogue.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the rental of hemicycles rented by the European Parliament in(a) Strasbourg, (b) Brussels and (c) Luxembourg; and how often each building will be used for a plenary session in 1993.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The EP is holding 11 plenary sessions in the hemicycle in Strasbourg in 1993, and has held two mini-plenary sessions in the new hemicycle in Brussels this year. It has held none in Luxembourg since 1981.

  The detailed appropriations given in section 1, chapter 20 of the "General Budget of the European Community", published in "Official Journal" No. L31, volume 36 of 8 February 1993, copies of which are available in the House, indicate operating expenditure, including rental of buildings, as follows:

  Strasbourg:

  Palais de 1'Europe:

  471,200 ecu (approximately £367,583)

  Brussels:

  D1:

  20,750,000 ecu (approximately £16,187,075)

  I will write to my hon. Friend if more precise figures are available from the European Parliament.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 October,Official Report, column 242, if he will give details of the seizures in Hong Kong restaurants and shops of suspected endangered animals and animal products.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Seizures by the Hong Kong authorities over the past 12 months—1 August 1992 to 3 July 1993 —of suspected endangered animals and animal products from Hong Kong shops and restaurants were as follows:

  Endangered Species

  Pangolin

  Scale

  0.43 kg.

  Musk

  Pod

  4 Nos.

  Grain

  8 316 G

  Rhinoceros

  Medicine

  4 small vials

  Owl

  Live

  1 Hd.

  Sea-Turtle

  Stuffed

  1 Hd.

  Scale

  1 Pc.

  Land-Tortoise

  Live

  3Hds.

  Giant Salamander

  Live

  26 Hds.

  734

  Endangered Species

  Asiatic Bony

  —

  —

  Tongue Fish

  Live

  17 Tails

  Arapaima Gigas

  Live

  3 Tails

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government plans to ratify the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Legislation is necessary to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the convention. We intend to ratify the convention as soon as this legislation is in place. The legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time permits.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries in the middle east have not signed the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  One hundred and fifty states, including Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, have signed the chemical weapons convention since it opened for signature in January 1993. Of the middle eastern countries, only Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon have failed to sign.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest date by which 65 signatories to the chemical weapons convention must have ratified the convention in order that it comes into force in January 1995.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The earliest possible date that the chemical weapons convention can enter into force is 13 January 1995. To achieve this 65 signatories must have ratified the convention by 18 July 1994.

  Sudan
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent efforts he has made to encourage a peaceful settlement between the warring factions in the Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) on 18 October,Official Report, column 79.

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek the successful negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty by September 1996.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom will be seeking a successful outcome to negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty within a reasonable time scale. We do not believe that setting a deadline for the treaty's conclusion will necessarily help the conduct of negotiations.
  735
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when direct negotiations towards a comprehensive test ban treaty are expected to resume; and which states are expected to participate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty are likely to begin in early 1994, when the conference on disarmament reconvenes in Geneva. We expect that all states who are members of the conference on disarmament will participate.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the conditions that will have to be met before Her Majesty's Government agree to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom will be seeking a comprehensive test ban treaty which makes a real contribution to non-proliferation. Wide adherence and effective verification measures will be important in this regard, but we do not believe it sensible to set rigid conditions that a CTB treaty must satisfy before treaty negotiations begin.

  Overseas Conferences
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on sponsoring conferences overseas, either alone or jointly, in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I regret that details of expenditure on sponsoring conferences overseas are not recorded separately and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to nominate the United Kingdom members and alternative members of the Committee of the Regions; and whom they will nominate.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have today proposed the following list of nominees for appointment by the Council of Ministers, in accordance with article 198a of the Maastricht treaty:

  MEMBERS

  England

  Councillor Simon Day

  Devon County

  (Conservative)

  Lady Anson, DL JP

  Waverley District

  (Conservative)

  Sir Peter Bowness, CBE

  London Borough of Croydon

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Colin Warbrick

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Christopher Penn

  Suffolk County

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Toby Harris

  London Borough of Haringey

  (Labour)

  736

  Councillor Albert Bore

  Birmingham Metropolitan Borough

  (Labour)

  Councillor Josie Farrington

  Lancashire County

  (Labour)

  Councillor George Gill

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough

  (Labour)

  Councillor Dennis Pettitt

  Nottinghamshire County

  (Labour)

  Councillor Janet Sillett

  Norwich District

  (Labour)

  Councillor Graham Tope

  London Borough of Sutton

  (Liberal Democrat)

  Councillor David Belotti

  East Sussex County

  (Liberal Democrat)

  Councillor Roy Cross

  Richmondshire District

  (Independent)

  Scotland

  Councillor Charles Gray

  Strathclyde Region

  (Labour)

  Councillor Rosemary McKenna

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District

  (Labour)

  Councillor Brian Meek

  Edinburgh District

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Duncan

  McPherson) Highland Region

  (Independent)

  Councillor Daniel Coffey, JP

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun District

  (SNP)

  Wales

  Councillor John Evans

  Rhmney Valley District Council

  (Labour)

  Lord Kenyon

  Wrexham Borough Council

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Eurig Wyn

  Gwynedd County Council

  (Plaid Cymru)

  Northern Ireland

  Councillor Reg Empey

  Lord Mayor of Belfast

  (UUP)

  Councillor Dennis Haughey

  Cookstown Borough Council

  (SDLP)

  ALTERNATE MEMBERS

  England

  Councillor John Morgan, OBE

  Test Valley District

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Doreen Fleming

  Fenland District

  (Conservative)

  737

  Councillor Fraser Mitchell

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Elgar Jenkins, OBE

  Bath District

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Paul White

  Essex County

  (Conservative)

  Councillor John Battye

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough

  (Labour)

  Councillor Hadley Salt

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough

  (Labour)

  Councillor Kenneth Bodfish

  East Essex County

  (Labour)

  Councillor Ian Swithinbank

  Northumberland County

  (Labour)

  Councillor Sally Powell

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  (Labour)

  Councillor Peter Soulsby

  Leicester District

  (Labour)

  Councillor Peter Cocks, CBE

  Cornwall County

  (Liberal Democrat)

  Councillor Tony Prior

  South Somerset District

  (Liberal Democrat)

  Councillor Milner Whiteman

  Bridgnorth District

  (Independent)

  Scotland

  Councillor Keith Geddes

  Lothian Region

  (Labour)

  Councillor Jean McFadden

  Glasgow District

  (Labour)

  Councillor Marcus Humphrey

  Grampian Region

  (Conservative)

  Local authority capital expenditure on Education

  £000s

  LEA

  1979–80

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,077

  2,952

  1,785

  2,330

  1,765

  2,073

  7,249

  Barnet

  1,553

  3,499

  2,909

  5,139

  2,343

  5,255

  2,300

  Bexley

  1,642

  1,192

  1,883

  3,528

  3,870

  2,666

  2,365

  Brent

  1,921

  1,478

  n/a

  6,343

  10,644

  6,447

  3,727

  Bromley

  1,310

  1,109

  2,949

  6,873

  6,280

  5,527

  7,215

  Croydon

  514

  1,168

  2,526

  6,770

  15,947

  15,764

  8,439

  Ealing

  2,165

  2,270

  3,903

  2,208

  5,947

  2,816

  1,926

  Enfield

  1,453

  786

  2,128

  5,287

  7,740

  20,457

  16,146

  Haringey

  2,782

  3,798

  5,166

  4,443

  5,020

  1,339

  2,047

  Harrow

  775

  1,252

  1,343

  5,447

  5,408

  3,057

  3,538

  Havering

  714

  580

  2,158

  3,752

  5,398

  7,618

  4,848

  Hillingdon

  1,781

  1,856

  2,025

  8,487

  15,324

  4,958

  1,717

  738

  Councillor Peter Peacock

  Highland Region

  (Independent)

  Councillor Clive Sneddon

  North East Fife District

  (Liberal Democrat)

  Wales

  Councillor Keith Griffiths

  Gwent County Council

  (Labour)

  Councillor Bill Hughes

  Swansea City Council

  (Conservative)

  Councillor Jill Evans

  Rhondda Borough Council

  Mid Glamorgan County Council

  (Plaid Cymru)

  Northern Ireland

  Councillor Simpson Gibson

  Ards Borough Council

  (UDUP)

  Alderman Sean Neeson

  Mayor of Carrickfergus

  (Alliance Party)

EDUCATION

  Adult Literacy
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give details of his Department's planned funding for schemes to improve adult literacy in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1992–93 and 1993–94, the Department for Education has provided £3.751 million and £3.815 million respectively in grant to the adult literacy and basic skills unit for its work on adult literacy and basic skills, including £700,000 in each year for the Basic Skills at Work programme. The Department has also made available a further £250,000 in 1993–94 in support of the new family literacy initiative.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the capital expenditure on education by each local authority in England for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is in the table.
  739

  LEA

  1979–80

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Hounslow

  1,623

  4,891

  2,527

  5,957

  10,260

  5,300

  5,304

  Kingston upon Thames

  944

  1,616

  3,925

  9,012

  2,973

  4,144

  4,213

  Merton

  972

  768

  n/a

  3,286

  9,273

  10,861

  3,955

  Newham

  3,939

  3,684

  5,002

  7,316

  10,188

  7,128

  10,662

  Redbridge

  1,689

  919

  2,027

  4,136

  5,900

  5,842

  3,264

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,323

  1,366

  869

  1,221

  2,476

  3,010

  2,946

  Sutton

  225

  456

  1,934

  3,389

  5,443

  7,536

  7,292

  Waltham Forest

  1,780

  2,828

  2,128

  6,477

  11,853

  6,973

  3,441

  GLC/ILEA

  23,158

  19,232

  33,174

  30,309

  50,780

  —

  —

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,181

  —

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,256

  2,819

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,301

  1,848

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,909

  1,501

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,492

  1,203

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,169

  2,071

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,872

  1,947

  Kensington & Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,046

  2,798

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  894

  1,587

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,522

  1,534

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,088

  2,159

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,818

  4,306

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,602

  17,103

  Birmingham

  6,033

  11,396

  9,880

  5,511

  10,663

  14,121

  14,507

  Coventry

  4,403

  4,423

  8,236

  12,852

  19,705

  11,415

  6,877

  Dudley

  1,695

  2,505

  4,281

  4,230

  5,549

  4,640

  6,667

  Sandwell

  2,210

  2,059

  3,013

  2,228

  5,703

  4,352

  2,740

  Solihull

  1,182

  810

  816

  2,691

  4,191

  3,275

  3,389

  Walsall

  3,834

  5,237

  2,297

  3,181

  5,712

  2,957

  2,447

  Wolverhampton

  4,933

  3,264

  2,562

  3,907

  3,551

  2,189

  2,631

  Knowsley

  775

  825

  2,205

  1,562

  2,869

  2,885

  1,297

  Liverpool

  3,818

  5,275

  8,697

  10,818

  4,163

  3,371

  2,477

  St. Helens

  2,664

  3,063

  1,812

  2,395

  2,244

  4,530

  7,084

  Sefton

  1,281

  878

  1,648

  1,909

  3,362

  4,854

  3,636

  Wirral

  1,478

  3,507

  2,826

  5,285

  3,629

  4,135

  4,630

  Bolton

  1,552

  4,736

  1,141

  3,403

  4,645

  3,683

  1,530

  Bury

  3,599

  1,214

  1,053

  1,082

  1,832

  1,324

  1,085

  Manchester

  3,817

  8,417

  10,871

  12,399

  14,385

  6,184

  6,907

  Oldham

  1,971

  1,997

  1,957

  2,636

  3,932

  4,701

  10,989

  Rochdale

  2,709

  1,378

  1,816

  2,784

  4,003

  4,640

  7,362

  Salford

  3,299

  1,882

  2,412

  4,429

  6,579

  4,868

  3,651

  Stockport

  1,098

  1,808

  1,371

  3,287

  5,464

  3,123

  2,552

  Tameside

  2,237

  2,090

  1,356

  2,738

  2,591

  2,250

  1,949

  Trafford

  728

  664

  1,739

  1,633

  6,795

  11,207

  5,333

  Wigan

  2,911

  5,456

  2,021

  3,984

  2,369

  3,980

  5,322

  Barnsley

  2,633

  540

  1,068

  1,940

  2,733

  2,011

  1,910

  Doncaster

  1,979

  1,667

  656

  1,269

  1,651

  478

  410

  Rotherham

  2,152

  1,803

  1,172

  3,072

  3,020

  1,976

  1,331

  Sheffield

  2,528

  7,257

  9,125

  21,767

  13,393

  2,128

  6,302

  Bradford

  2,306

  7,105

  10,234

  12,074

  14,388

  10,019

  12,505

  Calderdale

  1,597

  1,066

  1,134

  3,338

  4,845

  2,149

  2,153

  Kirklees

  5,235

  5,902

  7,565

  5,859

  4,752

  4,779

  4,463

  Leeds

  6,544

  20,039

  10,308

  19,478

  16,468

  10,903

  20,429

  Wakefield

  2,443

  3,174

  2,370

  5,918

  6,237

  4,537

  3,299

  Gateshead

  2,201

  2,241

  1,721

  4,213

  5,753

  4,384

  5,078

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,068

  3,602

  3,147

  8,074

  6,086

  2,520

  3,387

  North Tyneside

  1,686

  968

  2,248

  3,176

  1,783

  2,122

  1,963

  South Tyneside

  3,252

  3,809

  3,887

  3,778

  5,912

  4,650

  4,584

  Sunderland

  4,156

  2,922

  3,357

  7,594

  6,512

  4,229

  4,223

  Isles of Scilly

  17

  2

  8

  56

  143

  212

  50

  Avon

  2,879

  n/a

  6,773

  9,682

  11,049

  10,539

  15,323

  Bedfordshire

  5,207

  2,883

  3,705

  5,460

  7,556

  3,219

  1,872

  Berkshire

  5,900

  8.604

  11,932

  26,090

  20,203

  10,662

  7,357

  Buckinghamshire

  5,902

  6,335

  12,292

  8,606

  12,274

  13,941

  13,312

  Cambridgeshire

  7,980

  6,596

  9,268

  17,128

  22,488

  16,232

  22,713

  Cheshire

  12,069

  8,465

  9,434

  28,455

  24,159

  10,778

  16,465

  Cleveland

  5,582

  9,463

  4,816

  6,877

  6,812

  6,643

  4,954

  Cornwall

  5,646

  5,648

  3,998

  7,386

  9,021

  12,333

  11,435

  Cumbria

  2,232

  2,678

  5,152

  5,913

  9,005

  8,306

  10,100

  Derbyshire

  6,194

  10,447

  9,311

  15,341

  20,754

  16,357

  14,459

  Devon

  8,351

  10,560

  7,802

  13,322

  20,154

  26,053

  32,599

  Dorset

  4,253

  6,464

  5,758

  6,481

  6,547

  8,900

  13,195

  Durham

  4,560

  3,573

  3,503

  4,785

  6,233

  5,822

  7,159

  East Sussex

  3,602

  8,136

  7,361

  13,994

  16,542

  13,937

  17,275

  Essex

  12,489

  9,471

  12,760

  23,950

  26,260

  19,713

  23,992

  Gloucestershire

  3,678

  3,179

  8,963

  9,211

  10,030

  11,956

  10,569

  Hampshire

  15,238

  12,018

  20,369

  34,210

  30,552

  33,101

  25,013

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,665

  4,706

  4,441

  7,315

  9,450

  11,919

  10,656

  Hertfordshire

  5,459

  6,242

  12,587

  21,138

  14,989

  14,040

  14,091

  740 741

  LEA

  1979–80

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Humberside

  7,543

  9,835

  7,537

  12,380

  11,427

  10,291

  8,578

  Isle of Wight

  1,588

  931

  1,280

  2,433

  2,021

  2,712

  3,299

  Kent

  13,601

  8,196

  7,786

  16,121

  19,446

  18,956

  24,964

  Lancashire

  8,281

  13,081

  14,387

  17,383

  19,272

  20,675

  20,255

  Leicestershire

  7,672

  9,166

  11,948

  14,852

  12,998

  13,282

  12,543

  Lincolnshire

  3,633

  6,101

  8,078

  7,894

  7,375

  11,667

  18,463

  Norfolk

  5,555

  6,707

  6,453

  8,213

  7,982

  6,936

  6,152

  North Yorkshire

  6,092

  4,290

  7,403

  9,557

  8,193

  5,586

  5,460

  Northamptonshire

  5,539

  4,883

  6,882

  5,237

  9,484

  4,956

  10,844

  Northumberland

  4,254

  2,442

  1,822

  2,410

  3,102

  2,969

  3,966

  Nottinghamshire

  8,253

  6,827

  5,640

  7,385

  8,563

  6,294

  6,318

  Oxfordshire

  2,837

  4,519

  6,946

  11,034

  11,085

  11,583

  3,524

  Shropshire

  4,157

  2,889

  2,761

  5,274

  5,565

  6,561

  7,384

  Somerset

  4,199

  3,950

  3,690

  5,090

  8,970

  7,777

  5,770

  Staffordshire

  12,976

  11,421

  10,905

  9,532

  11,104

  8,949

  10,160

  Suffolk

  5,920

  4,161

  6,089

  11,684

  10,511

  12,377

  11,109

  Surrey

  6,547

  9,281

  15,164

  24,982

  26,536

  17,896

  17,366

  Warwickshire

  3,539

  1,804

  2,945

  3,879

  5,339

  5,618

  3,602

  West Sussex

  3,051

  4,310

  10,420

  9,757

  11,882

  17,028

  14,753

  Wiltshire

  3,810

  n/a

  5,782

  4,829

  7,607

  9,483

  10,009

  Note: Details are taken from the Department of the Environment's Capital Payment Return forms, and cover expenditure on schools, polytechnics, further education, youth, and other educational services.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the national total of capital expenditure on education by local authorities in England

  Local authority capital expenditure on education by class of authority:

  £000s

  1979–80

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (i) Non Metropolitan Districts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (ii) County Councils

  241,670

  240,264

  304,151

  455,326

  492,683

  456,259

  477,108

  (iii) Metropolitan Districts

  99,007

  134,979

  132,002

  196,494

  217,469

  165,569

  177,099

  (iv) London Boroughs

  53,340

  57,700

  80,361

  131,710

  194,832

  172,740

  143,470

  (v) City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,181

  —

  Total

  394,017

  432,943

  516,514

  783,530

  904,984

  812,749

  797,677

  Notes:

  1. Details are taken from the Department of the Environment's Capital education, and other educational services.

  2. Figures may not match national totals because of non-returns and later adjustments of local authority figures.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the regional total of capital

  Local authority capital expenditure on education by economic planning region

  £000s

  1979–80

  1982–83

  1985–86

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1. South East

  134,761

  138,626

  202,963

  329,485

  394,178

  367,709

  310,288

  2. South West

  32,833

  29,803

  42,774

  56,057

  73,521

  87,253

  98,950

  3. East Anglia

  19,455

  17,464

  21,810

  37,025

  40,981

  35,545

  39,974

  4. West Midlands

  49,627

  50,514

  52,137

  60,600

  86,532

  75,996

  71,060

  5. East Midlands

  32,011

  37,424

  41,859

  50,709

  59,174

  52,556

  62,627

  6. North West

  54,287

  64,736

  66,746

  106,182

  112,293

  97,188

  102,524

  7. Yorkshire and Humberside

  41,052

  62,678

  58,572

  96,652

  87,107

  54,857

  66,840

  8. Northern

  29,991

  31,698

  29,653

  46,820

  51,198

  41,645

  45,414

  Total

  394,017

  432,943

  516,514

  783,530

  904,984

  812,749

  797,677

  Notes:

  Details are taken from the Environment's Capital Payment Return forms, and cover expenditure on schools, polytechnics, further education, and other educational services.

  (2) Figures may not match national totals because of non-returns and later adjustments of local authority figures.
  742
  for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is in the table.

  expenditure on education by the local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is in the table.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary grant-maintained schools and local education authority maintained schools in each local education authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested for schools in England is shown in the table. Information on schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Pupil: teacher ratios in LEA-maintained and self-governing secondary schools in each Local Education in England1

  LEA

  Pupil: teacher ratios in:

  LEA-maintained schools2

  Self-governing schools

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  Camden

  15·3

  16·7

  Greenwich

  16·3

  —

  Hackney

  15·7

  —

  Hammersmith

  15·5

  15·7

  Islington

  17·6

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  13·1

  15·1

  Lambeth

  16·4

  16·5

  Lewisham

  17·2

  —

  Southwark

  17·5

  16·6

  Tower Hamlets

  13·8

  16·8

  Wandsworth

  13·0

  15·4

  Westminster

  14·7

  —

  Barking

  16·3

  —

  Barnet

  15·4

  14·8

  Bexley

  16·7

  16·9

  Brent

  13·9

  14·5

  Bromley

  16·1

  16·3

  Croydon

  16·0

  16·4

  Ealing

  14·8

  16·0

  Enfield

  15·9

  16·1

  Haringey

  14·7

  —

  Harrow

  16·1

  14·2

  Havering

  15·7

  16·2

  Hillingdon

  15·0

  16·2

  Hounslow

  15·9

  16·9

  Kingston upon Thames

  15·0

  14·7

  Merton

  15·6

  —

  Newham

  16·2

  14·3

  Redbridge

  16·9

  16·7

  Richmond upon Thames

  16·6

  —

  Sutton

  15·7

  16·2

  Waltham Forest

  15·0

  16·3

  Birmingham

  16·0

  16·4

  Coventry

  14·5

  —

  Dudley

  15·3

  15·6

  Sandwell

  15·2

  14·5

  Solihull

  15·9

  —

  Walsall

  14·8

  16·2

  Wolverhampton

  13·8

  15·4

  Knowsley

  16·6

  14·3

  Liverpool

  15·4

  14·5

  St Helens

  15·3

  —

  Sefton

  16·0

  —

  Wirral

  15·5

  16·0

  Bolton

  15·0

  14·9

  Bury

  16·3

  —

  Manchester

  14·3

  —

  Oldham

  15·0

  —

  Rochdale

  15·5

  15·4

  Salford

  14·8

  —

  Stockport

  16·0

  —

  Tameside

  16·3

  16·6

  Trafford

  15·3

  15·8

  Wigan

  15·1

  —

  Barnsley

  16·2

  —

  Doncaster

  16·0

  —

  Rotherham

  15·0

  —

  Sheffield

  14·9

  16·7

  Bradford

  16·0

  15·6

  744

  LEA

  Pupil: teacher ratios in:

  LEA-maintained schools2

  Self-governing schools

  Calderdale

  15·5

  16·1

  Kirklees

  15·4

  17·1

  Leeds

  15·6

  16·5

  Wakefield

  16·0

  —

  Gateshead

  15·3

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  15·1

  —

  North Tyneside

  15·5

  —

  South Tyneside

  16·1

  —

  Sunderland

  15·5

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  86

  —

  Avon

  16·2

  15·9

  Bedfordshire

  17·3

  16·9

  Berkshire

  15·9

  14·8

  Buckinghamshire

  16·4

  15·8

  Cambridgeshire

  16·3

  17·0

  Cheshire

  16·4

  16·2

  Cleveland

  15·9

  —

  Cornwall

  16·4

  —

  Cumbria

  15·1

  15·2

  Derbyshire

  15·0

  15·6

  Devon

  16·2

  16·3

  Dorset

  16·8

  16·3

  Durham

  16·2

  —

  East Sussex

  16·0

  —

  Essex

  16·7

  17·1

  Gloucestershire

  16·3

  16·4

  Hampshire

  16·4

  16·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  16·7

  18·0

  Hertfordshire

  15·8

  16·0

  Humberside

  16·2

  —

  Isle of Wight

  16·9

  —

  Kent

  17·0

  16·9

  Lancashire

  16·0

  15·7

  Leicestershire

  15·6

  17·3

  Lincolnshire

  15·8

  16·4

  Norfolk

  15·4

  15·5

  North Yorkshire

  15·6

  —

  Northamptonshire

  16·3

  15·6

  Northumberland

  16·9

  14·8

  Nottinghamshire

  15·3

  15·1

  Oxfordshire

  16·7

  —

  Shropshire

  15·1

  15·9

  Somerset

  16·3

  11·5

  Staffordshire

  16·1

  15·7

  Suffolk

  16·1

  —

  Surrey

  16·1

  15·3

  Warwickshire

  16·2

  16 0

  West Sussex

  16·6

  —

  Wiltshire

  15·8

  16·3

  England

  15·9

  16·2

  1 Based on pupil and teacher numbers in schools in January 1992. Pupil: teacher ratios for schools which are now self-governing appear in the self-governing column of the table.

  2 Excluding Sixth Form colleges.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received from hon. Members with regard to the method of auditing of the accounts of grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have received six such representations this year, of which five concerned the possibility of a role for the Audit Commission which was considered during the passage of the Education Act 1993.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will list all grant-maintained schools operating at the end of the last financial year stating in each case the extent of any financial surplus or deficit.
  745
  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what grants, other than specific purpose grants, are available to grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The grants, other than special purpose grants, that are available to self-governing schools, are annual maintenance grant and capital grant.

  In addition, self-governing schools are eligible to receive section 11 grant from the Home Office, on whose behalf the Department for Education oversees payments to qualifying self-governing schools.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the capital allocations to grant-maintained schools in Cumbria in the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following self-governing schools in Cumbria have received capital allocations.

  School

  Amount paid in each financial year

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Appleby Grammar School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  —

  21,220

  Brampton Junior School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  —

  8,925

  Cartmel Priory School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  —

  16,740

  Dallam School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  —

  23,940

  Harraby School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  —

  22,200

  Hayton Church of England School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  11,760

  —

  Named Projects

  —

  —

  170,000

  Kirby Stephen School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  —

  17,820

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  Formula Allocation

  15,900

  27,860

  28,860

  Named Projects

  —

  —

  950,000

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Formula Allocation

  5,900

  20,080

  21,760

  Named Projects

  —

  102,000

  —

  Scotby CE Primary School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  8,440

  —

  St. Aidan 's County High School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  19,800

  21,420

  Named Projects

  —

  —

  150,000

  The Queen Katherine School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  18,380

  —

  Named Projects

  —

  —

  50,000

  Trinty School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  43,360

  —

  Named Projects

  —

  —

  150,000

  198,000

  Warwick Bridge School

  Formula Allocation

  —

  —

  8,493

  Some schools have yet to claim their formula allocation for 1993–24.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what payments have been made from public funds to heads of grant-maintained schools to attend conferences, seminars, workshops or meetings on grant-maintained status.
  746
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has reimbursed head teachers and governors of grant-maintained schools for expenses they have incurred in connection with their attendance at conferences, seminars, workshops and meetings designed to provide factual information on grant-maintained status.

  The total amount of such expenses reimbursed by the Department in financial year 1992–93 was £15,234. The figure for the current financial year up to the end of September is £15,546.

  Kirbie Kendal School
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 18 October,Official Report, column 99, what was the purpose of the specific purpose grant (emergency) paid to the Kirbie Kendal school in the last financial year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The grant was paid in respect of expenditure incurred by the school in connection with meeting the needs of a number of pupils with statements of their speical educational needs.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what(a) contacts his Department has had with and (b) payments it has made to firms of consultants or accountants in respect of the organisation of conferences, seminars or workshops on grant-maintained status or the provision of advice thereon.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has not to date called in consultants or accountants to assist it in, or provide advice on, the organisation of conferences, seminars or workshops desigend to provide factual information on grant-maintained status, and has, therefore, not made payments to any such firms in this respect.

  The Department does, however, use the services of a number of outside contractors to provide basic support for these events such as secretariat support, venue booking, a mailing service, and the provision of conference equipment.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Overseas Staff and Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost for the current financial year of his Department's having(a) premises and (b) personnel overseas; and what were the comparable figures for (i) 12, (ii) 24, (iii) 36 and (iv) 48 months ago.

  Sir John Cope
  There is no cost to the Treasury for premises overseas. The cost of locally engaged staff overseas in the current financial year is estimated at £80,000. The cost in 1992–93 was £48,520, in 1991–92 £73,253, in 1990–91 £73,974, and in 1989–90 the cost was £61,694.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 October,Official Report, column 14, concerning ministerial salary payments, if he will list each occasion in the last 10 years when payments have been made, giving the amounts in each instance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Parliamentary Pensions Act 1984 introduced severance payments for Ministers and other
  747
  paid office holders in the House of Lords, subject to the conditions set out in the Act. The Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1991 extended the provision to Commons Ministers and other paid office holders in each House.

  Although no composite list is kept, we have identified from our records the following occasions on which severance payments have been authorised since 31 July 1984. In each case, the severance payment would have been equal to three months of the relevant ministerial salary, as provided for by the Act.

  SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

  Date and Ministerial Post

  11 September 1984

  Minister of State for the Environment

  26 March 1985

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Environment

  3 September 1985

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  11 September 1986

  Minister of State, Environment

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  15 June 1987

  Minister of State, Foreign Office

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  23 July 1989

  Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office

  24 July 1989

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Energy

  25 July 1989

  Lord in Waiting

  26 July 1989

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  22 July 1990

  Minister of State, Industry

  6 September 1990

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  3 December 1990

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  22 May 1991

  Chief Whip, House of Lords

  31 December 1991

  Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords

  11 April 1992

  Secretary of State, Defence

  Secretary of State, Home Office

  Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords

  14 April 1992

  Minister of State, Defence

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Education and Science

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Energy

  Minister of State, Environment

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Health

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Minister for the Arts

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Transport

  Financial Secretary to the Treasury

  Economic Secretary to the Treasury

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  748
  27 April 1992

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  5 May

  Chairman of Committees, House of Lords

  Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, House of Lords

  Deputy Speaker, House of Commons

  25 September 1992

  Secretary of State, National Heritage

  11 December 1992

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Education

  26 May 1993

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  27 May 1993

  Minister of State, Defence

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Office of Public Service and Science

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Transport

  6 June 1993

  Minister of State, FCO

  24 June 1993

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  16 September 1993

  Chief Whip, House of Lords

  Note: Payments to ex-Ministers are made not less than three weeks after the effective date.

  Tobacco
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the retailing of imported tobacco products on which United Kingdom duty has not been paid; what estimates he has of the extent of this retailing; and what action he proposes to prevent it.

  Sir John Cope
  Representations expressing concern over the illegal importation of tobacco products have been received from Members of Parliament, tobacco manufacturers and retailers.

  There are no reliable estimates of the extent of the retailing of illegally imported tobacco products. During the eight-month period January to August, Customs and Excise recorded 464 offences involving 543,791 cigarettes, 7,565 kg of hand-rolling tobacco and 2,809 cigars obtained in other member states of the EC and alleged to be destined for illicit retail sale.

  The Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 introduced new offences to meet the threat of increased smuggling of revenue goods following the completion of the single market. The offences carry penalties of up to seven years' imprisonment. Customs and Excise have also implemented new control procedures to catch and deter bootleggers, including the recruitment and training of excise verification officers for intelligence-based targeting and enhanced checks at likely outlets for smuggled goods; increasing the excise intelligence resources within the customs investigation division; increased mutual assistance with other member states, including the appointment of liaison officers to work in the Netherlands, Belgium and France; prosecuting or compounding, with, people and businesses found stocking, handling or dealing commercially in illicit excise goods.
  749
  Customs and Excise will continue to review the situation in the light of experience.

  Tobacco and Alcohol Imports
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of tobacco products imported from France and Spain since 1 January which are sold in the United Kingdom in markets, car boot sales and clubs; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  No such estimates are available. However, during the eight-month period January to August, Customs and Excise recorded 464 offences involving 543,791 cigarettes, 7,565kg of hand-rolling tobacco and 2,809 cigars obtained in other member states of the EC and alleged to be destined for illicit retail sale.

  Income Tax
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of income tax over 25 per cent., and the bands of income, in local currency terms, to which they apply, for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and Japan.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows.

  France

  Rate per cent.

  Band of taxable income (francs)

  28.8

  60,690—73,450

  33.6

  73,450—84,740

  38.4

  84,740—141,190

  43.2

  141,190—194,190

  49

  194,190—229,710

  53.9

  229,710—261,290

  56.8

  over 261,290

  Note:

  The above bands of income apply to a single person; they are increased according to the taxpayer's family circumstances, e.g., x 2 for a married person with no children, and x 3 for a married taxpayer with two children.

  Germany
  The German tax rates rise gradually from 19 per cent. to 53 per cent. The effective rate rises above 25 per cent. when taxable income reaches 28,349 DM (single taxpayer) and the top rate of 53 per cent. takes effect when income is over 120,041 DM. These two amounts are doubled for a married couple taxed jointly.

  Netherlands

  Rate Per cent.

  Band of taxable income (guilders)

  50

  43,267–86,534

  60

  over 86,534

  Italy

  Rate Per cent.

  Band of taxable income (lire)

  27

  14,400,000–30,000,000

  34

  30,000,000–60,000,000

  41

  60,000,000–150,000,000

  46

  150,000,000–300,000,000

  51

  over 300,000,000

  750

  USA

  Rate

  Band of taxable income (dollars)

  Per cent.

  Single taxpayer

  Married couple

  28

  22,101–53,500

  36,901–89,150

  31

  53,501–115,000

  89,151–140,000

  36

  115,001–250,000

  140,001–250,000

  39.6

  over 250,000

  over 250,000

  Note:

  The above federal rates only. Most states also levy income tax at varying rates.

  Canada

  Rate Per cent.

  Band of taxable income (dollars)

  26

  29,591–59,180

  29

  over 59,180

  Notes:

  1. The above rates are increased by federal surcharges (maximum: 5 per cent. of tax due);

  2. All provinces levy income tax, usually as a percentage of federal tax due. For example, the rate in Ontario is 58 per cent., which effectively increases the 26 per cent. and 29 per cent. rates above to 41 per cent. and 45.8 per cent.

  Australia

  Rate Per cent.

  Band of taxable income (dollars)

  38

  9,543–16,438

  46

  16,439–22,831

  47

  over 22,831

  Japan

  Rate Per cent.

  Band of taxable income (yen)

  30

  6,000,000–10,000,000

  40

  10,000,000–20,000,000

  50

  over 20,000,000

  Notes: Local income taxes (maximum: 15 per cent. are also payable.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was remitted or written off as irrecoverable in 1992; and how much of this was PAYE contributions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amount of tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable in 1992 was:

  £000s

  Year ended 31 October 1992

  1,694,246

  The amount of PAYE contributions remitted or written off as irrecoverable in 1992 was:

  £000s

  Year ended 31 October 1992

  381,172

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the total sum raised from personal taxation has been paid by the top(a) 1 per cent., (b) 5 per cent. and (c) 10 per cent. of taxpayers in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates are given in the tables. Estimates of income tax liability are based on
  751
  information reported to tax offices and collected through annual surveys of personal incomes. For years before 1985–86, estimates exclude some investment income on which tax is deducted at source. For years up to and including 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. Estimates are based on the surveys of personal incomes for years up to 1991–92 and projections of the 1991–92 survey for subsequent years; the latter are therefore provisional.

  Percentage of income tax liabilities

  Year

  Top 1 per cent, of taxpayers1

  Top 5 per cent, of taxpayers1

  Top 10 per cent, of taxpayers1

  1978–79

  11

  24

  34

  1983–84

  11

  26

  36

  1984–85

  12

  26

  38

  1985–86

  13

  27

  38

  1986–87

  14

  29

  39

  1987–88

  15

  30

  41

  1988–89

  15

  31

  42

  1989–90

  15

  31

  42

  1990–91

  15

  31

  42

  1991–92

  16

  33

  43

  1992–932

  17

  34

  45

  1993–942

  17

  34

  45

  1 Married couples and single people for years prior to 1990–91.

  2 Provisional.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional revenue would be generated by extending VAT to newspapers, books and magazines.

  Sir John Cope
  The publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" shows the cost of not applying VAT at the standard rate to those goods currently zero-rated. For books, newspapers and magazines the figure for 1993–94 is £1·1 billion. This figure makes no allowance for changes in behaviour.

  Cash limits on Votes

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditures

  Amount £ thousands

  XIX

  1

  Cabinet Office

  Cabinet Office: Other services

  868

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the amount of social security fraud which could be prevented by a national photo identity card using modern technology to prevent forgery.

  Mr. Hague
  It is not possible to estimate the full impact of identity cards on reducing benefit fraud as many social security frauds arise from misrepresentation of the facts rather than false identity. The issue of national identity cards is a matter for the Home Office.
  752
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much could be raised by putting VAT on(a) the clothes and (b) the footwear of small people including children.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 25 October 1993]: The publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" shows that the estimated cost of not standard rating children's clothing and footwear was £600 million in 1993–94. This figure makes no allowance for changes in behaviour if the tax were imposed.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the sum that would be raised in the next financial year by imposing VAT on domestic air fares at the standard rate;

  (2) what is his estimate of the sum that would be raised in the next financial year by imposing VAT on bus fares at the standard rate.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 26 October 1993]: Table 9 of the publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" published by HM Treasury in July 1993 provides an estimate of £1,150 million for the cost of zero-rating domestic passenger transport in 1993–94. Very roughly, around £450 million of this is in respect of bus fares; around £150 million is in respect of air fares. These figures make no allowance for the likely behavioural response to applying VAT at the standard rate to these items.

  End-year Flexibility Schemes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the entitlements for 1993–94 resulting from the carry forward of the capital and running costs underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his reply 14 July, 1993, c. 512–18]. The last entry in the table "Cash limits on Votes" shown in columns 515–16 should have read:

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are taken to ensure that, when a maintenance assessment is calculated, the Child Support Agency takes into full account the settlement of financial affairs made in the courts between former partners.

  Mr. Burt
  Calculation of maintenance by the Child Support Agency is based on the current needs of children, and the current income and outgoings of their parents. The maintenance formula which the agency uses, while not making any direct allowance for capital or property settlements, does take account of the practical consequences of such agreements, since the current housing costs of absent parents are allowed for in calculating their maintenance liability, and a capital settlement may affect the assessable income both of the absent parent and of the parent with care. In such cases, where the practical
  753
  outcome is that the absent parent has higher costs or lower income, his maintenance liability will consequently be less.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the performance of the Child Support Agency in the first six months of its operation since April.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency is still a new business. Ministers and officials of the Department meet the chief executive regularly to discuss the agency's performance. The agency has made a determined start on its important task of ensuring that more children receive more maintenance more regularly.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number of maintenance assessments his Department has set as a target for the Child Support Agency to handle in the first 12 months of operation; and what other performance targets have been set.

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a limited range of targets for 1993–94 which are set out in the agency's published business plan. They are:60 per cent. of people with the care of children making eligible applications to the CSA to have maintenance arranged;
  annual benefit savings of £530 million;
  to maintain the Agency's resources so as to deliver its Business Plan within a total budget of £115 million;
  65 per cent. of clients to regard the service as satisfactory, as measured by an independent national survey;
  to meet a set of milestone targets which relate to major initiatives.
  Accommodation. Open Child Support Agency Centre at Birkenhead and Plymouth by 31 October 1993.
  Recruitment and training. Recruit and train sufficient numbers of staff to begin operations at Birkenhead and Plymouth Centres by 31 October 1993.
  Staff resources. Develop further the complementing system in the light of live running to inform proposals for staff in the 1994 Public Expenditure Survey.
  Child Support Computer System. Implement by 30 June 1993 Release 1·1 of the Child Support Computer System.
  Service planning. Child Support Agency Centres and Divisions to produce service plans in time to inform the 1994 Public Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in how many cases considered by the Child Support Agency at the latest date for which figures are available the parent with care has declined to reveal details of the absent parent or to sign the authorisation; in how many of these the explanation has been accepted by the Child Support Agency and no further proceedings taken; and in how many cases investigations are continuing;

  (2) how many cases there have been at the latest available date for which figures are available where the parent with care is a man; and what percentage these represent of the total number of cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency;

  (3) how many absent parents have appealed against the sum fixed for maintenance by the Child Support Agency; and what percentage this is of the total number of such assessments issued;
  754
  (4) how many and what percentage of the total number of Child Support Agency authorisation forms signed at the latest date for which figures are available have been signed by a parent with care in receipt of income support;

  (5) how many completed maintenance assessments and what percentage of the total so completed relate to cases where the parent with care is in receipt of income support at the latest date for which figures are available;

  (6) what is the average period between the issue of an inquiry form to a parent with care and the fixing by the Child Support Agency of the sum to be paid in maintenance by an absent parent;

  (7) what is his best estimate of the administrative cost of processing an individual case by the Child Support Agency from the initial reference of the parent with care to the final assessment of the absent parent's maintenance payment and of the average collection costs in a full year;

  (8) what estimate he can give of the administrative costs of the Child Support Agency in the first year of its operation;

  (9) how many cases there have been at the latest date for which figures are available in which there has been a deduction from income support because of a refusal by a parent with care to supply information about an absent parent;

  (10) in how many cases considered by the Child Support Agency, at the latest date for which information is available, the absent parent has disputed parenthood; and in how many of these cases court proceedings to establish parenthood have been instituted or are pending;

  (11) how many maintenance assessments have been issued (a) in total and (b) in each of the Child Support Agency's regional centres at the latest date for which figures are available;

  (12) what estimate he can give of the average sum assessed for maintenance by the Child Support Agency where there is (a) one child, (b) two children and (c) more than two children at the latest date for which such figures are available;

  (13) how many authorisation forms have been signed by parents with care (a) in total and (b) in each of the Child Support Agency's regional centres, respectively, at the latest available date for which figures are available;

  (14) how many staff are presently employed by the Child Support Agency (a) in total, (b) at headquarters and (c) at each of the regional centres.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 27 October 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about various aspects of the work of the Child Support Agency.
  I should perhaps first explain that the information refers to the period 5 April to 30 September 1993 except where otherwise indicated, and that the Agency does not distinguish whether a Parent with Care of children or an Absent Parent is male or female.
  You ask about cases where the requirement to co-operate has been an issue. The number of such cases to 30 September 1993 is 6,600, and in 4,900 of these the Agency has accepted that the Parent with Care had good cause not to co-operate in pursuing a

  755
  maintenance claim. Of those cases in which "good cause" was not accepted, only 22 have been referred to the Benefits Agency for the prescribed benefit reduction.
  As regards appeals, at 30 September 1993, 2,825 clients had requested a review of their maintenance assessment, representing 7·7 per cent, of the total number of maintenance assessments in the same period. In addition the Independent Tribunal Service had approached the Agency for a report in 86 appeal cases. The Agency does not distinguish between appeals made by Absent Parents and Parents with Care.
  You ask specifically about Income Support claimants. To date, 527,000 Maintenance Application Forms (MAFs) have been issued and of these 385,000 (ie, 73 per cent.) were in respect of parents with care on Income Support, 328,000 MAFs have been returned but the number of these which relate to Income Support clients is not known as this information is not collected. Information on MAFs returned and maintenance assessments completed and broken down by CSA Centre (CSAC) is contained in Annex A.
  Information on the time taken to process maintenance applications is not yet available but we anticipate that this will take between 6 and 12 weeks in a straightforward case and longer in more difficult cases.
  You ask about the Agency's costs and I should explain that the fees, £44 for the Agency's assessment service and £34 for the collection service, are based on the full economic cost of administering the Agency's services to its clients. The Agency's administrative budget for 1993–94 is £115 million (ie, £95 million in running costs and £7 million in capital costs) and £13 million in other costs. This information was contained in the Agency's Business Plan. No changes have been made to the agreed budget.
  With regard to disputed paternity, there have been less than 1,000 cases to date of which fewer than 20 have been referred to the courts to be resolved.
  Figures on the average amount of maintenance assessment payments are not yet available. The Child Support Act provides for maintenance to be assessed by means of a standard formula, which will result, on average, in payments of £40-£50 a week. This compares to the £25-£30 a week which was previously the average maintenance payment.
  Information on staff employed by the Agency is contained in Annex B.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Maintenance assessments completed

  Year to 30 September 1993

  Belfast CSAC

  3,862

  Birkenhead CSAC

  7,582

  Dudley CSAC

  7,420

  Falkirk CSAC

  7,074

  Hastings CSAC

  4,892

  Plymouth CSAC

  5,780

  Total

  36,610

  Maintenance assessment forms returned

  Year to 1 October 1993

  Belfast CSAC

  68,100

  Birkenhead CSAC

  61,100

  Dudley CSAC

  58,100

  Falkirk CSAC

  56,700

  Hastings CSAC

  38,200

  Plymouth CSAC

  46,500

  Total

  328,700

  756

  Staffing

  Staff employed by the Child Support Agency at 1 October 1993

  Number

  CSA Total

  14,594

  Headquarters

  231

  Birkenhead CSAC

  368

  Dudley CSAC

  512

  Falkirk CSAC

  439

  Hastings CSAC

  568

  Plymouth CSAC

  363

  Belfast CSAC2

  431

  1 This figure includes CSA Local Office and 723 part-time staff.

  2 This figure represents those staff in Belfast who deal with cases from Great Britain. They are Northem Ireland Civil Servant and do not appear in the total Agency figures shown above.

  Household Income
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the median incomes for the top, ninth, eighth, seventh and sixth deciles, before and after housing costs for the years 1979 and 1990–91, in terms of net equivalised household income.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is provided in the tables.

  Median net equivalised household income of top five deciles

  (£ per week—April 1993 prices)

  Year

  Decile Group Medians

  Decile 6

  Decile 7

  Decile 8

  Decile 9

  Decile 10

  Before housing costs

  1979

  180

  202

  230

  226

  349

  1990–91

  229

  264

  313

  381

  551

  After housing costs

  1979

  157

  177

  201

  233

  308

  1990–91

  201

  235

  277

  338

  498

  Notes:

  1. All figures are subject to sampling error.

TRANSPORT

  New Rolling Stock
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to come to a consultation on the review of the timing of new rolling stock, pursuant to the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority's letter of 11 October.

  Mr. Freeman
  My officials will be discussing with the passenger transport executive a number of issues raised in the appraisal. Subject to a satisfactory resolution of those issues, I am hopeful that we will be able to complete our review of the timing of new rolling stock within six weeks.

  Vehicle Operator Licensing
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many heavy goods vehicles are exempt from goods operator licensing;

  (2) if he will list each type of vehicle exempt from goods vehicle operator licensing.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on Tuesday 26 October, at columns 539–40.

  HGV Drivers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a review of the regulations governing licences for heavy goods vehicle drivers with insulin-dependent diabetes.

  Mr. Key
  Regulations introduced on 1 April 1991 included insulin treated diabetes as a bar to entitlement to drive large lorries and buses for new applicants and those first treated with insulin after this date. The effect of diabetes on driving is kept under constant reassessment by the honorary medical advisory panel on driving and diabetes mellitus.

  Bus Services, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reasons underlie his decision to apply different rules for publication of the terms of commercial contracts between tenderers for contracts with public bodies providing urban bus services inside Greater London and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  Different legislation governs the provision of bus services in London from that in the rest of the country.

  Outside London, the rules for publication of information about bus route contracts are laid down by the Transport Act 1985. Inside London, it is London Transport which is responsible for deciding whether to publish the terms of commercial contracts for the provision of tendered bus services.

  London Underground (Safety)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the statistics he has given in response to the figures presented to him by London Underground Ltd. relating to the impact of its plans, entitled "A Decently Modern Metro", of reductions in capital funding for safety and maintenance of this system at levels below those already indicated by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Norris
  We are still discussing with London Underground Ltd.—LUL—its plans for "A Decently Modern Metro", and I cannot comment on future funding levels in advance of the unified budget. Safety on London Underground remains, of course, a top priority for LUL and Government.

  Transport Capital Finance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the national total of capital allocations for transport to local authorities in England for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London;

  (2) what was the capital allocation for transport for each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (3) what was the national total of capital expenditure on transport by local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;
  758
  and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London;

  (4) what was the regional total of capital allocations for transport to the local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region;

  (5) what was the capital expenditure on transport by each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (6) what was the regional total of capital expenditure on transport by the local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region.

  Mr. MacGregor
  This information is collected centrally by the Department of the Environment. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Rail Franchising Director
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish a draft of the objectives, instructions and guidance which he would intend to set for the Passenger Railway Franchising Director as provided for under clause 5 of the Railways Bill.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am today placing copies of a draft in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  Nursing Home Beds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of registered nursing home beds in 1991–92 in each health authority in England.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is published in the annual summary "Private Hospitals, Homes and Clinics Registered under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984" which has been placed in the Library.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to reduce the number of regional health authorities or change the areas which they cover.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Leicester south (Mr. Marshall) on 26 October, at column 675.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has in respect of the number of representations in respect of the recent NHS trusts approved; and how many representations in each consultation were considered(a) to favour trust status, (b) to oppose trust status and (c) to be neutral.

  Mr. Sackville
  As with all national health service bodies, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has available very wide-ranging information about all key aspects of the running of the NHS trusts in question.
  759
  A breakdown of the results of consultation is shown in the table.

  Supportive

  Opposed

  Neutral

  South Western RHA

  Plymouth Hospitals

  15

  7

  8

  South East Thames RHA

  The Medway

  3

  7

  17

  North Kent Healthcare

  4

  8

  21

  Queen Victoria Hospital

  987

  6

  106

  Kent Ambulance

  7

  2

  22

  South Kent Community Healthcare

  0

  0

  7

  South East London Mental Health

  6

  1

  6

  Dartford and Gravesham

  5

  3

  7

  East Anglian RHA

  Norwich Community Health Partnership

  29

  60

  7

  Norfolk Mental Health Care

  12

  49

  4

  North East Thames RHA

  Haringey Health Care

  9

  5

  10

  New Possibilities

  16

  1

  11

  Mid Essex Community and Mental Health

  10

  1

  7

  West Midlands RHA

  Hereford Hospitals

  6

  1

  9

  The George Eliot Hospital

  39

  9

  6

  Northern Birmingham Community Health

  11

  0

  14

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital

  15

  7

  9

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals

  7

  8

  10

  South Warwickshire Mental Health Services

  8

  2

  3

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  11

  2

  6

  Worcester Royal Infirmary

  21

  3

  6

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service

  15

  2

  7

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service

  28

  11

  2

  Shropshire Community Health Service

  16

  6

  11

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare

  17

  3

  6

  South Birmingham Community Health

  8

  6

  21

  Solihull Healthcare

  6

  0

  11

  City Hospitals

  8

  6

  22

  Birmingham Women's Health Care

  7

  6

  17

  Birmingham Heartlands Hospital

  48

  0

  11

  Oxford RHA

  Kettering General Hospital

  8

  9

  13

  Rockingham Forest

  6

  9

  15

  Northampton Community Healthcare

  4

  8

  11

  Northampton General Hospital

  8

  12

  27

  Oxfordshire Community Health

  10

  6

  38

  Oxford Mental Healthcare

  9

  7

  34

  Oxfordshire Ambulance

  4

  6

  14

  Churchill John Radcliffe

  15

  14

  29

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital

  12

  4

  19

  North West Thames RHA

  Riverside Community Health Care

  6

  —

  3

  760

  Supportive

  Opposed

  Neutral

  Northern RHA

  Bishop Auckland Hospitals

  6

  8

  6

  Carlisle Hospitals

  13

  8

  6

  Cheviot and Wansbeck

  13

  7

  4

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  10

  12

  4

  Darlington Memorial Hospital

  4

  9

  8

  North Durham Acute Hospitals

  10

  13

  9

  Community Health Care, North Durham

  9

  11

  6

  North Lakeland Healthcare

  5

  7

  5

  Hartlepool and Peterlee Hospitals

  3

  8

  4

  Hartlepool Community Care

  2

  8

  3

  North Tyneside Health Care

  11

  8

  5

  Northumberland Community Health

  9

  5

  5

  Priority Healthcare Wearside

  10

  35

  6

  South Durham Health

  6

  18

  5

  Trent RHA

  Derbyshire Ambulance Service

  10

  7

  6

  The King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services

  12

  6

  9

  Leicestershire Ambulance and Paramedic Service

  18

  7

  4

  Leicestershire Mental Health Service

  13

  6

  10

  Lincoln District Healthcare

  19

  5

  17

  Lincoln Hospitals

  15

  4

  14

  Louth and District Healthcare

  6

  7

  10

  Community Health Care Service (North Derbyshire)

  9

  8

  11

  Nottingham Healthcare

  16

  7

  13

  Pilgrim Health

  18

  3

  14

  Community Health Sheffield

  17

  17

  7

  Derbyshire Royal Infirmary

  9

  7

  13

  Yorkshire RHA

  Dewsbury Health Care

  3

  2

  4

  East Yorkshire Community Healthcare

  16

  0

  8

  Hull and Holderness Community Health

  18

  2

  7

  North Western RHA

  CommuniCare

  10

  5

  16

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care

  10

  6

  15

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services

  11

  9

  15

  Community Healthcare Bolton

  8

  11

  18

  Bolton Hospitals

  10

  23

  23

  Bury Health Care

  37

  12

  20

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Service

  9

  16

  20

  Lancashire Ambulance Service

  17

  11

  20

  North Manchester Healthcare

  16

  8

  15

  Guild Community Healthcare

  12

  4

  6

  Preston Acute Hospitals

  12

  5

  16

  Mental Health Services of Salford

  9

  4

  9

  761

  Supportive

  Opposed

  Neutral

  Sal ford Community Health Care

  11

  5

  11

  Stockport Healthcare

  12

  14

  22

  Stockport Acute Services

  14

  14

  12

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services

  11

  5

  14

  Tameside and Glossop Community and Priority Services

  11

  5

  21

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital

  14

  13

  15

  Mersey RHA

  West Cheshire

  9

  2

  14

  Wirral Community Healthcare

  11

  3

  9

  Wessex RHA

  East Wiltshire Health Care

  6

  3

  3

  Portsmouth Health Care

  8

  1

  6

  Salisbury Health Care

  11

  1

  6

  Swindon and Marlborough

  6

  2

  5

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare

  4

  1

  11

  South West Thames RHA

  Chichester Priority Care Services

  6

  2

  6

  North Downs Community Health

  8

  3

  7

  Kingston and District Community

  5

  1

  6

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

  14

  6

  9

  Wandsworth Community Health

  7

  2

  6

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts have been established; what is their total budget; and what percentage of the NHS total expenditure this accounts for.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total number of first, second and third wave national health service trusts operational in England in 1993–94 is 292. Trusts do not have specific budgets but obtain much of their income by contracting for patient services. Total forecast income for NHS trusts in 1993–94 is £13.5 billion, representing 44 per cent. of total NHS gross expenditure.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health service trusts have provided business plans; and how many of these have been made available to the public or to hon. Members;

  (2) what plans she has to give hon. Members a statutory right to have access to the business plans of the health service trusts which serve their constituency; and what existing guidelines there are about making such plans available to (a) hon. Members and (b) the public.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts are required to provide the NHS Management Executive with a three-year business plan every year and have done so. They are also expected to make a summary business plan available to the public, including hon. Members, by 31 March each year. The arrangements for making plans available to the public are for individual trusts to determine and no central record of their issue is maintained. There are no plans to give hon. Members statutory rights to access the business plans.
  762
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to whom health service trusts are accountable for their business plans and expenditure outturns; and what plans she has to improve that accountability.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts are accountable to the NHS Management Executive for both their business plans and their expenditure outturn. These accountability arrangements are effective and we have no current plans to make any changes.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff members serve as(a) non-executive directors and (b) chairs on trust boards in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The regulations governing membership of national health service trust boards disqualify NHS employees from serving as chairmen or non-executive directors of NHS trusts, except that a designated teaching trust will have a non-executive director drawn from a university, who may be an employee of a health service body.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 27 July,Official Report, column 826, if she will provide a list of fourth-wave trusts which received grants, indicating the value of the grant, by district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The successful fourth wave national health service trust applicants are listed by regional and district health authority. Unless otherwise stated, allocations totalling £254,000 will have been made in respect of these applicants. These additional moneys have been made available to cover the following: public consultation, conveyancing and expenditure during the trust's "shadow period".

  Successful 4th wave NHS Trust applicants listed by regional and district health authority.

  NHS Trusts

    WEST MIDLANDS REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Herefordshire Health Authority

    Hereford Hospitals

    Warwickshire Health Authority

    The George Eliot Hospital

    South Warwickshire Mental Health SS0

    Wolverhampton Health Authority

    The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

    Worcester and District Health Authority

    Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service

    Worcester Royal Infirmary

    Warwickshire Health Authority

    Warwickshire Ambulance Service

    Shropshire Health Authority

    Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital

    Shropshire Community Health Service

    Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals

    North Staffordshire Health Authority

    North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare

    Solihull Health Authority

    Solihull Healthcare

    West Birmingham Health Authority

    City Hospitals

    South Birmingham Health Authority

    Birmingham Women's Health Care

    South Birmingham Community Health

    East Birmingham Health Authority

    Northern Birmingham Community Health

    Birmingham Heartlands Hospital1

    OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Kettering Health Authority

    Kettering General Hospital

    Rockingham Forest

    Northampton Health Authority

    Northampton General Hospital

    Northampton Community Healthcare

    Oxfordshire Health Authority

    Churchill John Radcliffe

    Oxfordshire Ambulance

    Oxfordshire Community Health

    Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare

    Buckinghamshire Health Authority

    Stoke Mandeville Hospital

    NORTH WEST THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Ealing Hounslow and Hammersmith Health Agency

    Riverside Community Health Care

    NORTH EAST THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    New River Health Authority

    Haringey Health Care

    North Essex Health Authority

    Mid Essex Community and Mental Health2

    New Possibilities2

    EAST ANGLIAN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Norwich Health Authority

    Norwich Community Health Partnership

    Norfolk Mental Health Care

    SOUTH EAST THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Tunbridge Wells Health Authority

    Queen Victorial Hospital

    Medway Health Authority

    Kent Ambulance

    The Medway

    North Kent Healthcare

    South East London Health Authority

    South East London Mental HS0

    South East Kent Health Authority

    South Kent Community Healthcare

    Dartford and Gravesham Health Authority

    Dartford and Gravesham

    SOUTH WEST THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Chichester Health Authority

    Chichester Priority Care Services

    South West Surrey Health Authority

    North Downs Community Health

    Kingston and Richmond Health Authority

    Kingston and District Community

    Worthing Health Authority

    Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

    Wandsworth Health Authority

    Wandsworth Community Health

    WESSEX REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Swindon Health Authority

    East Wiltshire Health Care

    Swindon and Marlborough

    Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority

    Portsmouth Health Care

    Salisbury Health Authority

    Salisbury Health Care

    Winchester Health Authority

    Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare.

    SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Plymouth and Torbay Health Authority

    Plymouth Hospitals

    NORTHERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    South Durham Health Authority

    Bishop Auckland Hospitals

    Darlington Memorial Hospital

    South Durham Healthcare

    East Cumbria Health Authority

    Carlisle Hospitals

    North Lakeland Healthcare

    Northumberland Health Authority

    Cheviot and Wansbeck

    Northumberland Community Health

    Sunderland Health Authority

    City Hospitals Sunderland

    Priority Healthcare Wearside

    North Durham Health Authority

    North Durham Acute Hospitals

    Community Health Care, North Durham

    Hartlepool Health Authority

    Hartlepool Community Care

    Hartlepool and Peterlee Hospitals

    North Tyneside Health Authority

    North Tyneside Health Care

    TRENT REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Southern Derbyshire Health Authority

    Derbyshire Ambulance Service

    Derbyshire Royal Infirmary

    North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

    The King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services

    Leicestershire Health Authority

    Leicestershire Ambulance and Paramedic Service

    Leicestershire Mental Health Service

    North Lincolnshire Health Authority

    Lincoln District Healthcare

    Lincoln Hospitals

    Louth and District Healthcare

    North Derbyshire Health Authority

    Community Health Care Service (North Derbyshire)

    Nottingham Health Authority

    Nottingham Healthcare

    South Lincolnshire Health Authority

    Pilgrim Health

    Sheffield Health Authority

    Community Health Sheffield

    YORKSHIRE REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    West Yorkshire Health Authority

    Dewsbury Health Care

    East Riding Health Authority

    East Yorkshire Community Healthcare

    Hull and Holderness Community Health

    NORTH WESTERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Authority

    Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care

    CommuniCare

    Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Health Authority

    Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services

    Blackpool Victoria Hospital

    Bolton Health Authority

    Community Healthcare Bolton

    Bolton Hospitals

    Bury Health Authority

    Bury Health Care

    Greater Manchester Ambulance Service

    North Manchester Health Authority

    North Manchester Healthcare

    Preston Health Authority

    Guild Community Healthcare

    Preston Acute Hospitals

    Lancashire Ambulance Service

    Salford Health Authority

    Mental Health Services of Salford

    Salford Community Health Care

    Stockport Health Authority

    Stockport Healthcare

    Stockport Acute Services

    Tameside and Glossop Health Authority

    Tameside and Glossop Acute Services

    Tameside and Glossop Community and Priority Services

    MERSEY REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
    Chester Health Authority

    West Cheshire

    Wirral Health Authority

    Wirral Community Healthcare

    1 Birmingham Heartlands Hospital is to be reconfigured without the requirement to dissolve the existing Trust under guidance issued in TEL(93)1, copies of which are available in Library. Since this is a minor reconfiguration no additional allocations have been made for conveyancing or expenditure incurred during "shadow period". Therefore, an additional allocation of only £13,000 has been made in respect of this Trust to cover the costs of the public consultation exercise.
    2 Both these successful applications are existing trusts reconfiguring with directly managed units. Although the costs of public consultation and conveyancing are covered the applicants are only eligible for half of the allocation made to cover
    766
    expenditure incurred during the shadow period. Therefore, additional allocations of only £147,000 have been made in respect of these two applications.

  Perioperative Deaths
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to conduct an inquiry into the number and causes of perioperative death of patients; if she will estimate the numbers so dying in each of the last five years; and if she will list the numbers preventable in each of the last five years and the broad preventable causes of death.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health already supports the national confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths. Information on the number of people who die following surgery is not available centrally. A table on trends in "avoidable" deaths, 1979–92, for a selected number of conditions is contained in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics 1992", copies of which are available in the Library. While it would not be possible to prevent every death deemed to be "avoidable", it is expected that a substantial proportion could be prevented.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the findings of the NCEPOD report on the confidential inquiry into perioperative death.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths—NCEPOD—is an important study for patients and the National Health Service. It provides valuable reassurance about the quality of surgical and anaesthetic care. We welcome the inquiry's conclusion that across the range of specialties covered, patients can rely on excellent standards. Some of the problems identified in previous reports, such as the percentage of consultants involved in decisions on patient care, are improving. There is, however, room for further improvement. For example there is scope for clinicians and local managers in some areas to work together to improve operating facilities. The report also identifies issues for the medical profession which can improve standards of professional practice, such as in the prevention of pulmonary embolism and in the control of fluids in elderly patients.

  Through careful assessment of clinical standards, this inquiry helps to ensure that the medical profession retains a critical approach to its work. The Government wish to encourage all surgeons and anaesthetists to continue to support NCEPOD, and NHS managers and the profession to act on the results. We expect all doctors to participate in peer review activities, and we provide continuing financial support for medical and clinical audit, as well as for NCEPOD. In these ways, doctors can develop confidence in their clinical performance and identify areas where they can further develop their expertise.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require contractors to write into contracts a confidential inquiry into perioperative death data requirement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for individual health authorities to establish local health needs and on that basis determine what they include in their contracts.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that her targets for the reduction of junior doctors' hours are reached.
  767
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Our targets for reducing junior doctors' hours are set out in "Junior Doctors: The New Deal", copies of which are available in the Library. It is for local units to develop plans to achieve these targets, but regional task forces support local action, monitor progress and report regularly to the National Health Service Management Executive.

  We are also providing an extra £12.2 million from central funds this year to establish a further 125 consultant posts targeted to reduce hours and for other local initiatives to promote the new deal. This is in addition to the £24.8 million we are spending this year to support action begun in the past two years.

  Footwear
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has on healthy footwear in adults and children.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Anti-smoking Patches
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy regarding the availability of anti-smoking patches on the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have decided that nicotine patches should not be available on national health service prescription. We do not consider their supply to be a priority for the use of the limited resources available to the national health service. Statutory Instrument 2421—the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1993—which was laid before the House on 11 October, adds a number of nicotine patch products to the list of items which cannot be prescribed by general practitioners.

  Community Care
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give greater account in the system for allocating community care resources for 1994–95 to the assessed needs of people in different areas, relative to the amount of historical provision in the independent sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  Decisions about the distribution of the community care special transitional grant in 1994–95 will be announced in due course. The movement of this year's grant into personal social services standard spending assessments in 1994–95 will, in itself, mean that an increased proportion of the new resources for community care will be distributed according to SSAs.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the review of the system of allocation of resources for community care for 1994–95 with the review of local authority standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Bowis
  The standard spending assessment review will be among the factors taken into account when decisions are made about the distribution of the community care special transitional grant in 1994–95.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service sight tests paid for by family health service authorities took place in 1992–93 in each regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of national health service sight tests paid for by family health service authorities in 1992–93 is shown in the table.

  RHA

  1992–93

  Northern

  345,890

  Yorkshire

  408,800

  Trent

  528,080

  East Anglia

  222,090

  North West Thames

  397,350

  North East Thames

  494,040

  South East Thames

  406,730

  South West Thames

  295,330

  Wessex

  348,770

  Oxford

  276,510

  South Western

  435,370

  West Midlands

  640,530

  Mersey

  271,730

  North Western

  456,360

  England1

  5,527,590

  1 The total may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 July,Official Report, columns 532–34, if she can now give the final figures for 1992–93 for sight tests.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figures have been validated, and remain unchanged from those provided in my reply to the hon. Member on 14 July at columns 532–34.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the regional total of capital allocations for personal social services to the local authorities in England for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region;

  (2) what was the capital expenditure on personal social services by each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (3) what was the national total of capital allocations for personal social services to local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London;

  (4) what was the capital allocation for personal social services for each local authority in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (5) what was the regional total of capital expenditure on personal social services by the local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89 for each standard English region;

  (6) what was the national total of capital expenditure on personal social services by local authorities in England for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown of the

  769
  total between (i) non-metropolitan district councils, (ii) county councils, (iii) metropolitan district councils, (iv) London boroughs and (v) the City of London.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is collected centrally by the Department of the Environment. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).

  GPs (Misconduct)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances under which a general practitioner found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council can be allowed to continue to practise; and what assessment she has made of whether patients are sufficiently protected.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is a matter for the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council to decide whether a doctor is fit to continue practising after he has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct. Where a finding of serious professional misconduct is made by the professional conduct committee, it may order that the name of the practitioner concerned is erased from the register; that his registration be suspended, or that his continuing registration be dependent upon his compliance with such conditions of practice as the committee may think fit. The professional conduct committee would need to consider each case on its merits having regard to its primary concerns to protect the public and uphold the reputation of the profession.

  The Government's aim is to ensure that proper controls exist to protect patients against the risk of deficient conduct and professional regulatory bodies like the GMC have an important role to play in safeguarding standards of medical care. Under the terms of the Medical Act 1983, the disciplinary remit of the GMC covers only those offences amounting to serious professional misconduct.

  A family health service authority has a duty to remove from its medical list the name of any general practitioner whose name has been erased from the medical register, or whose registration has been suspended, following disciplinary proceedings by the GMC.

  The GMC is proposing to introduce performance procedures which would apply where a doctor's pattern of professional performance was seriously deficient but did not amount to serious professional misconduct. We support the GMC in its aims and will continue to contribute to the discussions about the detail of the proposals.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances it is possible for a general practitioner to continue to provide NHS services after a direction has been made by the General Medical Council that his or her name be erased from the register; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A doctor who is the subject of a decision by the General Medical Council's professional conduct committee to erase his or her name from the register has 28 days in which to appeal against the direction to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. During that period and if there is an appeal, until the appeal is withdrawn or disposed of, the doctor's registration is not affected and he or she is able to continue practising. The professional conduct committee may direct that a doctor's770
  registration should be immediately suspended where it is satisfied that such action is necessary for the protection of members of the public or would be in the best interests of the doctor.

  A family health services authority has a duty to remove from its medical list the name of any general practitioner whose name has been erased from the medical register, or whose registration has been suspended, following disciplinary proceedings by the GMC.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the speed in dealing with cases of charges of serious professional misconduct at the NHS tribunal and on appeal; and if she will make a statement in relation to a recent case raised with her by the hon. Member for Woolwich.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks to the chairman of the National Health Service Tribunal to deal with references made to the tribunal as speedily as possible within the regulations governing its procedure. The outcome of a hearing of the NHS Tribunal may be that a practitioner is no longer included in a family health service authority list or all such lists. That is a serious matter and the parties must have reasonable time to prepare themselves for the hearing. The tribunal chairman is responsible for ensuring that the proceedings of the tribunal are conducted fairly.

  The case drawn to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's attention by the hon. Member was originally scheduled for hearing in September. Unfortunately the hearing was delayed because of the resignation of the previous tribunal chairman. The case has been relisted for 15 November when it will be heard by the tribunal under its new chairman, Mr. Adrian Whitfield QC.

  Regional Administration Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 616, if she will now make available the final regional administrative costs for 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The final regional administrative costs for 1991–92 are unchanged from those given in my reply to the hon. Member on 14 April at column 616.

  Information for 1992–93 is contained in the annual accounts for health authorities. We are assembling and summarising these accounts in accordance with statutory deadlines. Comprehensive information will be available at the end of November.

  General Practioners (Suspensions)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the need for legislation to provide for the suspension of general practitioners from the provision of NHS services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is currently considering whether there is a need for legislation to provide for the suspension of general medical practioners, in extreme cases, from the provision of national health service services, and the ways in which suspension would be effected.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the committed effective dose to children in the terrestrial critical group will be for each year of discharge if the proposed liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges from BNFL's Sellafield installation are granted, and whether any children within that critical group will be exposed to doses exceeding the latest National Radiological Protection board's dose constraints of 0.3 mSv.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The estimated committed effective dose to children in the terrestrial critical group from liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges from Sellafield at the proposed authorised discharge limits is 239 uSv—microsievert—per year. This dose, calculated on the basis of pessimistic assumptions, is below the National Radiological Protection Board's recommended annual dose constraint of 300 uSv in respect of discharges from new plant.

PRIME MINISTER

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will place the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield on the agenda of the European Council special summit in Brussels on 29 October.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Official Histories
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister which further official histories of peacetime events have been commissioned.

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed Professor Alan Milward, professor of economic history at the university of London, London School of Economics, as an official historian with effect from October 1993 to write the official history of the United Kingdom's accession to the European Community.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans he has to improve access to the House Chamber and Committee rooms for wheelchair bound civil servants.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The general question of access to the House for the disabled is to be considered in the near future by my Committee. I anticipate that the specific issue of access to the Chamber and Committee rooms will be included in our deliberations.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth, Birmingham
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people aged 16 to 17 years in Birmingham are not in employment, not on a youth training scheme and not in full-time education; and what proportion of that age group this represents.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In July 1993, there were 428 unemployed claimants aged 16 to 17 years in the Birmingham travel-to-work area. Information on claimant unemployment by age expressed as a percentage of the workforce in a particular age band, is not available below national level.

  All 16 and 17-year-olds are covered by the Government's guarantee of an offer of a youth training place, if they are willing to accept YT as a route into employment.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why reference to ethnic minorities has been omitted from the draft plan for European social fund objective 3 1994–99; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It has always been our intention that ethnic minorities should continue to be among the beneficiaries of the European social fund—ESF— supported programmes in the next programming period 1994–99. The draft plan outlines a number of ways in which ethnic minorities may receive help from the ESF.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received on the regulations dealing with sheep quota.

  Mr. Jack
  I have received a number of representations about the arrangements for sheep quotas, principally from farmers and landowners.

  Minke Whales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the Government of Norway about the killing of minke whales in the north Atlantic.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom Government have made it clear, at the highest levels, that we deplore the resumption of commercial whaling.

  Dairy Sector
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

  Mr. Jack
  A copy of our consultation document on the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board's reorganisation scheme was sent to the NFU last week. My right hon. Friends look forward to receiving the NFU's views in due course.

  Veterinary Products
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has for the reform of veterinary products licensing.

  Mr. Soames
  I am adapting the licensing system to take account of Community law requirements, including the future systems package, and the deregulation initiative. The core scientific requirements of safety, quality and efficacy will be retained.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent her Department has taken sufficient steps to lessen the amount of nitrates in watercourses and the water table.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department is playing its full part through the promotion of its nitrate-sensitive area policy in keeping the level of nitrate in water at acceptable levels.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received concerning EC legislation to protect the welfare of live farm animals during transport.

  Mr. Soames
  During the consultation on proposed new Community rules, many representations have been received pressing the Government to seek high standards to protect animals in transport. This is our intention.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the European Council of Ministers concerning the implementation of EC directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport.

  Mr. Soames
  The European Commission has issued proposals for additional rules to protect animals in transport. We are pressing for strong welfare safeguards, based on the high standards which apply in this country.

  Tenancy Laws
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she intends to take concerning reform of the agricultural tenancy laws; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have made it clear that we intend to proceed with reform, to the benefit of both landlords and tennants.

  Food Processing
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support her Department is giving to food processing companies.

  Mr. Jack
  We give help in a number of ways, notably export refunds on manufactured foods, marketing and processing grants, funding of export promotion through Food from Britain, and support to R and D on food processing technology under the Link arrangements.

  Farm and Conservation Grant
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received concerning the farm and conservation grant scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We regularly receive representations about the farm and conservation grant scheme, usually in relation to individual grant cases. Each representation is carefully considered and, where it is both possible and desirable to do so, taken into account when framing adjustments to the conditions of the scheme.

  Days-at-sea Regulations
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the progress of talks over the implementation of days-at-sea regulations.

  Mr. Jack
  I have visited a dozen ports in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and met local fishermen and representatives from around 80 organisations associated with fishing. We are now considering the results of these consultations and the results of parallel discussions in Scotland, together with the formal responses we have received from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and we shall be announcing our plans soon.

  Cattle
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to monitor the causes of infection of cattle by tuberculosis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  A thorough investigation is carried out following every cattle herd breakdown to attempt to identify the source of the infection and any cattle moved on or off the premises are traced and tested if appropriate.

  Wildlife carcases submitted by the public of a range of animals such as deer and badgers are examined for tuberculosis if local staff or the State Veterinary Service believe useful information may be provided.

  Badger removal operations are undertaken only where badgers are believed to be involved in the spread of infection to cattle; all badgers killed in these removal operations are examined for tuberculosis.

  In support of the bovine tuberculosis programme, the Department is funding a field research programme to provide information on the mode of transmission of bovine tuberculosis from badgers to cattle.

  Marketing
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to improve the marketing of British horticultural products.

  Mr. Jack
  In addition to the promotional activities in which I and my colleagues are pleased to assist, my right hon. Friend has asked me to undertake a specific and intensive survey of horticultural marketing.

  We are also consulting the industry on our proposals for a new marketing development scheme, and our "continental challenge" initiative with European retailers should open the door to better export performance.

  Agricultural Training Board
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received concerning the future of the agricultural training board.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my predecessor on 1 April 1993 at column 329 to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) following the consultation exercise on the future status and operation of the agricultural training board.

  Nearly 700 responses were received to the consultation document published on 25 September 1992 from a variety of interested organisations and individuals.

  No subsequent representations have been made to this Department on this issue.

  Weeds Act 1959
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received regarding the future of the Weeds Act 1959; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In response to our consultation on the future of the Weeds Act 1959, some 1,000 representations were received from individuals and bodies, the majority of which were against repeal of the Act.

  After careful consideration of these responses by Agricultural Ministers, my noble Friend the Earl Howe announced on 11 October that the Act would be retained. I am pleased that it is perceived as serving a useful purpose.

  Year

  Whole-time principal farmers, partners and directors (doing farm work)

  Salaried managers

  Whole-time family workers

  Whole-time hired workers

  Total number of whole-time workers

  1980

  136·6

  6·9

  19·5

  121·3

  284·2

  11993

  112·9

  7·1

  16·6

  72·1

  208·0

  1 Provisional results.

  Notes:

  Source: June Census of Agriculture and Horticulture each year.

  Includes estimates for minor holdings.

  Figures exclude;

  (i) the wives/husbands of farmers, partners and directors, even though they themselves may be partners or directors.

  (ii) seasonal or casual workers.

  Coastal Defences
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of coastal defences exhibit some signs of wear or require structural attention.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1992, the National Rivers Authority estimated that in England 2 per cent. of sea defence elements—for example, walls, embankments, groynes—were in need of significant works.

  Warble fly
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of incidents of warble fly in each year since 1989.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what alternative proposals she has received to the Potato Marketing Board's plan for the future of potato marketing in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have received alternative proposals for modification of the potato marketing scheme from the National Farmers Union.

  I have also received proposals for the abolition of the scheme from the Potato Processors Association.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure(a) in 1992 and (b) to date in 1993 paid to producers by the potato marketing scheme; and what proportion of that was funded by the levy on producers.

  Mr. Jack
  For the 1992 crop year—1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993—the total cost of the Potato Marketing Board's —PMB—buying programmes amounted to £20,796,439 of which 92.66 per cent was funded by the levy on producers. For the 1993 crop year commencing on 1 July 1993, the PMB has spent £158,716 to date, all of which has been funded by the levy on producers.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of persons employed full time either as farmers or farm workers in England; and what was the figure in 1980.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of persons employed full-time either as farmers or farm workers in England in 1980 and in 1993 is shown in the table.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of premises with clinical cases recorded in Great Britain is as follows:

  Number

  1989

  2

  1990

  1

  1991

  0

  1992

  0

  1993

  107

  All of the cases recorded in 1993 were directly linked to imported cattle. Seventy-one premises have been released from all controls following satisfactory treatment. The remaining 36 premises will be released from controls when compulsory autumn treatment has been completed.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which International Labour Organisation conventions currently in force relate to the Agricultural Wages Board; when they expire; and what plans she has to renew them.

  Mr. Jack
  Those International Labour Organisation conventions which are currently in force and relate particularly to the Agricultural Wages Board are convention 99, concerning minimum wage fixing machinery in agriculture, and convention 101, concerning holidays with pay in agriculture. The conventions do not expire, although periodically signatories have the opportunity to reconsider their adherence. Any decision would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve the welfare of broiler chickens.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government's response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's Report on the welfare of broiler chickens was published in April 1993. The Government accepted that the council recommendations should be taken forward on a Community basis or, where appropriate, used as the basis for revision of the Government's welfare code.

  Folic Acid
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to ensure that breads, cereals and flours are enriched with folic acid.

  Mr. Soames
  Many breakfast cereals and a number of breads are already fortified with folic acid. My Department has written to the relevant trade organisations to encourage them to increase the range of produces fortified with folic acid in line with recommendations of the expert advisory group in its report to the Chief Medical Officer, "Folic Acid and the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects". The response has been positive and some new fortified products have appeared on the market already. We shall keep in touch with the industry on developments.

  Fish
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research she has undertaken into the impact of organophosphate exposure upon fish.

  Mr. Soames
  No research has been carried out by my Department into the impact of organophosphate exposure on fish, although the results of work on the toxicity of dichlorvos to shell fish were reported to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in 1990.

  Birds
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been conducted by her Department on the effect of the organophosphate Fonofos on the United Kingdom bird population.
  778
  Mr. Soames
  This Department is currently undertaking research into the effect of seed treatments, including Fonofos, on bird populations as part of its assessment of the environmental hazards of pesticide usage.

  Organic Food
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards following changes to the structure of Food from Britain.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  For the time being Food From Britain retains its responsibility for the United Kingdom register of organic food standards—UKROFS—but the secretariat is about to be relocated within my Department. I value UKROFS' independence and effectiveness and want to maintain these through the decisions that need to be taken about UKROFS' longer-term future.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures she intends to take to promote organic farming in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government are keen to encourage farmers to meet the growing demand from consumers for organic produce. The United Kingdom register of organic food standards was established by Food From Britain with funding from MAFF in 1987.

  On 10 August, I announced proposals for an aid scheme to farmers in England wishing to convert to organic production methods. It is proposed to launch the scheme this winter and expenditure is planned to rise to £1.5 million by 1995–96. Similar schemes were announced by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The organic sector can benefit from the group marketing grant scheme, and its successor on which we are currently seeking the views of the industry.

  In addition to the organic scheme, the broad range of other MAFF support schemes are open to organic farmers. We also spend some £1 million per annum on research and development specifically related to organic agriculture and advice on organic farming from ADAS.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of imported organic food produce in(a) real and (b) cash terms for each year since 1980.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available because import statistics do not distinguish between organic and conventional food.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the consumption of organic produce in each EC member state is met from domestic production.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available.

  Driftnets
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will make a statement regarding the level of compliance with EC
  779
  regulation 245/92 by the United Kingdom and other EC vessels in the north-east Atlantic and the Mediterranean; and if she will make a statement on the adequacy of the monitoring and enforcement measures in force;

  (2) how she plans to vote on the proposal to extend the deadline for all fishing vessels to comply with EC regulation 245/92, which limits the length of driftnets allowed on one vessel, at the EC Fisheries Council meeting in November;

  (3) what plans she has to make representions to the European Commission and the Italian Government on the level of enforcement of EC regulation 245/92 in the Italian swordfish driftnet fishery;

  (4) whether she will promote the fair and consistent implementation of EC regulation 245/92 which limits the length of EC driftnets and oppose the extension of the existing derogation which exempts some French vessels from the restriction until 31 December.

  Mr. Jack
  The EC regulation in question is 345/92 of 27 January 1992.

  A small number of United Kingdom-registered vessels take part in the summer drift net fishery for long-finned albacore tuna which occurs in the north-east Atlantic beyond British fishery limits. Responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the present arrangements rests with the member states whose vessels participate in the fishery or in whole waters the fishery occurs. British sea fishery officers make spot inspections from time to time to check that nets taken on board do not exceed 2.5 km. A derogation exists permitting longer nets for vessels who were fishing in the north-east Atlantic tuna fishery for at least two years before the regulation came into force. However, this expires on 31 December 1993 and no proposal for a continuation of the derogation has been received. No United Kingdom vessels fish in the Mediterranean and I have no information concerning the swordfish fishery referred to.

  Hill Livestock Compensation Allowance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hill farmers in England have not yet received their hill livestock compensation allowance in respect of 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  Of 14,012 claims so far received in England in respect of the 1993 hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme, 396 are still outstanding. This repreents 2.8 per cent. of claims received. Claims are still being received in respect of 1993, albeit in small numbers.

  Food Promotion
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what countries United Kingdom food promotion delegates have visited so far this year.

  Mr. Jack
  Food From Britain, the United Kingdom's food export promotion organisation, maintains a permanent presence in the key markets of north America, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Belgium.During the current year, FFB has also promoted British food at exhibitions in Japan and Dubai. In the period, Ministers of this Department have visited Turkey, India, Hungary, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay with food promotion and other objectives in view.

  Apples
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures she intends to take concerning the promotion of British apples.

  Mr. Jack
  My ministerial colleaguess and I have been pleased to participate in a number of recent events to promote English apples. On 19 October, I attended the launch of the 1993 main apple season. On Apple Day itself, the Minister was presented with an apple pie and the Parliamentary Secretary in the Commons attended Food From Britain's launch of "Great Food From Britain". On 27 October, the Minister visited the Marden fruit show. In addition, I recently announced my horticultural marketing initiative, one of the key aims of which will be to stimulate United Kingdom consumption of United Kingdom produce—including apples.

  Seals
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to protect and conserve the seal population from the consequences of salmon farming.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 May 19931: I have been asked to reply.

  Seals continue to have appropriate protection under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970.

WALES

  Family Credit
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many families receive family credit in Wales; and what is this figure expressed as a percentage of all those families eligible for family credit in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  At 30 April 1993, there were an estimated 30,000 claimants in receipt of family credit in Wales. No figures are available for the number of families eligible for family credit.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women are at present in receipt of income support in Wales; and what are the figures expressed as percentage of (i) men between 16 and 64 years and (ii) women between 16 and 60 years respectively.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest information available is given in the table:

  Income support beneficiaries in Wales, November 19921

  Age

  Number (thouands)

  Per cent. of age group1

  Male

  16.64

  126

  14.0

  Beneficiaries

  65 and over

  17

  8.3

  Total

  143

  13.0

  Female

  16–59

  135

  16.5

  Beneficiaries

  60 and over

  77

  20.6

  Total

  212

  17.8

  781

  Source: Department of Social Security.

  1 Beneficiaries include partners of recipients. Dependents aged under 19 and still living with the recipient are not included as information on their gender is not available.

  2 Population figures used are for mid-1991.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh Development Agency concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts in relation to full recovery from employees of costs incurred through excess private mileage.

  Mr. Redwood
  I take very seriously the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committe. The Goverment's response to its report makes it clear that there should be contributions by individuals to cover the cost of private use. The agency has recognised this and has ensured that the chief executive and other senior executives make appropriate contributions.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh Development Agency concerning the recommendations in Sir John Caines' report concerning(a) common directorships held by board members and (b) the apppointment of board members involved in construction and property development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I myself have had none. The WDA has received a copy of the Caines report and would have seen my statement to the House on 19 October.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects implementation of the recommendations of the quinquennial financial management and policy review of the Welsh Development Agency 1991–92, that there should be a management statement and new financial guidelines defining delegation of financial authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A management statement is in place and the financial guidelines are being revised.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh Development Agency concerning revisions to the employee handbook(a) in respect of procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest involving employees' families and close personal friends and (b) other respects; what proposals for such revisions have been submitted to him; and when he expects to complete the approval process of such revisions.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. I understand that the board of the agency is currently considering the revised employee handbook. I expect to see any proposals for changes to terms and conditions when the board has completed its deliberations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh Development Agency in relation to the recommendations in Sir John Caines' report to withdraw the facility for WDA staff to sell their cars into the executive car-leasing scheme.
  782
  Mr. Redwood
  I myself have had no discussions with the WDA. I refer the hon. Member to the agency's response to Sir John Caines' report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Hill Livestock Allowances
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 25 October about hill livestock compensatory allowances not yet paid, how many field inspections will be carried out in respect of the claims still unpaid in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  This will depend on the number of queries which cannot be resolved by correspondence.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many field inspections have been carried out in respect of hill livestock compensatory allowance applications in Wales in 1993 to date.

  Mr. Redwood
  Up to 30 September 1993, field inspections had been undertaken to validate 5,590 claims for HLCA from both sheep and cattle producers. The number of actual farm visits will have been substantially less than this because inspections of sheep and cattle claims are often carried out during the same visit.

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

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of NHS sight tests paid for by family health services authorities in each year in Wales was as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  570,864

  1985–86

  600,714

  1986–87

  626,644

  1987–88

  697,280

  1988–89

  733,469

  1989–90

  292,060

  1990–91

  271,170

  1991–92

  332,240

  1992–93

  372,590

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations the review group has received on the subject of the privatisation of the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Lang
  Many individuals and organisations have written to Ministers and Government Departments and to the secretary and members of the forestry review group giving their views on issues connected with the work of the group.

  They did not do so in the knowledge or expectation that their names or their submissions would be published and I therefore do not think it would be right to publish this information.
  783
  Most of the representations received have been opposed to the idea of privatisation of the Forestry Commission estate, but the remit of the review group is to look at issues much wider than this.

  Ministers have asked the group to review:
  the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, in accordance with the manifesto commitment, and options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands,
  and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to receive the report from the interdepartmental working party on the future of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 October 1993]: Forestry Ministers expect to receive the advice of the forestry review group early next year.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many submissions have been made to date to the interdepartmental working group on the future of the Forestry Commission; and how many of these have favoured privatisation as an option.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Over 300 organisations and 1,350 individuals have made submissions or offered comment direct to the forestry review group. Comment has also been addressed to Ministers and officials in the other departments represented on the group. The issues most commonly raised are access to woodlands, security of timber supplies and the environment. In so far as these issues might be affected by privatisation, virtually all commentators are opposed.

  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards publishing the United Kingdom's national forestry plan.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Commission is co-ordinating the publication and work is well advanced. The plan will draw together the various strands of the Government's present forestry policy and programmes. Since we would not wish the plan to pre-empt the findings of the forestry review group or to prejudice our decisions on its recommendations, it will not be practical to go beyond that.

  We have concluded, therefore, that there would be little benefit in consulting publicly before publishing the plan. Instead, we will be inviting comments on the plan after it has been published.

  Information Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes a redeployment of Scottish Office staff across Scotland in connection with the Government's new scheme of information points.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has no plans to redeploy Scottish Office staff across Scotland in connection with the Government's new scheme of information points. The 20 information points already opened are located in existing departmental offices and no additional staff were required.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hill farmers in Scotland have not yet received their hill livestock compensatory allowance in respect of 1993.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Of 17,437 claims so far received in Scotland in respect of the 1993 HLCA scheme, 94 claims are still outstanding. This represents 0.5 per cent. of claims received. A small number of claims are still being received in respect of 1993.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the fish conservation report from the Scottish Federation of Fishermen's Organisaations.

  Sir Hector Monro
  On 30 September 1993.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding is available to assist those with hearing impairment to purchase special smoke alarms for their homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 October 1993]: I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on Tuesday 19 October 1993, Official Report, columns 37–38.

  Farming
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many farm holdings in(a) Scotland and (b) East Lothian, are in the less-favoured area and the non-less-favoured area respectively; and how many holdings include land in both the less-favoured area and non-less-favoured area;

  (2) what is the total area of agricultural land in (a) Scotland and (b) East Lothian inside or outside the less-favoured area, respectively.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: The information requested as it relates to total agricultural areas is currently available only from the agricultural census. The table gives the figures as recorded at the 1992 census:

  Less favoured area

  Non-less favoured area

  Scotland

  —holdings

  23,326

  8,251

  —agricultural area (hectares)

  5,200,279

  684,266

  East Lothian

  —holdings

  47

  374

  —agricultural area (hectares)

  18,819

  37,610

  The less-favoured area/non-less-favoured area classification is that used for statistical rather than subsidy purposes. On the statistical basis, farms are classified as either within or outside the less-favoured area boundary; no information is, therefore, available from the census on the number of holdings with land in both the less-favoured area and the non-less-favoured area.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the first national survey of the scheduled ancient monuments in Scotland was completed; when and in what form it will be published; if he will list the damage identified by the survey to scheduled ancient monuments in Scotland from natural forces, vegetation and animals; and what moneys he has allocated during this financial year to tackle the damage identified in the first national survey of scheduled ancient monuments.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 October 1993]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Historic Scotland. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. N. Munro to Mr. Nigel Griffiths, dated 28 October 1993:
  Sir Hector Monro MP, the Minister for Agriculture and Environment at The Scottish Office has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the first national survey of scheduled ancient monuments in Scotland was completed and when and in what form it would be published.
  The survey of scheduled ancient monuments is not a "one-off" project with a definite end when a final report can be prepared. Because it involves the continuous monitoring by Historic Scotland's monument wardens on a three to four year cycle of all the scheduled monuments (including the 300 new sites scheduled each year) the results are constantly being updated. The first round of visits by wardens has not yet been completed in three areas—Shetland, Orkney and West Strathclyde (Argyll and Bute).
  You also asked the Secretary of State if he would list the damage identified by the survey of scheduled ancient monuments from natural forces, vegetation and animals and what monies he had allocated this financial year to tackle the damage identified.
  Analyses of the results of the first round of warden visits are presently being prepared for Highland South and Tayside and Borders Regions for the use of my staff in their conservation work. The publication of summary articles in the professional archaeological press, containing the statistical information you mention, is being considered.
  Funds are not specifically allocated for tackling damage to monuments identified by our wardens as being at risk. However monies are available for this sort of work and in financial year 1993–94 these are £14,000 for management agreements under section 17 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and £189,000 for grant aid for the repair of monuments under section 24 of the 1979 Act.

  Information Directorate
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed in the information directorate of his Department; what was the total cost of the directorate in 1992–93; and if he will give the comparable information for 1978–79.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of staff employed in the Scottish Office information directorate on 30 September 1993 totalled 51.5. The running cost of the directorate in 1992–93 was £1.9 million. Owing to the introduction of new Scottish Office budgetary arrangements in 1986–86, a directly comparable figure for running costs is not available for 1978–79; and no record has been retained of the total number of people then employed.

  Moats
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what action his Department is currently taking to record and preserve moated sites of archaeological interest; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list (a) the surveys and (b) the excavations that are currently being carried out of moated sites of archaeological interest.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Historic Scotland. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. N. Munro to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1993:
  Sir Hector Monro MP, the Minister for Agriculture and Environment at The Scottish Office has asked me to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions about moated sites of archaeological interest.
  Firstly, you asked what action was being taken to record and preserve such sites. The recording of sites of archaeological interest in Scotland is the responsibility of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), and their preservation through scheduling and management, is the responsibility of Historic Scotland.
  Moated sites (which are most frequent in south-west Scotland) are dealt with in exactly the same fashion as all other sites of archaeological interest. They are recorded by written description and by photographic and drawn illustrations and these records are made available either by printed publication or through the National Monuments Record of Scotland, which the Royal Commission maintains. There is no scheduling campaign directed specifically towards moated sites, but their merits are considered along with all other sites when geographical areas are being considered in the agency's rolling scheduling programme.
  Secondly, you asked if the Secretary of State would list the surveys and excavations currently being carried out on moated sites of archaeological interest. The RCAHMS is responsible for carrying out such surveys. They inform me that 8 such sites were surveyed in Scotland in the last year-6 in Annandale and 2 in south east Perthshire. I understand the Royal Commission plan to survey 3 sites next year. There are no excavations currently being carried out on such sites.
  If you have concerns about specific moated sites in Scotland I would be pleased to hear and to consider them.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  EC Students
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the costs of education in Northern Ireland for EC students met by(a) his Department and (b) each education and library board; and what are the numbers of such students from each EC country and in each level of institute of education.

  Mr. Ancram
  The following table shows the numbers and estimated costs of fees—only awards held by EC students at Northern Ireland institutions during the 1992–93 academic year.

  Number of students

  £000

  Department of Education

  24

  53

  Education and Library Boards

  North-Eastern

  1,330

  3,126

  Belfast

  495

  1,163

  Western

  101

  237

  Southern

  3

  7

  South-Eastern

  —

  —

  787
  Information is not available on the numbers of students from each EC country. However, 1,852 of the students are ordinarily resident in the Republic of Ireland and the balance—101—come from elsewhere in the EC.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to ensure that the levels of income support for those currently resident in homes should be set at levels which would ensure a choice of homes within income support limits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  In setting the income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes with preserved rights, the Government take account of information on movements in charging patterns in homes as well as on cost factors.

  Dwellings and Tourist Development
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many planning applications were made for dwellings and tourist developments in the Lecale coast, Mourne and Strangford areas of outstanding natural beauty from 1 April 1983 to 31 March 1993; of these, how many were approved and how many were refused; and what were the general reasons for refusal;

  (2) how many planning applications were made for dwellings and tourist developments in the environmentally sensitive areas in the Mournes and Slieve Croob areas from 1 April 1983 to 31 March 1993; of these how many were approved and how many were refused; and what were the general reasons for refusal.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grant aid was made available to district councils in order to facilitate access to the countryside from 1 April 1983 to 31 March 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Provision (£'000s)

  1983/84

  10

  1984/85

  20

  1985/86

  80

  1986/87

  90

  1987/88

  249

  1988/89

  226

  1989/90

  275

  1990/91

  280

  1991/92

  288

  1992/93

  295

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland gives a high priority to improving access and will continue to grant-aid district councils for all reasonable schemes proposed.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to establish an environmental protection agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In Northern Ireland, most of the intended functions of the proposed agency in England and Wales already lie within central Government, namely in the Environment Service of the Department of the Environment. When final details of the agency are available, I will decide whether or not any proposals for change in Northern Ireland should be made.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current assessment of the number of people in Northern Ireland suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis.

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

  Local Anthority Debt
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current extent of local authority debt in each of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The total debt outstanding from loans and advances from the Government Loans Fund by district council area at 31 March 1992 is set out as follow:

  £

  Antrim Borough Council

  2,904,499

  Ards Borough Council

  3,273,355

  Armagh District Council

  2,635,445

  Ballymena Borough Council

  860,584

  Ballymoney Borough Council

  1,655,184

  Banbridge District Council

  2,745,515

  Belfast City Council

  12,289,642

  Carrickfergus Borough Council

  32,370

  Castlereagh Borough Council

  5,821,792

  Coleraine Borough Council

  2,388,273

  Cookstown District Council

  306,375

  Craigavon Borough Council

  1,456,472

  Deny City Council

  6,992,348

  Down District Council

  5,146,690

  Dungannon District Council

  1,326,877

  Fermanagh District Council

  888,196

  Lame Borough Council

  1,740,599

  Limavady Borough Council

  1,542,266

  Lisburn Borough Council

  1,970,384

  Magherafelt District Council

  1,114,525

  Moyle District Council

  1,773,441

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  8,917,629

  Newtownabbey District Council

  7,115,280

  North Down Borough Council

  10,471,472

  Omagh District Council

  3,968,856

  Strabane District Council

  3,807,291

  Total

  93,145,360

  A district council may also borrow money from other financial institutions. However, this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to ensure that the value of the former homes of a person in residential care is disregarded by the health and social services boards where a former carer remains in the property.

  Mr. Ancram
  A health and social services board, in assessing a resident's ability to pay for residential or nursing home care, can disregard the value of his or her former home if it is also the sole residence of someone who has been caring for the resident. Where a board has decided to disregard the value of the property because a former long-term carer is living there it may review that decision when that person moves out or dies.

  Bogland
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to preserve the Curran bog and other areas of bogland left in the Province.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's policy on the conservation of peatland in Northern Ireland is set out in the document "Conserving Peatland in Northern Ireland —a Statement of Policy" issued on 23 June 1993. This states, at paragraph 2.5:—"It is the Department's intention to declare all remaining areas of intact lowland raised bog as Areas of Special Scientific Interest where they meet the minimum scientific criteria".
  In this context, the Department of the Environment is reassessing the scientific interest of a number of lowland bogs that were not in the first round of declarations. Curran bog will be re-evaluated as part of that exercise, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman once that process is complete.

  Recycling
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to ensure that district councils are allocated sufficient funding to undertake recycling programmes in accordance with Government's guidelines and directives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government published a consultation paper in March 1993 entitled, "Future Strategy for Waste Management in Northern Ireland". The paper included new legislative proposals similar to the waste management provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under these provisions, district councils will be required to draw up recycling plans for their districts. Should councils wish to undertake capital spending on recycling schemes, the Government will be prepared to consider sympathetically applications for loan sanction for this purpose. The legislation will include provision to allow for savings made by district councils as a result of recycling to be made payable to those promoting recycling, such as voluntary groups.

  Litter
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to ensure that district councils are allocated sufficient funding in order to undertake new duties and responsibilities as a consequence of the proposed Litter Order.
  790
  Mr. Atkins
  I am aware that district councils have been seeking additional finance to help them implement the requirements of the proposed litter legislation. This matter is under consideration in the light of the responses to the consultation on the publication of the proposal for a Draft Litter (Northern Ireland) Order. I shall make an announcement in the near future on the results of that consultation process.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have made applications in respect of(a) disability living allowance and (b) invalidity benefit from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1993; of these how many were successful; and what financial amounts were made payable.

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

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 27 October 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Social Security Agency I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of applications received in respect of Disability Living Allowance and Invalidity Benefit from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1993.
  During the period 3 February 1992 to 31 March 1993, 31,981 claims to Disability Living Allowance were received, of these 21,627 were successful. In addition 7,958 claims were received from existing Attendance Allowance/Mobility Allowance beneficiaries and of these 6,923 were also successful. The actual expenditure for 1992–93 is not yet available but the estimated expenditure is £57 million.
  Information on the number of applications received in respect of Invalidity Benefit during the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1993 and the number who were successful is not available in the form requested. However the number of persons receiving the benefit at April each year from 1988 to 1993 and the yearly benefit expenditure are as follows:

  Year

  Number of persons Receiving invalidity benefit

  Benefit expenditure

  £ million

  1988

  45,318

  130·1

  1989

  47,735

  141·2

  1990

  50,890

  157·3

  1991

  54,122

  182·0

  1992

  58,197

  215·0

  1993

  62,823

  1238·4

  1 Estimated.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful. Further information on social security claims and expenditure is published in "Expenditure, Plans and Priorities (Northern Ireland)". A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are taken to ensure that adequate resources are allocated to the disability section of the Department of Health and Social Services in order that staff can deliver a full and effective service.
  791
  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. Eddie McCrady, dated 27 October 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Social Security Agency I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about resources for Disability Living Allowance Branch.
  Since Disability Living Allowance was introduced in April 1992, we have been keeping the resource position under close review. Overall the staffing level has risen by around 100 posts in the past 18 months with the complement now standing at 241 posts.
  The target of clearing 65% of claims within 30 days has been met from June 1993 and I am satisfied that the Branch is adequately resourced to handle the current intake of claims. I would however assure you that workloads and staffing levels will continue to be closely monitored to ensure that claims from our customers are processed as quickly as possible.
  I hope this helps explain the position for you. A copy of this reply will appear in the Offical Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have made applications to the social fund at each of the social security offices in South Down from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1993; of these how many were successful; and what financial amounts were made payable.

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

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 27 October 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Social Security Agency I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of people who made applications to the Social Fund at each of the social security offices in South Down from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1993, the numbers who were successful and the amounts involved.
  The information is not held precisely in the form requested but I have set out the available data in the attached table.
  As an individual can make more than one application to the Social Fund the figures shown refer to the total number of applications received. As regards details for each Social Security Office in South Down, these can only be supplied for the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991. From April 1991 the Social Fund has been managed on a District basis and I am therefore providing information from that date in respect of Mourne District, comprising Newry, Banbridge, Newcastle and Kilkeel and for Belfast South and Down District which covers Knockbreda, Shaftesbury Square, Downpatrick and Ballynahinch.
  You may be interested to know that information about the number of applications processed, the number of awards and the amount paid, is available in the Library under Social Fund Data. The figures are updated on a monthly basis.
  I hope you will find this information helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure that all residents in nursing and residential homes receive their personal allowance of £12.65 per week.
  792
  Mr. Ancram
  The registration and inspection units monitor the extent to which residential and nursing homes help residents to control their own finances, including personal allowances, as part of their inspection process. They also monitor the arrangements in place for handling the finances of those residents who cannot look after their own affairs. The units have the power to cancel the registration of residential and nursing homes where standards are considered to be below an acceptable level.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to increase income support levels for those in receipt of care in residential and nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Each year the Government make an assessment of the position and look carefully at the levels of the income support limits as part of the general benefit uprating exercise. This will continue to be the case.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports have been received in respect of residential and nursing homes by the registration and inspection units set up under the Residential Homes Order 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Eastern, Northern and Western boards registration and inspection units have each produced two annual reports which detail the work undertaken since their establishment. The Southern board's registration and inspection unit is about to produce its first annual report. The reports are presented to health and social services boards and are available to members of the public on request.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he has last met representatives of the Association of Local Authorities in Northern Ireland to discuss local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have never met representatives of the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland to discuss local government reorganisation, nor have I had any request to do so.

  Job Vacancies
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres in Strabane, Omagh, Cookstown and Magherafelt during the past three years, together with the number of job losses during the same period in each area.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information on new vacancies notified to local offices of the Training and Employment Agency and jobs lost in each area during the three-year period up to 8 October 1993 is as follows:

  Vacancies notified

  Jobs lost

  Cookstown

  1,849

  90

  Magherafelt

  2,496

  600

  Omagh

  3,129

  30

  Strabane

  1,941

  237

  The figures for jobs lost are based on returns made to the Department of Economic Development.

  Government Employees
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Government employees, including home civil servants, there are in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  On 1 April 1993, there were 33,009 whole-time equivalent staff employed in the Departments for which my right hon. and learned Friend has responsibility.

  In counting whole-time equivalent staff, part-time employees are counted as halves.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many national health service sight tests took place in each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Ancram
  The numbers of health service sight tests for which payments was made in Northern Ireland in the financial years 1984–85 to 1992–93 were:

  Financial year

  Total health service sight tests (Thousands)

  1984–85

  207·1

  1985–86

  221·0

  1986–87

  231·1

  1987–88

  254·9

  1988–89

  284·9

  1989–90

  143·8

  1990–91

  119·5

  1991–92

  142·3

  1992–93

  159·9

  From 1 April 1989 health service sight tests were restricted to certain groups in the population, and there was a substantial increase in demand prior to this restriction. This resulted in a backlog of payments for tests done in 1988–89, which was not cleared until the next financial year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Court
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were tried in the Crown court in the last available three months; and what were the figures for the equivalent period(a) one year ago and (b) two years ago.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  During the three months July to September 1993, 5,148 cases were disposed of by trial in the Crown court. The corresponding figures for the same period in 1992 and 1991 were 6,719 and 7,271 respectively.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to establish the Public Trust Office as a next steps agency.
  794
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am pleased to announce that it is the Lord Chancellor's intention to establish the Public Trust Office as an executive agency in the second half of 1994. As part of the process of establishing the office as an agency, the Lord Chancellor will be examining the services the office provides, defining them clearly and asking the public trustee to draw up a statement of charter standards, setting out the levels of service the office aims to achieve.

  Although the agency will initially comprise all the present functions of the office, the Lord Chancellor has asked for further work to be carried out to examine the continuing need for a trustee service provided by the public sector and whether the functions undertaken by the Court Funds Office are necessary.

  Snaresbrook Crown Court
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in 1993 scheduled individual sittings of separate courts within the Snaresbrook Crown court complex have been unable to sit due to the absence of a judge or recorder; what was the specific reason for each such cancellation; what was the date of the maximum number of cancellations occurring on a single day; and what was the estimated cost to public funds on that day, and the total for the year so far.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: The information requested is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained in that form only at disproportionate cost. However, I am in a position to provide the following information on planned and actual sittings for the Crown court at Snaresbrook in the period 22 March 1993 to 11 October 1993.

  Judge days

  Week commencing

  Planned

  Sat

  22 March 1993

  94

  96

  29 March 1993

  96

  95

  5 April 1993

  44

  41

  14 April 1993

  30

  30

  19 April 1993

  93

  91

  26 April 1993

  96

  96

  4 May 1993

  81

  74

  10 May 1993

  95

  94

  17 May 1993

  96

  98

  24 May 1993

  95

  95

  2 June 1993

  59

  52

  7 June 1993

  99

  98

  14 June 1993

  98·5

  97

  21 June 1993

  90·5

  94

  28 June 1993

  91

  91

  5 July 1993

  94

  86

  12 July 1993

  95

  95

  19 July 1993

  100

  99

  26 July 1993

  87

  87

  2 August 1993

  60

  61

  9 August 1993

  59

  56

  16 August 1993

  55

  56

  23 August 1993

  54

  54

  31 August 1993

  42

  35

  6 September 1993

  65

  62

  13 September 1993

  69·5

  70

  20 September 1993

  63

  63

  27 September 1993

  58·5

  59

  4 October 1993

  55

  55

  11 October 1993

  78

  79

  During the period, there were 44.5 planned sittings cancelled, the largest number being eight during the week of 5 July 1993. However, there were also 11.5 sittings which were not originally scheduled.
  795
  Planned sittings are cancelled for a variety of reasons including:—

  (a) Judicial sick leave;

  (b) Lack of work/lack of suitable work;

  796

  (c)Recorder, Assistant Recorder or Deputy Circuit Judge being unable to fulfil their booking at short notice; and

  (d) Leave being taken at short notice.

  Actual sittings may exceed planned sittings if recorders or assistant recorders unexpectedly become available to sit.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Public Bodies: Prompt Payment of Bills
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage government departments and other public bodies to pay valid bills within 30 days of the dates when they are due for payment.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we already do.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that excellent and helpful reply. Is it not especially damaging to small firms when payments are unnecessarily or deliberately delayed? As a result, some of the firms may not be able to survive. Will the Government continue to set a clear example for others to follow?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It can be very damaging, not only to small businesses—having run small businesses, I recall the difficulties—but also to medium and large-sized businesses. A survey of government departments' payment performance shows departments meeting the 30-day target in 75 to 100 per cent. of cases. Most departments were above 85 per cent.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I welcome the statement that departments are not doing badly now; in the past their record of payments, particularly to small firms, has been very bad indeed. I agree that small firms suffer terribly. Why cannot government departments check a job while it is being done, see whether it is all right and pay firms for the work they have done?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad to tell the noble Lord that the situation has improved quite dramatically. We continue to press for further improvement.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the problem is not confined to government departments? Some years ago, the Law Commission, or at least a comparable body, recommended that contract debts unpaid throughout a certain period of time should carry interest. However, nothing has so far been done about that recommendation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. It can be put into the contract between private individuals that interest is payable if bills are not met within a certain time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble and learned
928
Lord, Lord Hailsham. Even the figure of 85 per cent. that the Minister gave is not very satisfactory for the 15 per cent. who do not receive payment. Can the Minister assure the House that any action taken as regards private debts will also apply to government departments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the figure of 85 per cent. can be improved upon. It is something for which we are certainly pressing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Government extend their admirable policy on prompt payment of bills to a policy for the prompt payment of grants? Is my noble friend aware that it is possible for small voluntary bodies to wait eight weeks for large sums of money clue on a particular date? Would it be possible for them to claim interest under those circumstances'?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the skilful way in which he has used this Question to raise another question, which I shall investigate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that British Rail is still, for the moment, effectively a public body in the broad sense of the term? Taxi drivers have been engaged by British Rail to convey to their destinations passengers who have been stranded as a result of the false economy measures introduced by BR as a prelude to privatisation. is the noble Earl aware that the taxi drivers have told me that they have had to wait up to four months for the money that is due to them? Is that not deplorable?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has used his right to take up the matter directly with BR, whose management is responsible.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in many cases local authorities are slow in paying? Is he further aware that if one is late in paying one's income tax, interest is mandatory? The situation is similar with VAT. Would it be a good idea and an incentive to large firms if the Government were, after 30 days, to pay interest at the same exorbitant rate as is charged for late payment of income tax?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we encourage not only government departments but also local authorities, private companies and private individuals to pay their bills on time. There has been much correspondence and discussion about interest on unpaid bills. I certainly take note of what my noble friend says, but as he will be aware, it can be written into the contract.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the reminder of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, are the Government giving any thought to legislative backing for the payment of interest for overdue debts, bearing in mind that overdue debts in this country are much more noticeable and last for longer periods than in most Continental countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in response to my noble friend Lord Clark, there has been considerable discussion and the matter is kept under review.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of voluntary bodies and charities which look after disabled people on behalf of local authorities are seriously embarrassed by the delay on the part of those local authorities in paying the bills?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that some local authorities are not as prompt in paying their bills as others. I hope that my noble friend will take the matter up directly with the local authorities concerned.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the Minister consider asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to adopt the same admirable principle in relation to legal aid fees?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend has heard what the noble Lord said.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of our largest and most responsible companies make a habit of discriminating positively in favour of small businesses to which they owe money and pay them before anyone else?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that.

EC Preliminary Draft Budget 1994
3.7 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
On which dates was the European Community's preliminary draft budget for 1994 (vols. 0 and 1–6 inclusive), or such of its contents as were communicated to them by the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the Community prior to its publication, reviewed by (a) the Treasury and (b) the Cabinet Sub-Committee on European Questions (OPD(E)) prior to the Economic and Financial Council's establishment of the Community's draft budget on 22nd July 1993, and with what results.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government considered the preliminary draft budget of the European Communities for 1994 in the weeks leading up to 15th July, when my right honourable friend the Paymaster General submitted an explanatory memorandum to Parliament. The explanatory memorandum sets out the Government's broad objectives, which were secured at the Budget Council on 22nd July.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. Since some £2½ billion net comes out of the British taxpayers' pocket in regard to the expenditure of the European Community, does not the Minister think it a little unfortunate that the budget is not submitted to Parliament in time for Parliament to have any influence upon it?
Is the noble Earl further aware that the preliminary draft budget was submitted to the European Parliament on 25th May? Two months later, in the week ending
930
27th July, it was made available to the British Parliament for scrutiny. By that time, on 22nd July, the Economic and Financial Council had already established the draft budget and the preliminary draft therefore became of no significance. Is the Minister further aware that, although the draft budget was established on 22nd July, it took until 27th September for it to come up in the British Parliament? Will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that in future Parliament will be provided with the necessary documents at the same time as the European Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the management of business in either House of Parliament must be for the business managers. But I will certainly pass on what the noble Lord has said in that regard. I know that he would agree with me that the timetable this year has not been any different to what it normally is.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister take full cognisance of what my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said, bearing in mind that the points raised by my noble friend have great effect not only on the Government but on all the British people whom the Government allege they represent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly take very careful note of whatever the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, says on this matter. He is perhaps the most well versed of all your Lordships in this sphere.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will take this matter very seriously, bearing in mind that it is the House of Commons, not the European Parliament, which is responsible for raising the taxation which is paid over to the institutions of Europe. Is he aware that there is growing concern about the budget—about where the money is going to—and in particular that the European budget now finances, in the case of Greece for example, no less than 12 per cent. of the total gross domestic product? That is very much a matter for this Parliament, which raises the money to do just that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we do take this matter very seriously, and that the view of the United Kingdom was supported by the Council, in that the Community budget should be subjected to the same rigour as national spending. As I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, when the draft budget was established it was significantly below the estimates proposed by the Commission.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I shall not shock my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington if I say that the Government ought to recognise that he is entirely right on this matter. Will the Minister think again about the Answer that he gave about "the usual channels"? It is formally correct that business in both Houses is a matter for the usual channels; but is it not the case here that it is the supply

931
of necessary documentation from government which makes possible a proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that appears not to have taken place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is as concerned as I am that there is harmony between him and his Front Bench on this particular subject. It is most unusual. No, my Lords. The matter of organising the business of the House is entirely for the business managers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Answer that he gave me is unfortunately not entirely correct? Is he aware that under the declarations of the Maastricht Treaty which, as the noble Earl will recall, the Government supported, the responsibility is quite clearly that:
"the governments of the Member States"—
that includes the noble Earl and his friends—
"will ensure,"—
noble Lords will note "the governments" will ensure—
"inter alia, that national parliaments receive Commission proposals for legislation in good time for information or possible examination"?
Does the noble Earl agree that the responsibility under the declaration of Maastricht, which the noble Earl's government passed, is not that of the usual channels; that it lies upon the Government? Does he further agree that the Government attached so little importance to the establishment of the draft budget on 22nd July last that they sent their most junior Treasury Minister, Sir John Cope—who is a very estimable gentleman—to represent the United Kingdom? As for the member states at that all-important ECOFIN Council, no less than seven were represented by permanent civil servants, thus indicating the derisory attention which the Community at large, and the Council in particular, gave to examining the budget.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is a matter for the usual channels to organise the debates within either House of Parliament within the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord will be aware, it is usual for the line-by-line documentation with regard to the preliminary draft budget to be made available in the middle of June. It was made available on 15th June. It was deposited as soon as possible in Parliament and once we had the English version, on 2nd July. The explanatory memorandum was made available on 15th July.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may further correct the noble Earl. The document that was made available to the European Parliament on 25th May, which was an overview of the budget, is still not in the Printed Paper Office of this House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I will look into the particular point that the noble Lord raises. I can say that the explanatory memorandum, which is the important document to be put before Parliament, was put before Parliament on 15th July.

M.25: Link Roads Between Junctions 12 and 15
3.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty' s Government:
Whether discussions have been undertaken by officials at the Department of Transpoi1 with persons potentially prejudiced by the proposal to widen the M.25 between Junctions 12 and 15 and, if so, how many such persons have been approached.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when the proposals for link roads between Junctions 12 and 15 of the M.25 were published for public consultation on June 1992, the Department of Transport wrote to all those whose homes would be directly affected by the scheme and offered to meet them to explain the situation and procedure. Twenty-two such visits were undertaken. Since then, the Department of Transport has received a number of requests to purchase homes under the statutory and discretionary blight provisions. Some of these requests have been accepted, some have been refused and others are being considered. On request, some meetings have also taken place with commercial interests affected by the scheme.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of us believe that it is highly improper to approach property owners in advance of the result of any public inquiry that is being undertaken; and that it appears to many people that the whole inquiry procedure is a farce, and that the Government will have their own way whatever else happens? Will he give the assurance that in no way are householders being intimidated, nor indeed are the objectors to the scheme, by the activities of his department? Finally, on a broader note, does the Minister agree with my suggestion, bearing in mind the cuts that are now being demanded in public expenditure for essential work and essential services, that the dropping of this scheme could be a contribution by his department to reducing the disgraceful deficit of £50 billion in the Government's accounts?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, although the noble Lord feels strongly on this subject, and particularly with regard to his first supplementary question, I can tell him that the department has a statutory duty under the town and country planning Act of 1980 to consider applications from owner-occupiers to purchase residential property which would be physically affected by road proposals. I remember when I was a surveyor. If there was a road proposal, it was my duty to act in the best interests of my client. That would be to discuss matters with the Department of Transport. If I acted for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I did not act in the way that I should, then the noble Lord would be very cross.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, far from being determined, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested, to get their own way

933
regardless of the results of the public inquiry, the Government are to be congratulated on having withdrawn, in the face of public protest, their proposals for link roads between the M.1 and the M.62 and the M.56 and the M.62. In view of the fact that over 10,000 letters have been received by his department opposing the link road proposals for the M.25 and only eight letters in favour, can we hope that the Government will be similarly sensitive to such public pressure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is without question that we have a major problem on the M.25 between Junction 12 and Junction 15. It is a real bottleneck; it causes a great deal of aggravation to local people; and it causes a great deal of added cost to industry. Of course we understand the difficulties that our proposal has caused for many people and the fears to which it has given rise. The present position is that my right honourable friend expects to publish the draft statutory orders for the scheme later this year, and there will he a public inquiry next year.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the preliminaries to road construction in this country can take, and in the past have taken, as long as 12 years? In those circumstances, is he not absolutely right to try to reduce those delays as much as possible? Further, does he agree that while the economy of this country will not come to a complete standstill, it could well be seriously damaged if the road improvements that he has proposed to that vital arterial road are not carried out as soon as possible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. There is an astonishingly long delay before one can get a road built. But it is quite right that we should go through the formal and statutory procedures. With regard to the part of the M.25 which is the subject of this Question, there has been a consultation programme and my right honourable friend is considering the results before publishing the draft statutory orders.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, when pressed by no fewer than five noble Lords the last time that this matter was discussed, he was unable to answer the question about consultations concerning compensation? Would he also indicate whether, in the approaches made by his departmental officials, it is pointed out to the consultees, who might potentially be prejudiced by reason of the proposal, that their position is in no way to be regarded as being prejudiced by entering into the discussions, that the discussions themselves in no way obviate the need for a public inquiry and that the Government are not seeking to pre-empt the position in any way whatsoever?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's last point, it is an approach being made from the person affected to the department and not from the department to the person that will be affected. I can reassure him on the points about which he was concerned.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, acting as a surveyor as well as a government Minister, can the
934
noble Earl give the assurance to all those property owners who have been and will be approached that in any purchases that his department might make they will be protected from negative equity?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord. I cannot act as a surveyor as well as a Government Minister.

NHS and Charitable Organisations: VAT
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional moneys were allocated to health authorities and trusts to compensate them against the introduction of VAT at the standard rate on hospital building as a result of the decision of the European Court of Justice, and whether these additional allocations were also meant to cover VAT on projects funded by charitable organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government provided approximately £187 million additional money for this purpose. An amount was included for value added tax on new capital projects funded by charities.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that the original money has now become just one part of the pot and that it can no longer be specifically identified? Is she aware that, as a result, an increasing number of district health authorities are no longer prepared to find the VAT on charitable capital schemes? Further, can she tell the House what happens to capital works carried out by trusts, because they are funded by borrowing against their external financing limits? Is not there an incentive therefore for trusts to borrow less and let the charitable organisations pay the VAT? Does she further agree that to ask charitable donors to pay 17½ per cent. VAT is not viable?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. That sum is no longer specifically identified. But it is built into the base budget of allocations of regional and district health authorities and trusts. When trusts accept schemes that will be funded by Leagues of Friends or other charitable organisations, it is important that they work together with the charity. Indeed, the total sum of money is often shared between the charitable organisation and the trust. I should like to put on record the enormous gratitude of the National Health Service to those organisations, which help build new projects.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a great pity that VAT should be applied on charitable developments or on hospitals? Are the Government prepared to agitate to get that silly decision reversed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is a subject more properly addressed to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it the role of the Government to agitate? Surely it is the role of the Government to act.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government do act.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness entertain the idea that the Department of Health should issue stronger instructions to district health authorities and trusts to look after the charitable organisations that fund a certain amount of the capital building in the health service? Perhaps I may also tell her that no charitable organisation undertakes a capital project without the agreement of district health authorities and trusts.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, VAT is only applicable to new capital projects and not to refurbished projects. It has to be taken into account as part of the total cost of the scheme. It is important that health authorities work with local organisations in order to come to a conclusion on that matter. I should like to say that the country would be a much poorer place without all the grannies who go paragliding and bungee-jumping in order to raise money for local fracture clinics.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness will agree that they do not do that in order to put VAT into the Treasury's pocket?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the way in which the Government accrue the funds that are necessary—income tax and VAT—is not a matter for me. It is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the view of the Department of Health is that the Treasury in essence are not making a profit out of what is essentially charitable giving?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, VAT surely is assessed on all new capital building. There is no question of a profit being made. It is a tax that has to be paid like any other tax.

Business of the House
3.28 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Ferrers, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on police responsibilities and rewards.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham) rose to move, That the second report from the Select Committee he agreed to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Since the Liaison Committee's first report was agreed to by the House last December, the committee has met further to consider in particular the issue of an ad hoc committee which might succeed the current ad hoc Committee on Medical Ethics. As indicated the report before the House today, the committee recommend that the next such ad hoc committee should consider the subject of sustainable development, and in particular the proposed national sustainable development strategy which the Government will submit by the end of this year to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Should your Lordships agree to this proposal, I anticipate that appropriate terms of reference will be put before your Lordships in the new Session. I anticipate that the new committee will begin its work in the New Year.
Perhaps I may emphasise that, should any of your Lordships have a proposal for an ad hoc committee upon some specific subject, we on the committee would be grateful to hear of it.
Moved, That the second report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Wakeharn.)
Following is the report:

1. The committee has given further consideration to two possible subjects for ad hoc enquiries, namely

(i) the economics of sustainable development, and

(ii) relations between central and local government.

We recommend the appointment of an ad hoc committee to consider the report which the Government will make by the end of 1993 to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, setting out a national sustainable development strategy. The ad hoc committee should be appointed after the Committee on Medical Ethics has made its report to the House and should be invited to make its own report to the House before the end of next session (1993–94).

2. We will give further consideration in the course of next session to the possibility of an ad hoc committee to consider relations between central and local government.

3. The committee also recommends, pursuant to paragraph 12 of its first report, that the Science and Technology Committee should be able to appoint two sub-committees next session.

4. Finally, the committee confirms that Members of the House may submit proposals for the appointment of ad hoc committees into specific matters. Such submissions should be made to the Clerk of the Liaison Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is well known to your Lordships that this is not a Bill that has just been taken formally in this House. We have not been satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, nor with the way that parliamentary constituencies are to be divided between the three countries of Britain. More particularly, it could have been an opportunity to reform the system by which the British contingent to the European Parliament is elected. The first-past-the-post system is entirely unsuitable for the European Parliament. At the last election it resulted in gross under-representation of minority parties, not only the Liberal Democrats or their predecessors, but also in 1989 the Green Party—it achieved 15 per cent. of the vote but had no representation of any kind.
Our view from these Benches is that the opportunity should have been taken to correct that injustice. It is deplorable that the Government, by delaying the introduction of the Bill first in another place and then here, made it impossible to achieve the reforms which would have been widely welcomed throughout the country. We assent to the passage of the Bill but with considerable regret.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the noble Earl was good enough to inform me that he intended to move the Third Reading formally. I wish to make only one brief comment in regard to the electoral system that the Bill envisages. It is a cobbled-together version of the first-past-the-post system. It has been done in a way that the Government themselves acknowledge is less than satisfactory. But its effect will be to import all the uncertainties of first-past-the-post voting into an election which does not produce a government and is not intended to do so. Many of the arguments advanced conventionally by the Government against electoral reform, therefore, do not apply.
The recent Canadian elections indicate what can happen to governing parties under the first-past-the-post system. It is not impossible that the party in government may achieve less than 30 per cent. of the votes in the European elections next year. We shall see. It is a matter of the way that they and the other parties conduct the elections. Let us assume for the moment that the Government's continuing unpopularity is maintained. At that point the Government will find that the first-past-the-post system is a sword which cuts both ways. They may find their representation in the European Parliament severely reduced.
938
Should the party in government obtain 25 or 30 per cent. of the votes in those elections, it would be right that they should have 25 or 30 per cent. of the seats in the European Parliament. It is better that the European Parliament has an accurate balance. I realise that in this matter the Government are not actuated by my perception of the public interest. However, I ask the noble Earl to bear in mind that the interests of the Conservative Party will not necessarily be served by continuing an unjust system.
Like those on the Labour Benches—it is good to be arguing together on the issue of electoral reform—we shall not in any way obstruct the passage of the Bill. But I leave the noble Earl with those thoughts.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in support of the Bill as it stands. I know that those who want a different electoral system in this country regard Bills of this kind as an opportunity to deploy their points of view and arguments in favour of changing our main system. But that is quite wrong. If we want to change our first-past-the-post system we should do so deliberately, after full discussion, and not by a side wind, which is what would be involved by a change in the system for European parliamentary elections. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will allow the Bill to pass as it stands.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I moved the Third Reading of this Bill formally for the convenience of your Lordships so that we did not spend too much time on a matter on which we have already spent a certain amount of time. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, found that this was a Bill which for various reasons did not meet wholly with his approval. He said that if the Government had brought the Bill through earlier things could have been different. He knows perfectly well that the Bill was introduced solely for the purpose of putting into operation the extra seats allocated to the United Kingdom and to ensure that they were in place in good time for next year's European parliamentary elections.
I realise that there was a timescale, to which the noble Lord referred. But we have done our best to produce a Bill to make sure that seats are available. We have done that in a way that ensures the greatest possible opportunity for discussion for those who have observations to put forward. The commissions which are looking into the boundary changes are making good progress.
I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, could not avoid speaking of proportional representation, and I do not blame him for having another go. But I take the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—if we want a change to proportional representation it should be a deliberate act and not be done by a side wind. I can assure my noble friend that we have no intention of allowing the side wind to become a full frontal blast. We believe that the first-past-the-post system is the right one.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to Canada. I give him this comfort. If proportional representation had operated there, the party similar to that to which he belongs might not have found itself with the predominant seats. But that is the way it works. There

939
are disadvantages to any system. We have always argued that the first-past-the-post system is understandable and intelligible, whereas proportional representation is merely a phrase which covers a whole lot of different systems, each of which would produce a different result.
I know that the noble Lord and the Liberal Democrats are concerned about proportional representation. He asked me to bear what he said in mind. I shall do so, but I cannot necessarily agree with him. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Police Pay and Conditions of Service
3.37 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I now repeat a Statement on the responsibilities and rewards of the police service which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on behalf of the three Secretaries of State for the Home Departments on our decisions on police pay and conditions of service in the light of the Sheehy Report.
"The police are of unique and vital importance to everyone in this country. They are the front line in the fight against crime and essential to maintaining public order and ensuring safe communities. As we saw only too tragically in Clapham last week, policemen and policewomen face lethal dangers, often quite unexpectedly. They have to cope with the many pressures of providing a service to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
"The inquiry led by Sir Patrick Sheehy was appointed to consider afresh the rewards and responsibilities of this vital public service. I am very grateful to Sir Patrick and the other members of his team for their valuable work in producing this wide-ranging report so quickly.
"The report was published at the end of June. Since then we have consulted widely and have received many helpful responses, including in particular those of the police staff associations, police authorities and the local authority associations. Today I am setting out the Government's decisions on the best way forward for the police service. In deciding on these changes I have been mindful at all times of the very special nature of the police service and the work it does.
"We all want to create an up-to-date framework of arrangements which will encourage police officers to give of their best. Change is necessary to make sure that the British police remain the best in the world. In the police service, pay has been too dependent on length of service. Bureaucracy and chains of
940
command have increased, leaving too many officers behind desks instead of on the streets. And the present rank structure can act as a barrier to the rapid progress of more able officers. I want a modern and effective police service. That means less bureaucracy, rapid promotion for able officers, rewards for hard work and the highest priority for front-line duties.
"I am placing in the Library of the House this afternoon copies of a letter which I am this afternoon sending to all chief officers in England and Wales which sets out our proposals in detail. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern lreland are also writing to their chief officers. I shall now explain these proposals to the House.
"The committee was expressly asked to consider the future of the ranks. It recommended that the ranks of deputy chief constable, chief superintendent and chief inspector should be abolished. This would eliminate the overlap which exists between ranks at present. It would enable those with the greatest ability to move more quickly through them. Reducing the ranks would also give chief constables the opportunity to put more police constables on the beat. All the responses to our consultation agreed that some change in management structure was necessary.
"We believe that this proposal is the key to the streamlining of middle management in the police service which is essential to free up resources for front-line policing. We have therefore decided to accept it. Many forces have already begun the process of reducing the number of chief superintendent and chief inspector posts to meet the changing needs of policing. This process will now be completed by 1st April 1995.
"My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has decided to make a limited number of adjustments to the overall package to accommodate the special and different circumstances of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In particular, the rank of deputy chief constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be retained to meet the unique operational demands of policing in Northern Ireland.
"The report recommended that fixed-term appointments should be introduced for all ranks. We have decided to accept this recommendation in so far as it applies to future appointments to chief officer ranks, for whom it was almost universally regarded as appropriate. We shall consider extending these appointments to the superintendent rank when we have monitored their effectiveness for chief officers.
"Different considerations apply to other ranks. I have already announced new procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance and misconduct in England and Wales. And we shall legislate as soon as possible to allow for the consequences of restructuring. I want people entering the police service to see it as a career. The skills and knowledge of ordinary police officers, their experience and their accumulated wisdom form the backbone of British

941
policing, which is admired throughout the world. We do not consider fixed-term appointments appropriate for ranks below superintendent and so we have decided not to accept that recommendation.
"The report recommended significant changes to police pensions arrangements. These were closely related to the proposals for fixed-term appointments and must therefore be reconsidered. We shall undertake a full review of police pensions. One of its principal objectives will be to produce greater flexibility.
"One aspect of the recommendations in particular excited controversy: that officers of all ranks should be expected to serve for 40 years to receive a full pension at the age of 60. That would not help to encourage mature people with experience in other walks of life to join the police, as we wish. Patrol duties are not appropriate for people in their late fifties and we do not think it is reasonable for constables and sergeants in particular to be expected invariably to continue to serve until then. We have therefore decided not to accept this proposal.
"Next, performance related pay: the report suggested that this objective could best be met by the application of a matrix determining police pay according to the scope of the job, the level of responsibility, experience, skills and performance. The Government fully accept the principles behind this recommendation. But we do not think it practicable or desirable to examine each job individually in the way the report suggests, and we have therefore decided not to use the matrix recommended in the report. Instead, we will introduce, as soon as they can be worked up, arrangements which depend on the overall appraisal of performance. This will take account of an officer's experience, skills and the circumstances in which these are exercised and will determine progress up or down the pay scale.
"The report also recommended replacing the Edmund-Davies pay formula. In considering how police pay levels should be determined and on what basis pay should be up-rated, the inquiry took account of the fact that police officers are often called upon to put their lives in danger, and moreover they do not take industrial action. The inquiry recognised, as do the Government, that this type of dedication deserves a consistent and clearly defined way of setting police pay.
"On pay up-rating, the report recommended linking pay up-rating to the median of non-manual private sector pay settlements. This linkage recognises both the professionalism of the police service and its special nature, which justifies the comparison with settlements in the private sector. We accept this recommendation.
"As to pay levels, the report recommended that pay levels should also be linked to the median of pay levels in the private sector. Although we agree with the inquiry that there should he some private sector benchmark, the case has not been made out for it to be this particular one. We shall be carrying out
942
further work to form the basis for our decision on the most appropriate benchmark for future police pay levels.
"The report also made proposals on the whole range of allowances received by police officers. The most significant of these is housing allowance, which the report recommended should be abolished since police officers are no longer automatically required to live in a particular location. We accept this recommendation so far as new officers recruited after 1st September 1994 are concerned. For those already in service housing allowance will remain. It will be frozen at its present level but it will not be removed or reduced.
"Next, starting pay: the report suggested that at present it is higher than needed for the recruitment of able police officers. The recommendation was based on evidence about the starting pay of 18 to 22 year-olds. We believe that our police service benefits substantially from having older recruits, with wider experience, and that starting salaries should be pitched so as to continue to attract them as well as high calibre younger recruits. We have therefore decided not to accept this recommendation.
"The report recommended that the range of other allowances received by police officers, which represent only a very small proportion of take-home pay, should be a matter for local discretion. This is clearly in line with the proposals in the White Paper for police reform for allowing police authorities and chief officers greater discretion to match resources to needs locally. We accept this recommendation.
"I have set out the decisions of principle which we have reached on the main recommendations of the Sheehy Report. There is a great deal of further work to be done on their detailed implementation.
"I am therefore today inviting the independent chairman of the Police Negotiating Board, Professor Laurie Hunter, to convene the board to consider the details of implementation of the decisions of principle which I have announced. I have asked him to do so on the basis of the proposals which the official side put forward during the consultation period. The board will make recommendations which we can take into consideration before preparing the detailed regulations needed to give effect to changes in pay and conditions of service from September 1994.
"I am glad to be able to end the uncertainty which the police service has inevitably faced while I consulted it and others on the Sheehy proposals. As our decisions show, we have listened carefully to what the police service had to say. Our objective must be to create the framework which will encourage our police service to be as effective as possible in the fight against crime. To be effective it must be properly led, managed and rewarded. It must have the flexibility it needs to deploy its resources as modern policing and local communities require. I believe that the proposals I have announced today will help achieve these objectives. By cutting down on middle management we will allow chief constables to put more resources into fighting crime.

943
That could mean more work on crime prevention; or more computers and modern technology to tight crime; or up to 3,000 more police officers on the front-line, protecting the public. That is what these changes will do. That is my blueprint for our police service for the future. I commend my proposals to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement given in another place. It is most remarkable the extent to which it differs from the report which the Government commissioned from Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues. It is also remarkable in that it recognises the uncertainty—indeed, much worse than uncertainty—which has existed in the police service and elsewhere since the report was published.
The Statement refers to the helpful comments which have been made by the police staff associations and others. I think that "helpful" is a somewhat euphemistic word for the almost universal condemnation which greeted the publication of Sir Patrick Sheehy's report. What is remarkable is the extent to which those condemnations have been taken into account in the Government's response. We must be grateful to the Secretary of State, the Minister and to the Government generally, for the account which has been taken of those criticisms.
Anything that I say in individual criticism or any question that I ask should be taken in the light of our fundamental reaction, which is to support the Statement made today. I deal with the issues in the Statement not necessarily in the order in which they occur. It was very difficult to anticipate riot so much the content, because that was rather obvious some time ago, but the order of presentation.
The Statement recognises that the pension proposals of the Sheehy Report are not acceptable and says that there will be a full review of police pensions in order to achieve maximum flexibility. I do not believe that that is entirely the anxiety which the police and others had about pensions. I suggest to the Minister that the worry has been as much about the funding of police pensions in the light of the fact that policemen, like others, are living longer. Can the Minister give any further indication as to what protection there will be for the funding of police pensions? That is particularly relevant in the light of recent discussions in your Lordships' House on rail pensions.
The dropping of fixed-term agreements for junior officers is clearly sensible. At the same time the introduction of fixed-term agreements for chief officers is a proper exercise of the control of management performance and we welcome it. We look forward to seeing how it works before a final decision is taken for superintendents. As regards junior officers, is there still not a question concerning dismissal for structural reasons? Nobody expects there to be a job for life for police officers under all circumstances. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be protection against redundancies which may be caused by the restructuring
944
of the police service rather than by overall demand for police manpower and in particular by any organisational changes that the Government are threatening to bring forward as a result of the White Paper?
The Government are right to reject the proposal which would have led to a substantial reduction in the starting pay of junior officers. They have rejected that proposal for the right reasons—that is to say, that it is desirable to attract people to enter the police service not just between the ages of 18 and 22 years, but later. Can we be assured that the starting pay and the comparisons which will be made with the private sector will in fact deal with the criticisms that were made of a substantial reduction in real terms?
I find the comments about the matrix for performance-related pay difficult to understand. The Sheehy matrix is based on a number of factors about the performance of individual officers. The Statement says that that will be replaced by an overall appraisal of performance. The Statement continues by talking about an overall appraisal of performance for individual officers. Either an appraisal is overall—in which case it is an overall appraisal of the performance of a team or a group of officers—or it is individual appraisal. In that case all we are talking about is a less structured version of the Sheehy matrix as applied to individuals. It seems possible that what is being proposed is in effect—I hesitate to use the word—a cop-out. The Government are still prepared to have appraisal of individual officers, but they are not prepared to state the basis on which that appraisal will be carried out.
Perhaps I may return to the issue of pay in general and not just appraisal-related pay. We welcome the instructions to the police negotiating board, but there are still issues concerning overtime allowances which are not referred to in the Statement. Can the Minister say what the Government's intentions are in relation to overtime allowances? We welcome the preservation of housing allowances for officers at present in post. Those allowances clearly have been a legitimate expectation on the part of those currently in the police service. It is right that they should continue under those circumstances.
Like almost anyone who has been involved in management in the private sector, we welcome the reduction in the number of senior ranks. It is almost the universal experience now of private sector management that if quality management is to be improved a reduction in the hierarchy of middle management is essential because it increases the levels of responsibility and communication within the ranks of any organisation including the police force.
The Statement could be unkindly called a climb-down: it is in fact a very welcome basis for future discussion of the way forward for the police service. We are grateful to the Minister for having made it available to your Lordships' House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I welcome it very nearly without reservation. That is largely because every one of the principal recommendations of Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues has been rejected.

945
The noble Earl has made a Statement this afternoon. It is almost impossible to reconcile the measured terms in which he spoke with the fact that a few weeks ago 20,000 policemen were at Wembley demonstrating their passionate opposition to what Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues had recommended. That being so, and taking the view as I do that the police were right over this question, I am delighted that the Home Secretary has taken the decision which he has.
Before coming to some of the issues of substance, perhaps I may ask one or two questions of detail. First, the noble Earl has not referred to the overtime question mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I would be grateful if he would tell us what is going to happen in that regard. Secondly, the Minister indicated that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wants to retain the rank of deputy chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for reasons which I believe we all understand. What is the position of the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? It would be quite astonishing if that rank was to be abolished in a force of 27,000 men and women officers. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl can give the answer to that.
Thirdly, I agree very much with what the Minister said about the need to avoid bureaucracy. As the noble Earl will be the first to recognise, if Parliament lays more and more duties on the police by means of legislation, the amount of police bureaucracy, if I may so describe it, is going to increase. Therefore, the Government themselves have a responsibility for avoiding needless statutory duties being placed on the police. I give as one minor illustration that well-considered measure, the Dangerous Dogs Act, as indicating the sort of foolish legislation which is passed as a result of pressure from tabloid newspapers which imposes substantial duties on the police and particularly on the supervisory ranks.
As to the principal decisions of the Government, I welcome without reservation the rejection of the proposal for fixed-term appointments below the rank of superintendent. Above that rank we can no doubt discuss the situation during the course of the debates we shall be having on the police Bill in the next Session of Parliament. I am bound to say that I approach the matter with some caution, particularly given the Government's proposals in their White Paper to change the constitution of the police authorities.
The Home Secretary is entirely right to have rejected Sir Patrick Sheehy's recommendations on fixed-term appointments in the police service. That proposal created immense anger in the service, a point we should not forget this afternoon. The Home Secretary likewise rejected the foolish recommendation to make a policeman work 40 years in order to earn his pension. Rarely has a more ill-considered proposal been put forward by any government committee of inquiry. It was almost inevitable that there would be an explosion of anger in the police service when that proposal was published. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have rejected it.
Similarly, on performance related pay, the Government say that the Sheehy proposal is neither
946
practical nor desirable. I agree with them without reservation. Instead they have suggested that there should be an overall appraisal of performance. I do not think that any of us have any difficulties with that. Then there was the extraordinary idea that there should be a savage reduction in the starting salary of police officers. That was wholly objectionable given the dangerous job that policemen and women do in this country. It was outrageous to propose a starting salary for the police service below that of traffic wardens, but that was the recommendation of Sir Patrick Sheehy and his colleagues, taking into account also their proposal to abolish housing allowances.
For all those reasons, I welcome very much what the Government have said today. As the noble Earl will be aware, given his own personal responsibilities for the police service, there has rarely been a period in our recent political history when such indignation has been expressed by all ranks of the police service—from the newest recruits to some of the most senior officers—about the recommendations of this committee of inquiry.
The committee was constituted as a result of a decision by the previous Home Secretary, Mr. Clarke. One has only to look at the composition of the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and to compare the breadth of experience of its members and their knowledge of the criminal justice system with that of the members of the Sheehy committee. It appeared that the one qualification for membership of that committee was no knowledge whatever of the practical problems involved in policing this country. It was a very narrowly based committee. I make no reflection whatever on Sir Patrick and his colleagues. The responsibility was entirely that of Mr. Clarke who must carry full responsibility for the situation which has now arisen. There has been a great deal of totally pointless anger and bewilderment in the police service about what the Government were really proposing, ending up, fortunately, with a rejection of every one of the major recommendations of the committee of inquiry. For that, at least, we must give our thanks to the current Home Secretary.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the observations of the two noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, says that the Statement is remarkable because it differs from Sheehy. I wonder what he would have said if it had not differed from Sheehy. We would have got stick for that. The fact is that we took into account the views and comments which were expressed about Sheehy. The noble Lord threw derision upon that. I said that they were helpful comments because they were. Let us remember that the Sheehy committee was set up deliberately so that an outside body of people could look into the service and make suggestions about how it might be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says that it was a very narrowly drawn committee. Actually it was not. Its members have enormous responsibilities for running large organisations in this country. Their

947
experience was remarkable and their knowledge was helpful. They produced a report and it was up to the Government to consider it.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that the Statement is a climbdown. It is nothing of the sort. There is nothing to climb down from. Sheehy produced a report. It was nothing to do with the Government. We did not know what would be said in it. We then took everyone's views and, as a result, have come to these conclusions.
In his parting shot, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the great thing about the Statement was that every major recommendation in Sheehy had been rejected. That is not so. We have accepted abolishing the ranks of deputy chief constable, chief superintendent and chief inspector, which the noble Lord momentarily forgot. We have agreed to introduce performance-related pay, but on a different system. We have agreed to the uprating of pay scales by the Sheehy index as opposed to the system used previously. We have agreed with the advice to abolish central control of allowances. We have agreed on the reform of overtime. We have agreed on fixed-term appointments for chief officers and on the provision about limiting sick pay. All those are points on which we have agreed with Sheehy. The committee's suggestions have been helpful to us.
Both noble Lords referred to overtime. They will recall that Sheehy said that no overtime should be worked by the police service. In fact, constables, sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors do work overtime at present. It is our view that overtime for those ranks should be considered by the police negotiating board. It will be up to the board to decide exactly how that will be done.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to pensions and to the fact that the police live longer. A review is to be conducted about the conditions relating to pensions, the idea being to see whether we can introduce more flexibility into the system. One idea might be to enable some police constables to exit with dignity before their full 30-year period has been served. That will be considered, and any such proposals which emerge will, of course, be properly funded.
The noble Lord asked about protection against redundancies as a result of amalgamations. In the brackets between inspectors, chief inspectors, superintendents and chief superintendents, about 1,000 people leave the service by natural wastage each year. It is anticipated in the proposals that natural wastage will account for all the restructuring. It may be that forces will be amalgamated at some time in the future, but the Government have no proposals to do so at the moment. However, it is right that some provision should be made to ensure that, in that eventuality, redundancies are provided for. It is not expected, however, that that will apply at the moment.
The noble Lord also referred to performance-related pay. As I said, we are not accepting the complicated matrix of the Sheehy Report, but it is considered that performance-related pay should be achieved by considering an officer's total performance, such as whether he has been a good, outstanding or average officer. In such cases, an officer will be moved up the
948
pay scale according to performance. Again, that matter will have to be considered and decided by the police negotiating board. All decisions over pay are matters for the police negotiating board within the parameters which have been set.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, welcomed almost everything and said that he did so unreservedly. I am grateful to him for that. He asked me particularly about the deputy commissioner of the metropolis. He will stay. That position will not be abolished. I am glad that the noble Lord also welcomed our decision about fixed-term contracts. I am certain that that is right because it will enable officers entering the service to consider the police as a career. Once one reaches a senior management position, in our view and that: of most people, it is right that there should be a fixed-term contract. That will be a convenience for the police authorities, and chief constables who may decide to leave after a period of time. Everyone will know where they are. They may move to a different job in a different force or retire.
I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they said. We have taken the Sheehy proposals as the basis upon which the decisions have been made. We have adjusted them where we have considered it appropriate to do so and in the light of information and proposals put to us by all sorts of people. We are grateful for that.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us share the views expressed by noble Lords opposite that the Government are to be congratulated on their rejection of a number of the more controversial recommendations of the Sheehy Report? As my noble friend will hardly need convincing, the report as a whole aroused intense indignation within the police force, and the Government are clearly right to take that indignation into account in assessing the abstract merits of some of the proposals.
I do not know whether my noble friend or his right honourable friend the Home Secretary have had a chance to discuss with the Police Federation the line which the Government are taking. I assume that relations with that body will now be much easier. But I do not know whether my noble friend can tell your Lordships whether the Government have had arty reaction to this subject from the Police Federation. In view of the strong feelings that were generated and the understandably strong comments that were made, it would be helpful to know whether modified views have been expressed now that the Government have made up their mind along these sensible lines.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for saying that he approved of the fact that we have rejected some of Sir Patrick Sheehy's controversial proposals. My noble friend asked about the Police Federation and whether relations would be made easier. I cannot tell him what are the reactions of the Police Federation. It gave us some reactions, but that was over the Sheehy Report. It has not given any reaction to our decisions because they had first to be

949
transmitted to Parliament. I have no doubt that it will let us know its views, which I hope will be similar to my noble friend's approbation.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I join in the general congratulations to the Government on the realistic changes that they have made to the proposals before them. One lesson that emerges from this is the danger of asking businessmen, without a proper knowledge of public service, to conduct such inquiries. The principles of public service cannot be measured solely by the standards of business rewards, which it seems to me was the error fallen into here.
Perhaps I may ask one or two detailed questions which I believe are important. On basic pay rates and individual appraisal, I hope that the Government are aware of the dangers into which they may fall here, because the ambitions of most working men and women in this country are measured by the amount of money they will be receiving at the end of their career. It is a laudable ambition. If the Government were to depart from the principles adopted in the Civil Service and generally throughout industry to have this flexible arrangement, it may be the source of renewed discontent. I ask the Minister kindly to bear that in mind.
Secondly, on the issue of deputies, in Birmingham the police divisions are large. It is crazy to suggest not having a deputy chief constable. I would also say that chief superintendents are needed. In practice, every chief constable has to have a deputy for the periods when he is away from his office or abroad, or doing other things. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider that point. I do not believe that what they suggest will work in practice. It may be that it could be done with the middle ranks. But I believe that there is another danger in the proposals for deputies and chief superintendents.
What does the Minister mean when he talks about flexibility of pension arrangements? That sounds like another dangerous concept. I do not see how there can be flexibility of pension arrangements in any pension fund. Pensions, as with Members of the other place and for most of us in our ordinary businesses, are tied to normal business arrangements. Any interference with the pension arrangements will cause much more trouble.
I am also a little alarmed, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us, about housing allowances. I cannot see how in justice one can possibly say that a housing allowance is justified for an existing officer but not for another officer who is subject to the directions of his chief constable to serve where he is asked to serve, which may be a long way from where he was originally housed. How much money is involved in that proposal, because it amounts to a reduction in the pay of future recruits, and that is of considerable importance? Those are some of the dangers in the Statement but, as I say, I join in welcoming especially the fact that the Home Secretary and the Government have had the good sense and courage to reject some of the recommendations.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his congratulations and for the fact that he realises why my right honourable friend took the decisions that he did.
The noble Lord said that end pay is important for people who start in a profession or organisation. Of course he is right, but so also is the starting pay. The important point is that by law the Home Secretary is obliged to have the police negotiating body consider the pay scales and how they should be adjusted. We have told it the parameters within which to work, and it will be up to that body to say how they are to be achieved.
As a matter of general explanation, if one has only two ranks to go through (inspector and superintendent) those ranks will be larger, and so it will be possible for officers to move higher up the scale in the rank than they might have done had there been four ranks through which they had to go. An officer might have been an inspector and might not have wanted to move up to become a chief inspector, or might not have been suitable for that position, and so he would have remained in that inspector rank. Under the new system it will be possible for him to move up the pay scale, even when he is in the same rank, and it will also enable more capable officers to move up more quickly to managerial positions.
The noble Lord referred to the removal of the rank of deputy chief constable. It is the rank which will be removed and not necessarily the appointment. There will not be a rank of deputy chief constable; there will be a rank of assistant chief constable. A chief constable may appoint one of the assistant chief constables to the position of a deputy, but it will not be to a rank of a deputy. Perhaps I may give a frivolous and inadequate simile. One may be a Minister of State at the Home Office and also happen to be Deputy Leader of the House of Lords. It is not a rank; it is a position.
Lord Howell: My Lords, how much pay is attached to it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, none whatsoever, and nor will there be to the other. The noble Lord was worried about flexibility of pension arrangements. Anyone who is in the police service and contributing to a pension will receive the pension to which they have contributed. We want to see whether it is possible to make the arrangements more flexible so that, for instance, a person might be able to leave after 20 years with some kind of reward. It is known as exiting with dignity. That is the kind of issue that will be considered.
The noble Lord referred to the housing allowance. In the past chief officers provided housing for constables. If constables provided their own housing they had an allowance. Because that has been part of the system, it is right that those who are in the police service should continue to have such allowance. However, those who enter the service will know from the beginning that they will not receive it. Indeed, many recruits knew nothing about the housing allowance when they first entered the service until they found it tagged on in their pay packet. That is why we believe that that allowance is now an anachronism. It has been therefore decided not to continue it with new recruits.
Earl Nelson: My Lords, the issue has been touched on but we have not had a satisfactory answer. Why did the Sheehy Committee not include anyone with police experience? It strikes me—I am sure that the fact has not been lost on other people—that the Government might not have disregarded all the major proposals of the Sheehy Report had they had someone on the committee who had any idea of how the police service operated—terms and conditions, and so on. Will my noble friend answer the question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope that I answer very simply, in two respects. We wanted an inquiry into the pay and conditions of police by a body of people who had great knowledge and experience in organising and seeing to the remuneration of large organisations, whether of companies or of people in the public sector. That is why we asked those whom we asked. It was specifically decided not to include the police because we wished the inquiry to be totally without involvement and without commitment, with someone from outside saying, "This is what we suggest". Having obtained an outside view, we then take the reactions of those who wish to express their concern.
My noble friend asked why we rejected all the main points of the Sheehy Report. We have not done so. We have accepted the abolishing of the ranks; we have accepted the introduction of performance-related pay; we have accepted the method of uprating the pay scales; we have accepted the replacement of the Edmund-Davies formula by the Sheehy recommendation; the abolition of central control of allowances, and all those other issues. I assure my noble friend that we have not rejected all the major points of the Sheehy Report. We have accepted the major points of Sheehy but have adjusted them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government have rejected the recommendation on the application of a matrix determining police pay and instead are introducing arrangements which will depend on the overall appraisal of performance taking account of an officer's experience, skills and the circumstances in which they are exercised.
Will the opportunity be taken to remedy a matter that I have perceived in the past to be an ill affecting the police force? It may since have been remedied but I do not believe so. I refer to the general perception that the posting from plain clothes to uniformed rank is some form of bad comment on a career. The public as a whole hold both branches of the service in high regard. The death of the gallant Police Constable Dunne has brought forcefully to the public's attention the fact that the uniformed branch faces many unexpected dangers and shares them with those officers in plain clothes. It would be nice if both branches could be held in equal esteem within the service.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to that point. There is absolutely no question that all police officers are held in equal esteem in the service and in the public's eye. The fact that one person may be in uniform and another in plain clothes is irrelevant. Whether account will be
952
taken over the way in which they will be paid will be a matter to be taken into account by the police negotiating board which has the statutory duty to advise my right honourable friend on how the pay alterations should come about. It is up to my right honourable friend to consider its advice.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that, Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
My Lords, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is intended to authorise the construction of a barrage and associated works across the estuary of the Rivers Taff and Ely. There is provision for the acquisition of land and the rights necessary to carry out this work. The Bill also establishes a suitable framework for operating the barrage so that the very important considerations of water quality, flooding, the protection of fish and management of the lake are carried out in an appropriate manner.
The Government believe that the barrage project and the development which will come in its wake are vitally important to the future of Cardiff. The former docklands area, with its underused and derelict land, will be transformed into a new and beautiful environment linked to the city centre.
I was greatly heartened by the speeches from both sides of your Lordships' House at the Second Reading debate last November. There is a general acceptance of the need to regenerate Cardiff Bay. Several of your Lordships spoke with great authority derived from first-hand experience about the area's needs and its potential. There is also general agreement in this House about the need to realise that potential to the full. The Government believe that this can be achieved only by a strategy which has, as its cornerstone, the barrage scheme enshrined in this Bill.
The Bill has enjoyed a wide measure of support in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who as Secretary of State for Wales originated the scheme, has continued to support it with vigour and eloquence. Without his original vision we would not be debating this important Bill today. Another former Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, has given it his warmest support.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, brought his wisdom and unrivalled local knowledge to our deliberations. Although the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, was unable to be present at Second Reading, few can doubt the commitment he has brought to the redevelopment of Cardiff in his capacity as a councillor, and as deputy chairman of the development corporation since it was established in 1987. While the Bill has been

953
in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has been in the lead on the Benches opposite. I should like to express my personal gratitude to the noble Lord who has with great courtesy provided me with the background to, and the intention of, his often complex amendments. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the Select Committee of this House which he chaired, as I am to all of your Lordships who have participated in this Bill.
I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to express our gratitude to all the officials and others who have worked long and arduously on the Bill over the past six years. The solution to the many obstacles could not have been achieved without their dedication and commitment.
The corporation's strategy has been subject to rigorous and detailed economic appraisal. This shows that, for all the very best economic reasons—jobs, homes and private sector investment—the barrage proposal is superior to the alternative redevelopment proposals which have been considered.
During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, described the Bill as "contentious". Certainly, the Bill raises a number of very important issues about which local residents and organisations, those in another place and your Lordships have been understandably concerned. For their part, the Government have taken those issues very seriously. Our starting point has been to ensure protection for those affected. Throughout the Bill's passage, the Government have been happy to table amendments to meet local concerns and anxieties where there was a demonstrable case for doing so.
A major issue of local concern has been groundwater. The Bill contains a detailed and comprehensive scheme of protection. I would remind your Lordships that the protection scheme has been examined in detail by Select Committees on no fewer than four occasions. The scheme in its current form is the product of detailed consideration and scrutiny and I very much hope that the good residents of Cardiff will draw comfort from the attention which your Lordships and another place have given to it.
During the Second Reading debate, I indicated to your Lordships the Government's intention to amend the Bill to clarify the land drainage powers of local authorities to deal with saturated land. The effect is that local authorities will be able to act in respect of land saturated by changed groundwater levels in the same way as they are in respect of flooding. The wording of the amendment was fully agreed with the local authorities and published in the local press. Although the proposed amendment was open to petition in your Lordships' House, no one petitioned against it. The amendment, which was endorsed by a Select Committee of this House, appears at Clause 22 of the latest print of the Bill.
In addition to the protection scheme, the development corporation has been investigating the control of groundwater levels by means of dewatering wells. Dewatering would keep groundwater at existing levels by pumping. If such a system were to be implemented,
954
the need to carry out remedial works would be significantly reduced or removed altogether. Disruption to householders would, therefore, be kept to an absolute minimum.
Following a feasibility study and pumping tests, the corporation is about to commission a detailed design. Dewatering can be achieved under existing legislation. Nevertheless, the Government have been considering safeguards so that, if dewatering commences, pumping will continue in a manner sufficient to avoid damage to property. We intend to achieve this by means of a direction to the development corporation under Section 138 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. As I told this House in Committee on 13th October, my right honourable friend has given an undertaking to make such a direction if the development corporation proceeds with dewatering.
Finally, I should like to report progress on what is being done to provide compensation measures for birds displaced from the bay when the barrage is built. Your Lordships will recall from our recent deliberations that the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were closely involved in drawing up terms of reference for a study into the possibility of creating a major bird reserve on the Gwent Levels. The report was published last February. Copies of the executive summary are available in the Printed Paper Office.
The report recommends the creation of freshwater wetland habitats near the village of Redwick, to the south of Llanwern Steelworks, and saltwater lagoons at Goldcliff, just to the west of the Redwick site. The total area involved is some 285 hectares, compared with an area of 165 hectares of the existing feeding grounds in Cardiff Bay. It will cater for a greater variety of bird species than currently use the bay. The overall conclusion of the report is that the proposed wetland will be:
"of outstanding value for wintering and breeding wildfowl and for other rare or threatened bird species".
Both the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were very closely involved in the development of the proposals. They remain active participants in the further development of the site. For their part, the Government have welcomed the proposals. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has indicated that the necessary funding will be made available for the establishment and running of the reserve, subject, of course, to planning permission and land acquisition. No powers are sought under this Bill for the setting up of the reserve. This can be achieved under existing legislation.
This is an important Bill. It opens up the prospect of a remarkable future for Cardiff. But the benefits will spread much further than the city itself. The surrounding communities will be able to take advantage of the many job opportunities, the new leisure and recreational facilities which will follow the construction of the barrage. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be read a third time.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
4.37 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before the Bill finally passes through this House, I should like to thank my noble friend for his words about the Select Committee which considered the Bill. I add my thanks—and I hope those of the other Members of the Select Committee—to our Clerk, Mr. William Sleath, who was most helpful. Sadly he no longer works in the House of Lords, having gone to Brussels to pursue a new career there. He will be missed in this House.
As my noble friend said, this is the fourth Bill devoted to the scheme. Indeed, this Bill was given a Second Reading very nearly a year ago and the committee reported seven months ago. Therefore, even the progress of this fourth Bill has not been at lightning speed.
One feature of particular interest was that for the first time in consideration of such a Bill by your Lordships' Select Committee, we visited Cardiff, took evidence and sat in Cardiff itself. That was the first time that such a course had been taken by a Select Committee of your Lordships' Muse, and I believe that it was a good idea. I hope that it can be repeated as regards future Bills of this kind. It was valuable to the committee to be able to visit the site, which we did on two occasions—once before we started taking evidence and again at the end, when we could see some of the matters which had featured in the various petitions and the petitioners' evidence.
All members of the committee are extremely grateful to all those who took the time and trouble to show us around Cardiff. In certain cases, they showed us into their own homes. All that was extremely helpful in our consideration of the Bill.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the courtesy and patience with which he has dealt with the various points which have been raised.
The Cabinet has been meeting today and is reported to have been considering very substantial cuts in all parts of public expenditure. We all know that, in the light of the deficit, money is extraordinarily tight. Anyone who has been in touch with Ministers knows that they all make it clear that there is no money available for even the most deserving causes. There is little available for nurses and firemen. Many deserving projects are frozen and will remain unconsummated, like the removal of the scaffolding from the Albert Memorial.
Against that background, it is surely odd that this project, which so many people have regarded as unnecessary or undesirable, should go ahead at a substantial cost to public funds. The barrage is not linked to any immediately essential needs, such as power supplies. It will have a purely cosmetic effect designed to improve the investment climate in Cardiff—an essentially speculative objective.
956
As has been pointed out, the fact that this is the fourth Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and that it has had such a long and tortuous progress through both Houses is an indication of the anxiety felt in so many quarters about the effects of the scheme, not least in. Cardiff itself because Cardiff City Council was among the objectors.
We have had a clear and helpful report from the last Select Committee which pointed out that, as the Bill was hybrid, it was unable to comment on the fundamental question of whether the barrage was needed at all. That is a pity but it is part of our procedures. 'The committee pointed out that great improvements have been made since the project was originally put forward, and: it is worth indicating that the committee noted that it is disappointing that it would take so long to clean up the rivers Taff and Ely. It hopes that that can be accelerated. That is a hope which I share.
Your Lordships' House and another place have discussed extremely fully all aspects of the project. I remain unhappy about the extinction by the Government of the whole of a site of special scientific interest. That is a thoroughly bad precedent on the part of a government who have often referred to SSSIs as the conservation jewels in the crown.
I said my say on wading birds on Report. I regret their passing and we must see what the Commission and perhaps the European Court say when a complaint made to them by conservation organisations is considered. I welcome the proposals for a new wetland reserve, of which the Minister spoke. That will provide some limited mitigation.
On water quality, we must hope that the NRA's agreement with the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation will be effective. But the fact is that considerable expense will have to be incurred in remedying the defects of the blocking of the flow of the rivers by the barrage: "vitox" oxygenating jets, water witches, scraping off the algae from the side of the lake, and so on. I wonder whether the lake will really be the attractive clean blue water envisaged by the promoters.
Baroness White: And in the advertisements!
Lord Moran: My Lords, things can easily go wrong with water quality. The other day I saw a report in the Barry and District News concerning an order by the Vale council requiring,
"Associated British Ports to clear up a problem which started three weeks ago"
in Barry docks. The council was serving legal notices requiring Associated British Ports to remove all the dead fish from the docks within 48 hours. The article continued to state that an NRA spokeswoman had said that about 10,000 fish had been,
"removed from the docks but attempts to pump oxygen back into the water had little effect".
That is the sort of problem which can easily and swiftly arise. I hope that it will not arise in the bay.
So far as concerns migratory fish, substantial expenditure is now planned on a greatly improved fish pass. I hope that salmon and sewin sweeping in on the great Severn tides will be able to find the relatively small entrance. It would be sad if all the very good work that has been done to rehabilitate the Taff was undone

957
by the construction of the barrage. Substantial expenditure will also be needed for the groundwater protection scheme about which the Minister spoke, for the possible sinking of dewatering wells to deal with the intractable problem of underground flooding and rising damp and, perhaps, to compensate those residents of Cardiff who may be adversely affected.
We shall see what happens. I hope that our doubts will prove unjustified and that the project will work as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, originally envisaged that it should. However, I must confess that I am not especially optimistic.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord St. Davids reminded the House on Report that next month it would be six years since the legislation started on its way through Parliament. It is in fact a little over seven years since I first announced the setting up of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and asked it to carry out the detailed studies which led to the legislation. Moreover, it is nearly eight years since the project was conceived in the Welsh Office. Therefore, no one can say that it is a project which has not had the most careful and detailed consideration. I am bound to say that when we set off down the road, I do not think that I realised just what an arduous pilgrimage it would prove to be.
I do not propose to comment at this stage about the views and efforts of the relatively small group of Members of both Houses who felt very strongly about the issue and opposed the Bill. I am content that history should judge whether I was right or whether in fact they were.
I should like to take the opportunity to thank many people who have ensured that the Bill has reached this stage and that the barrage will now be built. My noble friend Lord St. Davids has already referred to some of them. I am especially grateful for the support and kind words said at each stage by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, whose knowledge of the area, of its people and of its needs is unrivalled. I should also like to express my appreciation for the indefatigable work of the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, both in local government and in the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. I believe that it is also appropriate to thank the chairman of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and his staff. They have been carrying on with a great deal of planning and preparatory work, and other development, throughout the passage of the Bill. Indeed, they have already gone a long way towards transforming the environment of Cardiff for the better.
I confess that I have watched and listened with admiration, and sometimes with a certain sense of frustration, to my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Moran. He has a tremendous reputation for his concern for the environment and has raised point after point in debate after debate. I think that today was the first occasion during the long passage of the Bill that he has really put himself forward as the principal defender of the public purse. He has made a tremendous effort. He has sought to defend the mud and the estuary which
958
was, incidentally, largely man made and the result of the construction of the docks 100 years or so ago. The estuary, like Ephesus and one or two other ancient cities, is likely largely to silt up now that the area is no longer dredged. Therefore, in any event it will probably not have its character as a feeding ground for Dunlin and Redshank in 20 or 30 years' time. However, it has been his defence of environmental quality which we respect. I am sure that the noble Lord is as pleased as I am that there is likely to be an important wetland development on the Gwent Levels.
I should like to thank my successors in the Welsh Office and Ministers in both Houses, including my noble friend Lord St. Davids, who have carried the Bill to this point. I should also like to thank the Members of the Select Committees who also laboured long and hard.
In conclusion, perhaps I should just outline why I believe the Bill is such an important measure. First, I believe that the barrage will be a crucial factor in the successful completion of what I believe will be one of the greatest pieces of urban redevelopment that is likely to take place in this country—or, indeed, has taken place in the country—for a very long time. It has been a very carefully planned piece of redevelopment. Much has already been done and a great deal of the infrastructure has gone in. I believe that the barrage will change the scale of what can be achieved. If we look back on civilisations of an earlier era I think we very much make our judgments based on the quality of their cities. I really do believe that the barrage will enable us to create a city in Cardiff of which, not just in Wales but throughout Britain, we can be truly proud.
The second reason why I believe the measure is so important is because of the important contribution that I believe it will make to the social and economic redevelopment of the area. Anyone who visited the site when we set out on the task and saw the urban wasteland that existed in south Cardiff, and anyone who knows the history of social suffering and economic decline that has been the story of Wales since the First World War, will recognise the importance of any major project which can help in the crucial task of transforming not just the social and economic life of Cardiff but of the whole of South Wales and of the South Wales valleys in particular. I have no doubt that the project will achieve that aim.
The project comes at a crucial moment when a wonderful transformation is already taking place in Wales as regards its economic condition and its morale. We can now look forward with great confidence to the future—a confidence that we simply could not have had at almost any time during the past 60 or 70 years.
It is a happy coincidence that within the next two or three weeks I hope that those of us who have been involved in this matter will be able to announce the international competition for the design of an opera house to stand on the waterside in Cardiff Bay. Incidentally, if it is built for the millennium, it will be the first major full-scale opera house to be built in this country since Covent Garden. That will be a happy way in which to celebrate the millennium.
The third reason why I believe the project is so important—this may perhaps come as a surprise to the

959
noble Lord, Lord Moran—is that I consider it of huge environmental importance. Of course in considering the environment one can never isolate one particular factor. One may lose something; but one may gain something else. It was pointed out at an earlier stage of the Bill (I believe by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury) that we may be losing the feeding grounds of some waders but we shall be creating in the hay a wetland habitat which I believe will attract birds in large numbers—birds on their migratory passage and also birds wishing to winter in the bay. I should not be surprised if the area within the bay itself, and also the new area that will be created, begins to resemble Slimbridge.
It is not simply for the reasons that I have given or because of my belief that the development will clear up the urban dereliction that I consider the project to be of such huge environmental importance. The British Government are on the point of having to make their case as regards sustainability as a consequence of Rio. The greatest single threat to the environment of this country is the erosion and continual development of our countryside. There are fewer green fields, woods and hills as housing, roads and supermarkets spread across some of our most beautiful countryside. It is imperative that we concentrate building on the often derelict and empty centres of our once great cities and where industrial plants stood in the past. Those sites are often empty nowadays. That imperative extends far beyond South Wales.
One of the jewels of South Wales is the Vale of Glamorgan. However, it is gravely threatened as the population spreads out. The development we are discussing will help to bring people back into the city to live, work and play in a vibrant community. It will therefore ease the pressure on the countryside and make an enormous environmental contribution, complying entirely with the priorities of sustainability. The project has enormous environmental significance. I conclude on that note. I thank those who have enabled us to reach this stage and I wish all who have the job of seeing this great engineering project through to completion every good fortune.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we have listened to some very fine speeches today. After seven long years of consideration, debate and consultation a Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill reaches its closing parliamentary stages. We are reminded that this is the fourth version of a Bill relating to the project. It is an immense improvement on its predecessors. We thank the many people who fought long and hard to improve the legislation which was first presented to Parliament. One lesson to be learnt from the tortuous parliamentary journey of the legislation is that a project of this importance, magnitude and complexity should not be handled by private legislation and should not be launched until all of the necessary detailed homework has been completed.
I cannot pretend that this has been an easy Bill to handle from the Opposition Front Bench. It is not a consensus Bill. Ever since the Second Reading debate almost 12 months ago I have sought to the best of my ability to reflect the opinion and advice I received from
960
my Front Bench colleagues on Welsh affairs in another place and to raise the major concerns expressed in Cardiff and in the valleys of the Taff and the Ely—both rivers flow into Cardiff Bay—and by organisations which believe that their interests may be adversely affected by the Bill. I am deeply sorry that this has caused irritation to my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff who is one of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House and whom lf hold in great respect. I have been made fully aware of the irritation I have caused to my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. I appreciate that both noble Lords are convinced supporters of the Bill and that both have worked hard for the realisation of its objectives. However, this is still not a consensus Bihl.
I wish to thank the Select Committee, its chairman, members and clerk for the task they undertook. I am particularly grateful that the committee travelled to Cardiff to take evidence. I can assure the chairman, who is in the Chamber, that that was appreciated by the objectors. The committee's task was not an easy one, but I believe its recommendations have helped to make the Bill more acceptable to more people.
Since the Second Reading debate, and indeed since the publication of the report of the Select Committee there have been three major relevant developments which I wish to mention. First, we understand that the National Rivers Authority has recommended to the Department of the Environment that the impounded lake should be classified as sensitive waters. That is reassuring. I find it inconceivable that the Government would not be guided by that advice.
Secondly, the independent groundwater specialist adviser to the Secretary of State for Wales has advised that a dewatering system is feasible. The London solicitors, who have been acting for and advising Cardiff City Council, have seen a draft of the order under Section 138 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which the Welsh Office has in mind to issue in respect of a dewatering scheme. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for the letter he wrote to me about the proposed order under Section 138. The lawyers advise me that they are now reasonably satisfied with its terms. That again is immensely reassuring.
Thirdly, there is the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Santonia Marshes case delivered on 2nd August which appears to have implications for the application of the wild birds directive to Cardiff Bay. The RSPB takes comfort from that judgment because, unlike t`e judgment in the Leybucht case by the same court, it applies to sites which have not been registered yet with the European Commission as sites of special scientific interest. It would be wrong of me to pursue that matter further at this stage.
I regret that none of the amendments that we tabled was acceptable to the Government and that we were not able to help the gardeners. However, I hope that the Government or the CBDC will bear in mind the anxieties which we expressed where they are relevant.
On behalf of the Official Opposition I thank all the bodies and individuals who sent us briefing material. In particular I must thank the RSPB and the London

961
solicitors acting for Cardiff City Council. I must also thank an individual, but I shall not embarrass him by naming him. In addition, I have to thank my Front Bench colleagues in another place, and in particular Mr. Rhodri Morgan for his advice throughout. I should like to place on record that the briefings which I received from those sources were of the highest quality. It was noted that the Liberal Democrat Benches remained silent throughout the progress of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, who has a fine reputation as a great defender of rivers and their environment, fought valiantly. We appreciate his support. I must not embarrass my noble friend Lady White, by saying how much I and others appreciated her interventions. It has not gone unnoticed in Wales, as well as in this House, that on all issues which have a special significance for Wales my noble friend can always be relied upon to do her homework, to be in her place and to make a brief but notable contribution.
Turning to the Government Benches, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for his patience and for the information which he gave me and was always ready to give me. This is the first Bill which has been entrusted to the care of the noble Viscount, but he impressed all of us with his loyalty to those who prepared his brief.
I believe that it is fair to say that the Government would not have introduced this legislation without the outstanding contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It has to be acknowledged that he, more than any other person, is the author of this Bill. The fact that this fourth Bill has at last reached its closing parliamentary stages must give him deep satisfaction.
The Bill gives the CBDC powers to construct a barrage across the estuaries of the Taff and Ely rivers. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, implied, it has been for the Government to decide what degree of priority to give to the project, bearing in mind the substantial investment which will be necessary. If and when it is built, I accept that the barrage will be a historic development. It must be our hope that it will bring great economic benefit to the capital city of Cardiff and, indirectly, that the ripple effects will be felt in the Taff and Ely valleys.
5.4 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there is little that I can add to the eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is now on the verge of leaving this House for another place. Indeed, it is almost on the verge of finding its way on to the statute book. It must be said that it has been a long and often arduous journey.
As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, Cardiff stands on the threshold of an exciting and prosperous future. That prosperity will be achieved only by the barrage scheme enshrined in this Bill. Of that the Government remain fully convinced. I am sure that in years to come people will marvel at the courage and vision required to achieve such a transformation. They will also note with approval the care which was taken to ensure that where anxieties were voiced workable
962
solutions were put forward. In that way all the people of Cardiff should feel that they have a stake in creating and benefiting from its prosperity.
The parliamentary process is almost over. We should now start to turn the vision of a prosperous, self-confident and vibrant Cardiff into a reality. This Bill is about jobs, homes and opportunity: I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1993
5.5 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th October be approved [39th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations, if Parliament approves them, will be made under Section 210A of the Companies Act 1985. They will amend Part VI of the 1985 Act, which contains the law on the disclosure of interests in the shares of public companies.
Your Lordships may recall that the House approved some rather more comprehensive Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations in June. They came into force on 18th September. The regulations we are now considering are much shorter. They comprise only two small, but important, amendments. These need to be made to complete what was intended under the earlier regulations. I shall explain briefly the purpose of the new amendments.
Interests in the shares of public companies, which are held as security by banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers in the normal course of their business, have long been disregarded for the purposes of disclosure. Disclosure of these interests would be burdensome to those who hold them; and it would be of little or no interest to the companies concerned.
In the process of updating that existing exemption for interests in shares held as security, it came to our attention that other categories of business routinely take security interests in shares of public companies. We concluded that those security interests had an equally good case for exemption. Therefore the earlier regulations extended the security interests exemption, for example, to investment exchanges and clearing houses, and to banks and insurance companies established in other EC member states. Our intention was also that interests in shares of public companies, held as security in the normal course of business, by stock exchanges and by authorised persons who deal in securities or derivatives on an investment exchange should also be covered in the same way by the expanded security interests exemption. However, as a result of an oversight, for which I must apologise to your Lordships, those last two categories were not included in the earlier regulations. The draft regulations now before the House correct those omissions.
The relevant provisions may be found in Regulation 3, which will amend Section 209 of the Companies Act 1985. Regulation 4 makes transitional provisions. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th October be approved [39th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh
5.8 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to induce Azerbaijan and Turkey to lift the blockades on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict in that region.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I realise that in asking Her Majesty's Government this Question I shall be speaking in defiance of a great deal of heavy money lobbying in favour of our kowtowing to Baku in the hope of getting an oil concession.
Perhaps at this point I should declare an interest as chairman of the British-Armenian All Party Parliamentary Group. I have just returned from a visit to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh with other members of the group, which included the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the honourable Member for the Sherwood constituency, Mr. Paddy Tipping. The visit was at the invitation of the President of the Armenian Parliament, Dr. Babken Araktsian.
The object of the visit was to see for ourselves exactly what was the situation in that troubled part of the world. We were and had been somewhat suspicious of the very one-sided reports of events through the Western media. Our suspicions were, to a great degree, confirmed: that there had been a cover-up of one side of the story and massive misinformation planted for purely commercial reasons. Although the roots of the present situation go back a long way in history, at present the main bone of contention is the area known as the Nagorno, or mountainous, Karabakh. Until this is resolved, there can be no peace in that region.
After centuries of dismemberment by Persians, Romans and Ottomans, what was left of ancient Armenia, then an independent republic since 1918, was absorbed into the Soviet Union in 1920, where again it was partly broken up in 1923 and, inter alia, the mountainous Karabakh was made an autonomous Oblast within the geographical borders of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. That perhaps may have been in consequence of the fact that the inhabitants of the Nagorno-Karabakh. who were over 95 per cent. Armenian, had in 1918 declared themselves to be an independent administrative unit. Furthermore, in 1920, the then independent Republic of Armenia had declared the Nagorno-Karabakh to be an indivisible part of Armenia. The declaration was confirmed in 1921 by the by now Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Being an autonomous region with its own local government and a political entity in its own right, but
964
centrally controlled from Moscow, also with its own clearly defined borders, the Nagorno-Karabakh decided in 1991 to make use of a provision in the 1977 constitution of the USSR which permitted the secession from the union, subject to the holding of a referendum, Armenia also decided on that course of action. Notification of intention to secede was given in March 1991, with confirming referendum in September of that year. Needless to say, the result was in the affirmative.
Azerbaijan, however, never made use of that permission under the Soviet constitution, perhaps because if it had done so, it could only do so legally for itself and thus would have left the autonomous oblast of the Nagorno-Karabakh still within the Soviet Union and out of its reach. Azerbaijan never did secede from the USSR but, along with many other Soviet Socialist republics, declared its independence immediately after the failed coup of 18th and 19th August 1993, which effectively evaporated the old USSR. However, before that time both Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh had legally and constitutionally given notice of secession from the USSR and were only awaiting the confirmation of a referendum, which they obtained.
In spite of that clear constitutional position, the authorities of Azerbaijan, who had for many years harassed the inhabitants of the Nagorno-Karabakh in the hope of getting them to leave—as had been the case in Nakhichevan—invaded the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh, occupying up to about 40 per cent. of the country, before being brought to a halt.
Previously, as part of the harassment, Turkey, not exactly a friend of Armenia, probably out of a sense of guilt for having murdered one and a half million Armenians in the genocide of 1915, in order to appropriate land which is now called Eastern Turkey, joined with Azerbaijan in imposing a blockade on both landlocked Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh, intending to bring them to their knees by cold and starvation in the true old Ottoman Empire fashion.
I am unaware of any United Nations resolution of the time imposing sanctions on Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh, yet Turkey, as well as Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, through their membership of the USSR in 1975, are all signatories to the Helsinki Final Act. That Act, in Basket One, Clause VI reads:
"They will likewise in all circumstances refrain from any other act of military or of political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by another participating state of the right inherent. in As sovereignty and thus secure advantages of any kind".
Thus, Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh were blockaded by their neighbours in total defiance of the obligations under Helsinki. Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh had become sovereign independent countries under the USSR constitution of the time and in accordance with the spirit of United Nations Resolutions 1514, 2160 and 3103, among many others. Yet what United Nations resolution came to their aid when blockaded and when the Nagorno-Karabakh was invaded? That smells a little to me.
The blockade of Armenia, although mostly effective, did not stop some economic assistance coming in through Georgia in the north and Iran from the south.
Nagorno-Karabakh was, of course, completely cut off and in total desperation its people opened a humanitarian corridor near Lachin through to Armenia proper, which was only 10 kilometres away.
Azerbaijan used its troops, well armed as a result of equipment left behind by the old Soviet Fourth Army, to invade the Nagorno-Karabakh. The Karabakhi Armenians resisted as best they could, addressed complaints to the United Nations and then were thoroughly shelled by Grad rockets. Hardly one house in 20 in Stepanakert has even the vestige of a roof.
It is curious to note that all this time few reports appeared in the Western press. Was it that editors knew which side their bread was oiled? However, the moment the Karabakhis decided that the Western powers were again letting them down, as they did in 1918, they decided to retaliate. Then the Western media started to fill with reports of Armenian aggression. The United Nations suddenly woke up and started passing resolutions—not in favour of the Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Karabakhi Armenians, mostly using captured weapons, evicted the Azeris from the Karabakh and also from the adjacent territory of Azerbaijan from whence the attacks had come and the sites used to bombard their territory. Their local commander assured me that they would be only, too happy to withdraw from this cordon sanitaire around their country the very moment that they received an adequate guarantee that the sites would not be re-used for aggressive action against them. That was recently re-stated in view of the action of 26th October. The Nagorno-Karabakh authorities have unilaterally reinstated the ceasefire, subject to a similar response from the Azeris not to start the offensive again and to carry on talking and negotiating.
In the original invasion the Azeris had made the mistake of thinking that the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians would be sitting ducks. The Armenians are front line soldiers and provided more senior officers in the old Soviet army than any of the other Soviet republics. The Azeris were mainly used for maintenance and supply in the old Soviet army and were no match, even with their Turkish officers, for the Armenians, who were fighting for their homes and families while Azeris were not quite so keen to lay down their lives for the acquisition of a land which they knew perfectly well did not belong to them.
Once the Karabakhi Armenians had captured some weapons, they went through the Azeris like a knife. Their local commander jokingly said to me: "If we had gone on, we could have ended up in Baku". I really think that at the time they could have done so. But they went only as far as they had to in order to neutralise the forming up areas and artillery sites from which they had suffered.
Whitehall can be full of platitudes about talks and negotiations, as well as much verbal hand wringing or washing over international situations, especially when it seeks to avoid involvement. But in this instance, I wonder if I might ask the noble Baroness the Minister who is replying: what is the Whitehall solution to the following scenario? A Karabakhi man is recovering the
966
shrapnel-shredded bodies of his wife and family from the rubble of his home after a hit by an Azeri Grad rocket. Should he say: "Dear, oh dear, what nasty people the Azeris are. I shall have to write yet another letter to the United Nations in New York?" Or should he go out and put a stop to it, which is in fact what he did?
In this context it is interesting to note that when nearly half of their country was occupied by invading Azeris and many had been killed, the Karabakhi Armenians asked for a ceasefire and talks. That was refused by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Also, Azerbaijan refused to talk directly to the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities. However, the moment the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians hit back and routed the invaders, it was Turkey and Azerbaijan who were shouting "foul" and pleading for a ceasefire and Azerbaijan offering to recognise the right of the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities to participate in talks. The Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians immediately agreed. I am thankful to say that the ceasefire is, generally, still holding, although uncontrolled Azeri troops have just launched an assault on Zangelan—an assault which has fortunately been contained by the Nagorno-Karabakh defence forces, who are now again in control of the area. Perhaps we may now await the planted misinformation in the press about Armenian aggression. It is sure to come.
Unfortunately, the conflict goes on on two other fronts. One is the propaganda campaign initiated by those same public relations budgets which previously wished to keep the whole matter quiet but are now full of the "Armenian aggression". The other is far sadder. It is on the ground of the Karabakh itself, through the ultimately cowardly action of the Azeris in indiscriminately sowing the areas from which they were evicted with small anti-personnel mines. Now the casualties having their legs amputated, sometimes without anaesthetic due to the blockade, are the women and children returning to their villages. One has not heard much about that in our media—only carefully planted interviews with Azeri refugees complaining about the "expansionist policy" of the Armenians. From the look of them they clearly do not even know what it means, but they have obviously been told to say it and there are no prizes for guessing whose PR budget paid for that one. That is the present unhappy situation. One may well ask: where does one go from here?
One option is quite definitely not open; namely, any attempt to declare Nagorno-Karabakh to be part of Azerbaijan. That would be to reward those who indulged in aggression and invasion of a neighbouring independent state, as well as to cause gross violations of human rights in total defiance of treaty obligations. Any such declaration would make a total nonsense of international law and treaties. It would be like saying to Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War: "Well, perhaps you could keep just a little bit of Kuwait." Yet, although aware of that, Azerbaijan evidently thinks that with Turkish aid and the clout of its potential oil fields it can take over just what it likes in Nagorno-Karabakh. There should not be any lingering doubt, even in Whitehall, as to its intentions. But if there is, we should remember the statement made by its then President Elchibey in June 1992, when, after opening full hostilities against the

967
Karabakh, he said that if there were any Armenians left in the Karabakh by October they could hang him in the central square of Baku. It is a pity that they did not! No amount of oil-lubricated waffle or diplomatic flannel in the West can excuse this clear statement of intent by a head of state. It has the underlying unequivocal ring of statements made by the late Genghis Khan, and we all know what his intentions were.
With such a delicate situation, Armenia, in spite of considerable provocation, did not and has not officially recognised the independence of the Karabakh because it felt that that would only exacerbate the situation. Also, in a very statesmanlike manner it has avoided sending troops to assist its kinsmen and has restricted its help to humanitarian aid, although people there are themselves desperately short. Armenia has announced that, now there is a ceasefire and now that the Azeris, once their troops have started losing, have now agreed to talk directly to the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities, Armenia will concur with and support whatever may be agreed as a result of the talks. To insist now on pre-judging the final status can only endanger the fragile ceasefire and the present negotiations. So we can only pin our hopes on a successful outcome to the Minsk process.
To revert to the subject of the blockade, one of the most pressing needs of Armenia is for energy. That country's industry is at a standstill for lack of electricity. Lighting is limited, and heating is non-existent. Limited gas supplies from Georgia are continually being blown up, especially where they pass through Azeri-populated villages.
Consignments of oil from Russia arriving from the port of Bartu cost more in bribes for transit than the value of the cargo. Hydro-electric supply is in very short supply as Lake Van is already 18 metres below its normal level. However, steps are being taken for one of the sections of the nuclear reactor at Metzamor to be put on stream for next winter because the International Atomic Energy Agency has inspected it and confirmed that "there is no technical objection" why it should not he brought into use.
When we last debated this subject in December last year, I said in my speech that Turkey had reneged on its contract to supply Armenia with some much-needed energy (Official Report, 15/12/92; col. 533). The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, speaking on behalf of the Government, contradicted me and made great play of how relations between Turkey and Armenia had so improved that Turkey had just signed a contract to supply electricity to Armenia (col. 548).
I forbore to dissent from that statement, feeling that the noble Baroness had behind her the full resources of the Foreign Office and must have more and better information than I. How wrong I was, and how wrong was the Minister's brief! I made diligent inquiry and found that from the moment of signature on that contract Turkey had pleaded technical difficulties over the supply, although refusing all offers of Armenian technical assistance to overcome the difficulties. Eventually, after running out of excuses, it was admitted that there were no technical difficulties and it had been a political decision to tantalise Armenia but never to supply one single watt of energy.
For the noble Baroness to have received a totally incorrect statement in her brief can only mean that the department is not kept aware of things that perhaps it should know. When one considers that Her Britannic Majesty's representative for the area is over 1,100 miles away, that deficiency becomes understandable. The embassy must be an easy prey to any planted misinformation issued by Ankara, Baku or international oil consortia hoping for concessions under the Caspian.
In a conversation I had with the ambassador of the United States in Yerevan, Mr. Gilmore, he expressed surprise that it had not been seen fit to appoint a British ambassador to Armenia as he himself was continually sending back valuable reports to Washington. I suppose that the answer that I shall receive to my request will start with the complaint, "Oh, but the Treasury" and so on. But I must say that I find it particularly shaming that poor, penniless, besieged Armenia can produce an ambassador at the Court of St. James while the once great Britain parsimoniously ducks the issue. Turkey has also refused to have an ambassador in Yerevan and that, together with the great loss of face in having championed the now routed Azeri rabble army, means that its influence is waning fast in that area.
I was very pleased to hear that Mr. Douglas Hogg paid a one-day visit to Armenia during his whistle-stop tour of the region. I hope that it may lead to a better understanding and appreciation of the real information about what is going on in the area.
In conclusion, is it not about time that we and the other Western nations realised that, despite the siege conditions imposed upon it by its neighbours, Armenia has been constant in its policies, has maintained a stable, democratic government and is struggling to pull itself up economically by its bootlaces from the particularly lousy deal that it is being dealt by its neighbours? That is in stark contrast to almost every other state in the old USSR, all of which are unstable and undemocratic with transient governments, sometimes aged in months only, and with all the best ingredients for chaos. Unlike almost every other country experiencing troubles around the world, Armenia's troubles are not internal nor are they self-inflicted. Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh are having their troubles forced upon them by their neighbours.
The simple logic which gives the lie to the misinformation, put out at great expense by sycophantic commercial interests, is that the Armenians both in Armenia and in the Nagorno-Karabakh do not want to "go" anywhere. They just want to be left alone in the land where they are and where they have been for centuries. Both Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh, with only 150,000 inhabitants, are economically viable and in the past regularly had export surpluses. So there is no question of interminable third world aid for them. The grit and determination which they have shown indicates that they will inevitably become the most stable, prosperous and leading community in that area, given the normal relations which they are entitled to expect from their neighbours.
The blockades are illegal in treaty, humanity and reason. The oil-financed propaganda should be seen for the misinformation that it is, even if it reaches right back

969
to the United Nations in New York. If it were not so undignified as well as hurtful to the brave people of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh, one would split one's sides with laughter at the sight of Western politicians grovelling in Baku and joining in the cry of the improvident, foolish virgins of old, "Give us of your oil"
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for giving us the opportunity to address these important issues and for the very robust and comprehensive way in which he did so. I especially congratulate him for speaking with the authority based on a visit to the areas affected, as is also the case with my noble friend Lord Pearson. For my contribution I wish to provide an overview of the developments which put the current situation in context and to raise a number of issues. I anticipate that my noble friend the Minister will highlight recent developments in which the Armenians of Karabakh have achieved some military successes and thereby have been condemned by the international community as aggressors, as the noble Earl said. They have also been pressurised to withdraw from the Azeri territory which they reluctantly had to occupy in self-defence.
I originally visited Armenia, Karabakh and Azerbaijan under the auspices of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation. We went with no prejudice. We tried to follow in the footsteps of Andrei Sakharov, who always tried to be on the side of the victim. I have now visited the area 16 times. The evidence we found has led us to view the Armenians of Karabakh as the primary victims in this tragic war. We believe that recent developments and future policy must be viewed in the light of that evidence.
Last winter was hell for the Armenian people in Armenia and Karabakh. In Armenia the blockades imposed by Azerbaijan created horrendous suffering as people struggled to survive that bitter winter, with temperatures 20 degrees below freezing, often without light, heat or energy to operate schools, bakeries and other essential services. As the noble Earl said, Turkey, which had promised to supply electricity, never allowed a single kilowatt to cross the border.
In Karabakh the Azeris were still trying to impose a military solution. During last year they escalated their military offensives against the Armenians of Karabakh with tanks and multiple missile Grad rocket launchers. In March of last year I counted 400 Grad rockets on a typical day raining down on the capital city of Stepanakert, pulverising the city and causing massive civilian casualties. In June, with Turkish help, the Azeris overran 40 per cent. of Karabakh—it is only 100 miles north to south and 50 miles east to west—forcing 80,000 Armenians to flee their homes and to converge on the devastated and starving city of Stepanakert or to flee into Armenia, paralysed by the blockades.
As the year progressed, the Azeris resorted to the use of aerial bombardment of civilians, with 500 kilogram bombs, then with cluster bombs and ground-to-air missiles detonated to explode with no warning over
970
civilian targets, shedding lethal shrapnel. In June of last year, the then President Elchibey of Azerbaijan claimed that if there was a single Armenian still living in Nagorno-Karabakh by October the people of Azerbaijan could hang him in the central square of Baku. I repeat that statement because I cannot think of a more unequivocal commitment to a policy of ethnic cleansing.
Last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister rightly condemned policies of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia. But the British Government seem to have been strangely silent when similar policies were being perpetrated by Azerbaijan against the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
In January of this year I returned with another 50-tonne cargo plane of essential supplies, sponsored by Christian Solidarity International, which helps victims of repression regardless of colour, creed or ideology. We have also taken aid to Azeri victims of the war. On this occasion we were taking medicines and baby milk powder into Nagorno-Karabakh. Travelling overland through the humanitarian corridor linking Armenia with Karabakh, we ran into a blizzard in the high mountains of Southern Armenia and were stranded for 20 hours in a snow drift.
We were not the only people trapped there in temperatures of −25°, which, with the chill factor of the wind, dropped effectively to −50°. Again and again our Karabakh host, Dr. Balayan—he has met Ministers here and that is why I mention him—risked his life in that howling blizzard to go out and bring in to our antiquated bus families trapped in cars who would never otherwise have survived that terrible night. During those dark, cold hours it occurred to me that that was a symbolic place to be, for it was the Armenian Christmas Eve and on the first Christmas Eve there was another family in the cold with nowhere to go.
That incident highlights the fact that the humanitarian corridor—a vital lifeline for the Armenians of Karabakh—is inherently hazardous. Not only are the road conditions dangerous (a colleague's truck had fallen 100 feet over the edge) but the corridor has also been systematically shelled by the Azeris. On one occasion a vehicle in a convoy ahead of ours was hit by a Grad rocket and all four occupants killed.
The Armenians of Karabakh were strongly condemned by the international community, including Britain, when they forged open that corridor through Azeri territory. But if there had been no blockades there would have been no need for a corridor. The international community had been relatively silent about the blockades and for a long time had done nothing practical to help the people of Karabakh suffering from them. Major aid organisations could not go into Karabakh, lacking invitations from the Azeri Government. So the Karabakhis were being abandoned to death by bombardment and starvation, cut off from essentials such as fuel, food and medicines. There were no anaesthetics for casualties with injuries such as burns, amputations, glass in eyes; and no analgesic, only vodka to try to alleviate the suffering of those

971
injuries. What were the Armenians of Karabakh supposed to do? Were they to watch their people suffer and die?
This year the Azeris built up large concentrations of troops around the corridor. In the Kelbadjar region they were within two miles of the road. If they had captured that corridor it would have been the end of Karabakh. The Karabakh forces had to fight or see that vital lifeline cut:. To their credit they repeatedly stopped their military advance to warn A zeri civilians and give them time to escape. That was in stark contrast to the Azeris. When they overran 40 per cent. of Karabakh last year they deliberately killed as many Armenian civilians as possible, shelling women and children as they fled and murdering those who could not escape. I have seen corpses of people whose heads had been sawn off by the Azeris when they overran their village.
Again, the Armenians of Karabakh were fiercely criticised for taking Azeri territory. Again I ask: what were they meant to do? Should they see their lifeline cut off and revert to a suicidal state of strangulation of essential supplies? Some Azeris who were wounded or who were stranded and fled into Karabakh have been well cared for by the Armenians. I have met them. The wounded, the women and children are grateful for the care that they have been given. Many describe how, when the Armenians approached the area, the Azeri men just escaped in jeeps and left them behind.
Heavy fighting continued this year through spring and summer, with many casualties on both sides. Then a peace agreement was brokered by Russia, the USA and Turkey. It was accepted reluctantly by the Karabakhis as it discriminated against them, requiring them to return the land they had taken in order to protect that vital corridor and giving them nothing tangible in return. But to promote peace—as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, emphasised, they want peace—they signed, although they argued that it was immoral of the international community to require concessions of the weaker side.
Then in June, almost before the ink on that agreement was dry, the Azeris broke the peace with heavy shelling of Stepanakert and aerial bombardment with SU25 fighter bombers. The Azeris denied those attacks, but international observers in Karabakh will testify to them. I and my colleagues were in the city at the time, near to the shells. We picked up fresh shrapnel as proof that those attacks occurred. The Azeris continued shelling Karabakh towns and villages from their own towns in Azerbaijan—Agdarn, Fizuli and Jabrail. The Karabakh forces eventually counter-attacked, neutralising those bases. Tragically there were more Azeri refugees. And again the international community severely criticised the people of Karabakh. But again I ask: what were the Karabakhis supposed to do? Should they remain passive and watch their women and children shelled, wounded and killed?
As the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, emphasised as a soldier, if your people are being attacked it is irresponsible not to defend them. If the Azeris' commitment to continuing to try to impose a military solution resulted in a Karabakhi counter-attack which left many Azeris homeless, it is the Azeri Government
972
who are predominantly to blame for the predicament of their own people—unless, that is, the international community puts such an overriding premium on the principle of territorial integrity that all human rights are to be sacrificed to it, including the right to life itself.
That leads into a discussion of some of the issues raised by the Karabakh conflict. First, I turn to humanitarian aid. Last year the people of Karahakh suffered appallingly, with little relief from major international relief organisations who were prevented from access because they depend on invitations from a sovereign government. More recently the people of Karabakh have received help, and I particularly wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for funding the vaccination programme for the Karabakh children whose physical development was found to be worse than that of the children of Bosnia. The vaccination programme has been carried out superbly by the new British organisation MERLIN. I know that the people of Karabakh are deeply grateful to the ODA and to MERLIN. They also appreciate the assistance given to a surgeon from Stepanakert to visit Britain to update his professional knowledge.
But humanitarian aid is only first aid and the priority must be a political solution to the conflict. Here I wish to raise the second issue of the asymmetry, even apparent hypocrisy, of the international community to the Karabakh conflict, with a deafening silence in response to gross Azeri violations of human rights against the people of Karabakh and against Armenia, with the imposition of blockades and a contrasting one-sided condemnation of the Armenians of Karahakh as they have struggled and fought for survival. Some even say that it is the Armenians of Karabakh who have carried out ethnic cleansing. That is ridiculous when one sees the conflict in the context of the indisputable evidence that Azerbaijan has been the primary aggressor for many years.
For decades the Azeris have systematically exploited and harassed the Armenians of Karabakh; then there were the cruel blockades; the brutal deportations in 1991, never denied; then the use of weapons of indiscriminate destruction against civilians. It is a miracle that the 150,000 Armenians of Karabakh have survived against 7 million strong Azerbaijan assisted by Turkey. It is only their courage, tenacity, commitment and sacrifice which have made it possible for them still to be living in their ancient land today.
Her Majesty's Government appear to me to have condoned Azerbaijan's escalation of military offensives against the people of Karabakh in terms of the principle of the inviolability of borders, affirmed by the CSCE. But in focusing almost exclusively on only one of the CSCE's twin pillars, there seems to have been a tendency to forget that other pillar—respect for human rights, the gross violation of which initially precipitated Karabakh's unilateral declaration of independence in 1991.
The first principle alone is a charter for states to discriminate against and to wage war on their own citizens with impunity. The international community needs urgently to give as much weight to protecting

973
human rights as it has done to protecting territorial integrity. It has so far failed conspicuously to do so in the Karabakh conflict.
I have to say that I have been deeply disappointed by the British Government's asymmetry of response to Azerbaijan and Karabakh. I visited the Foreign Office several times to urge the Government to remonstrate with the Azeris when they were perpetrating gross violations of human rights against the Armenians of Karabakh. But the British Government have remained relatively silent in any criticism of the Azeris, while being very ready to condemn the Armenians of Karabakh. One may surmise, as indeed the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has, that this asymmetry is perhaps not unrelated to the BP oil interest, which has prompted some senior British politicians to visit Azerbaijan, to give credibility, and not only credibility, to that regime when it was slaughtering the people of Karabakh with all the means at its disposal.
For example, when the Azeris started to use cluster bombs against the civilians of Karabakh—and I had seen the people wounded with shrapnel so deep that it could not be taken out—I asked the Foreign Office to try to persuade the Azeris to desist from this brutality and I drew attention to the very commendable initiative by the United States to amend its Freedom of Support Act so as to inhibit economic assistance to Azerbaijan until it lifted the blockades against Armenia and Karabakh. Britain refused to take a similar initiative. Instead, I was told by someone at a very high level in the Foreign Office that no country has an interest in another country—only interests; and we have oil interests in Azerbaijan. For the first time in my life, I felt deeply ashamed of being British.
The historian Christopher Walker seems to have summed up British foreign policy when he said that it appears to be shaped by commercial interests in Azerbaijan and strategic interests in Turkey. I understand the significance of both commercial and strategic interests. I do not undervalue them. But I hope that they will not override our concern for deeper moral and spiritual values. I do not believe that any country's well-being is promoted in the long-term by putting commercial self-interest before concern for human rights.
Coming back very briefly to the present, a fragile ceasefire has been holding generally, although it was broken a few days ago. The Russians had brokered direct negotiations between Azeri and Karabakh leaders. Talks under the aegis of the Minsk conference led to another peace plan, involving the return of Azeri territory by Karabakh and some lifting of blockades. Unfortunately, I understand that the Azeri participants rescinded their agreement at the last moment. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister for the latest information on these initiatives.
I also understand that President Aliev of Azerbaijan has said that the ceasefire is necessary for Azerbaijan to rebuild its army. Given such statements, and given all the violations of human rights which have been
974
perpetrated by Azerbaijan against the Armenians, there will be a need for massive confidence-building measures as a basis for any peaceful political solution.
If peace can be established and maintained, and if a political solution can be found, this could not only save the lives of countless Armenians and Azeris and prevent yet more man-made suffering; it could also be a historic precedent which might defuse many other conflicts in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in the world. It could provide a creative breakthrough in the impasse created by the current conflict between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination. There could be a real sign of hope here if such a creative initiative could be forged and implemented. But clearly any political solution will have to be acceptable to all parties concerned.
I was therefore disturbed by reports which describe the recent visit to Baku by my honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hogg which said that he had stated that Britain is seeking its own possibilities for settling the conflict and gives priority to Azerbaijan. If the British position is as partial as it sounds in that report, I cannot believe that it will help the other parties to have confidence in the delicate peace process. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could clarify the position taken by the British Government in Baku; and whether Mr. Hogg, in addition to celebrating good economic and political relations between Britain and Azerbaijan, also raised with the Azeris any issues concerning their infringements of human rights. I do not expect my noble friend to answer these questions today as I did not give advance notice, having been abroad. But I know that many people would appreciate clarification.
I conclude by emphasising that there is so much at stake in the war between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. I finish with a true story, of an Armenian from Getashen, the first village to suffer deportation by the Azeris. He recalled how, after witnessing the brutal deportation, seeing his people tortured, raped and murdered, he escaped and stayed back to defend his land. He climbed up the mountainside and came to an apricot tree which was in blossom. On the tree he saw hanging a five year-old Armenian girl, cut in two. He vowed revenge. But he described how, when the Armenians subsequently retook another village, he broke his vow because he could not bring himself to harm a child. When one of our delegation commented on his compassion and his dignity, he simply replied: "Dignity is a crown of thorns".
The people of Karabakh have been wearing their crown of thorns with great dignity. I hope that the international community, and especially the British Government, will not stand by and watch them, at some stage in the future, be condemned to death or deportation.
The Armenians who were massacred by Turkey in 1915 will never be forgotten. The people of Karabakh will also never be forgotten, whatever their future; for their struggle for survival has been a just struggle and they have already paid a high price for the freedom to live in their ancient historic homeland. Britain's role in shaping the outcome to this conflict will also be recorded by history. I hope therefore that the British

975
contribution to the outcome of this war will not be one dictated primarily by commercial and strategic self-interest but one in which respect for fundamental human rights is also demonstrated so that our record may become one of which we, our children and our grandchildren can become proud. I hope my noble friend will be able to reassure us on these issues.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I cannot hope to contribute to this debate with anything like the depth and recent knowledge which we have just heard from the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lady Cox, and so I shall be brief. I am also encouraged towards brevity by the knowledge that I have not been to Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia or Azerbaijan since July 1991, whereas both previous speakers have just visited the area. However, I believe my time spent in that troubled region, and my contacts with it since, do entitle me to support the speeches of the noble Earl and my noble friend. Indeed, one could say that the spring of 1991 saw the start of the present phase of what is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Soviet Union was still intact, and Mr. Gorbachev was actually in London for the G7 talks, from which he hoped for much. Probably because of this our multinational observation team, consisting of 14 people, was given unprecedented access in Nagorno-Karabakh by military helicopters, and we were flown in Soviet aircraft from Baku to Yerevan to Stepanakert and back. I had learnt of the joint Soviet-Azerbaijan policy of clearing the Armenian villages of Karabakh when I was in Moscow in May of 1991. It had apparently started around Easter that year. I can assure your Lordships that all members of our team went to the area with an open mind. Of course we all knew how much Armenia had suffered over many years, but we were still determined to report only what we saw.
When we left we were unanimous that a very grave outrage was being perpetrated against the Armenians of Karabakh. The aggressors were largely Azerbaijani OMON troops, supported massively by the Soviet 4th Army. Soviet Spetznaz troops were also very visible.
So I believe I am qualified to say that at this early stage of the present conflict Azerbaijan was undoubtedly the aggressor. I believe that it is also beyond doubt that Azerbaijan had already blockaded Nagorno-Karabakh for a year, and has continued to do so, or at least has tried very hard to do so, for the past three years. Furthermore, it seems to be a matter of fact that it was Azerbaijan which subsequently used weapons of indiscriminate destruction against civilian targets.
Since my visit, it is clear that the Armenians have put up a tremendous fight. Hugely outnumbered and outarmed, they have survived Azerbaijan's attempt to drive them all from Karabakh. Of course, the Armenians believe that they have right on their side. I have to say that it so happens that all impartial observers who have been to the region agree with them. Conviction and the truth are wonderful allies, and I have no doubt that they have served Armenia well.
Indeed, so successful has she been that some Western observers are now beginning to suggest that it is
976
Armenia which is the aggressor. I cannot help feeling, as the noble Earl and my noble friend have indicated, that these suggestions must be more influenced by our interest in Azerbaijan's oil than by any honest assessment of what is actually happening on the ground. Be that as it may, and I think it probably is, I have no reason to disbelieve the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lady Cox when they say that the Armenians have only taken the territory which they need to avoid Azerbaijan's blockade and to defend their own population. If my noble friend the Minister has another view on this point, I am sure that we should all like to hear from her. However, I have to point out that in our several debates on this tragic conflict not a single Member of your Lordships' House has come forward to defend Azerbaijan or to criticise Armenia. I am sure that there is a message in that.
Turning to Turkey's part in all this, I personally have no first-hand experience as to how Turkey may have been behaving, but again I have no reason to doubt the word of my noble friend Lady Cox and of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. I regard myself as a friend of Turkey; I have good Turkish friends, and I appreciate Turkey's strategic significance to all of us. It therefore hurts me to have to add my voice to those who ask that Turkey should also be encouraged to change her attitude to the problem we are discussing. I cannot believe she would lose much by doing so, and perhaps she would have much to gain.
I trust that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to agree that this is a good moment to press both Turkey and Azerbaijan to change their stance towards Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. I say this precisely because the Armenians of Karabakh are now in a position of comparative strength. I am assured by my Armenian friends that they are ready to talk peace, as indeed they have always been, and I would have hoped that Azerbaijan might now be in a frame of mind to do so as well, provided enough international pressure can be brought to bear and provided our international conscience is not put to flight by our interest in Azerbaijan's oil. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to agree.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the whole House will wish to echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. for the information which they have given us arid for affording us the opportunity to review again this tragic situation. Even those of us who do not seek to emulate quite their commitment to one point of view—because if we are to help we must retain the confidence of both sides—must commend their care in ascertaining the facts and their dedication to the relief of suffering.
Since we last debated this situation on 15th December last year, there have been two major changes on the scene. The first is that the people of Karabakh were then facing a military situation in which they were confronted by what seemed to be impossible odds; a

977
population of 160,000 faced a nation of 7 million. The Azeris, as the noble Baroness told us on that occasion, were,
"armed to the teeth with weapons taken from three major Soviet Fourth Army arsenals".—[Official Report, 15/12/92; col. 518.]
Admittedly, the people of Karabakh were being supported by Armenia, but the Armenians themselves were likely to need all their military resources for the defence of their own country. That was in December last year. Since then the forces of Karabakh have established a clear military dominance. The Azeri armed forces have virtually disintegrated. It is now they who are in need of a ceasefire.
The second major change is that back in December Azerbaijan was not a member of the CIS. Indeed, it had a government which wanted as little to do with Russia as possible. It seems to have been widely believed among the Azeri people that the forces against them were being reinforced from Russia, although I am bound to say that I have very little hard evidence of that. Now they have a president who wants a rapprochement with Russia and Azerbaijan is a member of the CIS. With both contestants as members of the CIS, there is a reasonable prospect that that organisation may be in a position, if it wishes, to play a helpful role in the peace process.
So the picture is very different from what it was at the time of our last debate. But we have to face the fact that since then there have been further tragedies, further wrongs and reprisals on both sides, to add to the long history of trespass and counter-trespass; of ruined lives and bitter memories which divide the two peoples.
Last year it could be said by the people of Karabakh that they were fighting to defend their own homeland. Now, as we have been reminded by all the previous speakers in this debate, they are occupying territory which extends well beyond their borders. I understand their reasons—of course I do. While there is a war going on it is not surprising that they occupied the positions from which they were being bombarded. In a war legal boundaries have little validity because the laws are silent. It is not surprising either that they are reluctant, while hostilities continue, to relinquish the Lachin corridor which is their lifeline to Armenia. The tragedy so often in these situations is that each side behaves as I suspect I would have behaved in their position.
But there are now Azeri communities outside the boundaries of Karabakh who have been displaced from their homes, who have been the victims admittedly of brutality and who will not easily forget. One of the many reasons why we have to be grateful to the delegation for their report is that they make it clear that among the Armenians of Karabakh there is a recognition that their forces were guilty of actions of which, on reflection, they are not proud. They offer two explanations. First, they say, their people were giving vent to anger at what the other side had done. Secondly, they say, that what they did was not of the same order as the atrocities committed by the other side. Those are arguments rehearsed tragically in very many parts of the world.
978
I do not seek to pass judgment. I have never suffered as they have suffered. It was good to read in the report the words of one of the leaders:
"We regret this and we will soon restore ourselves to our moral standards and the values of our civilisation".
But what is clear is that the longer the military action continues the greater the weight of bitterness between the two peoples with which those who seek a reconciliation will need to contend. It is idle to hope in a military struggle that the two sides will always be mindful of international humanitarian rules. War is not a game where players are constantly being reminded of the rules. Here, with each day of the war, the task of making peace becomes so much the more difficult.
So, what, if anything, can the international community do to help? The most obvious need is for the relief of individual suffering on both sides. I found one of the most moving passages in the report the interview with three displaced women from Arakul, who said:
"We want to return to our village, to put up a tent or a small house; but there isn't one rock left. We have no shoes, no dresses—nothing with which to build up our lives again".
There is nothing there about political theory—not even a clarion call about nationalism. They are simply human beings who want to get on with daily living without having their world constantly torn apart. Perhaps most moving was the explanation that they gave for the destruction of their homes and the absence of building materials. In that case it was not due to any calculated atrocities by the other side. They said:
"Ours was the closest village to Jabrail and the Azeris took the stones of our village homes to build their own homes in Jabrail".
There is an urgent need for relief and that entails lifting the blockade of Armenia by Turkey, and particularly the embargo on energy supplies. As the noble Earl pointed out, it appears that the Turkish action is an infringement of the Helsinki declaration to which they themselves were signatories. Again, the tragedy is that if the government of Turkey continue in that, they will be creating the instruments of their own future misfortunes, because it is partly in consequence of the blockade in relation to energy that the Armenians feel compelled to open the nuclear plant which is understandably giving rise to so much anxiety among Armenia's neighbours. But it is equally incumbent upon Armenia to allow supplies to Azeri refugees who, together with their homes, have lost their livelihoods.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, paid tribute to the vaccination programme, which I echo, and to the part played in it by Her Majesty's Government.
There are two matters on which I should welcome information from the Minister when she replies to the debate. In our last debate we were told that £250,000 had been contributed by the Government to the International Committee of the Red Cross for work in the area. Unhappily, it now appears from a report by Mr. Hugh Pope in the Independent of 29th September that the International Committee of the Red Cross feels obliged to make plans for years of work in the area. My first question is, can the noble Baroness tell us of any further provision that is being made in that direction? My second question in this part of the debate relates to the fact that we were also told that the Government were making available £200,000 to the High Commissioner

979
for Refugees in connection with a six-month programme. Presumably that programme is now complete, but the need is ongoing. I should be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us further about that.
What can the international community do to further the peace process? It is clear now that any peace process must fall into two stages: first, an effective ceasefire and then—and only then—discussions about the constitutional and international future of Karabakh. Both sides alike have everything to gain from a ceasefire. President Aliev has been negotiating for one, and the leaders of Karabakh have told the delegation that they want a ceasefire. There was a moment when I thought that this would have a tragic outcome when we read that the date agreed with the Minsk group had not been adhered to anti that the ceasefire had broken down. But perhaps we can take comfort from the information given to us today by the noble Earl that that was an aberration and the matter is now under control. It may be that the leaders on either side do riot have the control over their own troops which is to be hoped for in this situation.
If there were an unconditional ceasefire, then it would be possible to proceed with the next stage and negotiate about the future. And whatever help outsiders may then offer as conciliators, I believe that their most important contribution now is to refrain from suggesting what the outcome of the constitutional discussions ought to be. There really is no point in calling for negotiations and at the same time prescribing the conclusions which the negotiators ought to reach.
I do not want to introduce a controversial note into this debate, but I have to say that I regret that Her Majesty's Government have already announced their view that Karabakh should not emerge as an independent state. l was troubled in our last debate on this when the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, indicated that she did not regard that as one of the options. I do not suggest that that was the only option. I pass no judgment on the viability of Karabakh as an independent state, and I am as conscious as the Government that the world is becoming too fragmented and that what we need globally is not greater fragmentation, but greater unity. I concede all that. I suggest only that those are all considerations which will need to be addressed at the second stage of the process, and which will need to be addressed principally by those whose interests are most immediately involved. However, those on both sides who are seeking a ceasefire will not find their task facilitated by that kind of announcement from outside. I believe that we can best help not by announcing the conclusions that they ought to reach, but by inviting them to stop fighting and to start talking.
I do not believe that the negotiations will be easy. Each side will need to make concessions because that is what negotiations are about. Each side, no doubt, will see itself as being called upon to make the greater concession because that is always what happens on such occasions. I do not expect the discussions to result in a final solution of all their differences. I do not expect them to produce an agreed theology although many of us are discovering daily what a wide area of consensus
980
there is between, for example, the three great monotheistic faiths and the cultures which go with them.
These negotiations will not be about that. They will be about how peoples can live together in peace and, we hope, in co-operation in spite of their differences arid in spite of their different histories, cultures and faiths, because the future of this planet depends riot on all the peoples of the world becoming alike, not even on our all', finding a basis on which to agree, but on finding ways to live on the same planet despite our differences and despite our disagreements.
Initially, I do not think that the solution will be in the area of constitutional principle or international law. If the parties decide that they want to live together in peace, a whole spectrum of constitutional arrangements is available which will enable them to do that. But if they fail, the failure will not: be of the head; it will be of the heart.
We may find that interventions from outsiders will not always be welcome. I understand the feelings expressed to the delegation by the people of Karabakh. When they were facing potential military disaster, the outside world did not want to know. It was only when they began to win that the international community recognised a problem. It will require an effort to assure both sides that the world has understood their difficulties and their aspirations. But I do not believe that either side wants to see its people involved in a conflict of indefinite duration—a source of perpetual tragedy passed on from generation to generation when normality and crisis become synonyms.
Perhaps the greatest hope lies with the CIS although we can understand that the Russian authorities have other things on their minds at the moment. We have heard very little in recent months about the efforts made by the CSCE or any programme from the Minsk group. I am sure that the House will be grateful for any information that the Minister can give us about those efforts.
This is yet another instance where the international community cannot yet act as a global police force to impose law and order, although I believe that the time may be closer than we sometimes believe when our progeny will regard that as the most natural order of things just as we perceive the activities of a national legal system. If they do not, there may be very little hope for the planet; but until then it is frustrating that there is so little that we can do to help. Until the peacemakers inherit the earth—I am aware that I am mixing my beatitudes—we shall all have cause to be grateful to individuals who, like the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, do what lies in the power of individuals: to inject compassion and sanity.
6.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lady Cox for again bringing this complex and important issue to our attention. Their knowledge of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and the situation in the region, and

981
their concern for the suffering of the people, are well known. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, are right when they talk about needing to find a way forward and not, however sympathetic we may be to the people, to come down on one side or the other.
Behind the remarks of the noble Earl lies the terrible human tragedy of the fighting, and the need to redouble our efforts to find a peaceful solution to this tragic conflict is both urgent and, many will say, long overdue.
The full cost of the conflict was brought home vividly to my right honourable friend Mr. Hogg during his recent visit to the Transcaucasus earlier this month. He has geographical responsibility for the region and for both Armenia and Azerbaijan. During his visit, he had talks with many of the key figures, including the presidents and foreign ministers of both countries and representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh. In his talks the dominant topic was obviously Nagorno-Karabakh. He was briefed on the measures being implemented to help the people face the winter. One of the things that came out of his discussions was the fact that those in Yerevan in Armenia thought that there was now a real opportunity to reach a settlement. I shall return to the question of the CSCE process a little later. They felt that by bringing together the CSCE, and the Russian efforts which seemed to be emerging, there might be the possibility of real, long-term security guarantees for Nagorno-Karabakh. I am aware that the Armenians' view is that it would mean the deployment of peacekeepers, probably mainly Russian, but with a clear international mandate and control.
The war weariness which is discernible among all peoples in that region may now be creating that necessary window for diplomacy. We in this country are concerned to do all that we can to assist the process. We are actively considering joining the CSCE Minsk group ourselves. That group has been working to set up negotiations leading to a peaceful settlement, but none of us is in any doubt that it will not be easy. The continuing occupation—because that is what the Azeris believe it to be—of the Azeri territory between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia is obviously a complicating factor. So was last week's fighting on the ground, which everyone has strongly condemned. I believe too that a hardening in Nagorno-Karabkh's insistence on independence is another problem with which we have to deal. But the negotiations must continue, and Britain will play its full part in the search for solutions acceptable to all.
In the Question that we are debating, the noble Earl and my noble friend Lady Cox highlighted the economic blockades on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. We deplore the blockade imposed upon Armenia by Azerbaijan and Turkey, as well as the Armenian blockade on Nakhichevan in Azerbaijan. None of that blockading will lead to a solution. It only makes it harder to reach a solution, whoever does the blockading. As your Lordships will be aware, the United Kingdom has urged all states in the region to allow at least. the transit of humanitarian aid through their territory.
982
But the plain fact that we have to face is that all the offensives in the region, whether by Nagorno-Karabakh or the repeated attacks by Azeris, have called into question the overall readiness to work for a negotiated peace rather than for one side or the other to continue the war. It is not easy to believe that some Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians have been able to prosecute the war without outside assistance. That makes it even more difficult to argue that the blockade against Nagorno-Karabakh should be lifted, as indeed it should, when those Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians resist the efforts of the CSCE Minsk process to broker a peace settlement. Everyone has to join in the Minsk process otherwise a settlement will not be achieved and many thousands more innocent people will die and will suffer.
The whole of the problem makes it difficult to argue that the blockade of Armenia can be lifted in face of the ongoing suspicions in the region. We do not know who is lending support to whom, although we have some good ideas, thanks to the work of my noble friend Lady Cox.
I was struck by one of the quotations in the report of the group which visited the area. It is the only quote I shall give, but I believe that it is illustrative of what I have just been saying. The Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh admit that they have undertaken some wanton damage and destruction especially in Agdam. As one of the leaders said:
"We could not restrain our people from giving vent to so much anger, accumulated over years of destruction of our towns and villages. For the moment we have been as bad as the Azeris, but we regret this, and we will soon restore ourselves to our moral standards and the values of our civilisation and stop such behaviour".
He continues:
"The destruction is nothing like as bad as the sustained and wilful destruction inflicted by the Azeris".
That is a fair point, because each side that destroys the property and lives of the other is perpetuating what is a totally unwinnable situation. I know that my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Earl care greatly about bringing this problem to a peaceful conclusion.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox about what she said about aid in the region. Since December last year we have announced another £1.5 million in aid. The European Community has approved humanitarian aid for Armenia totalling nearly £11 million this year, as well as aid for some Azeri refugees following the recent offensives. Further assistance may follow. I am looking at the whole situation, as my noble friend asked, but at the Dispatch Box today I cannot give her any answers, and will be unable to do so for some weeks to come. But the aid will help in the short term only to alleviate the consequences of the blockade and the fighting. That aid will not put those people back on their feet. The long-term solution will come about only as part of the overall peace settlement in which confidence-building measures will play an important part. That is not just the view of the British Government; it is the view also of the Minsk group and it is why its peace plan contemplates a lifting of the Azeri blockade in step with the withdrawal of Nagorno-Karabakh troops from the occupied territories. I fully understand that that linkage causes the Azeris at least as many difficulties as it does

983
the Armenians. However, in the real world it is hard to imagine either party agreeing to lose what they see as their main negotiating advantage without some balancing concession. The United Nations Security Council accepted that view in its Resolution 874 on 14th October calling for the,
"immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group's 'adjusted timetable', including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation".
The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, was concerned that the United Nations resolutions had not been critical of Azerbaijan. I remind the noble Earl that in the Security Council, three resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh in April, July and October have called for an immediate end to the blockade, and immediate withdrawal of the Nagorno-Karabakh forces from Azerbaijani territory. But, above all else, the resolutions have called on all states to refrain from hostile actions and to co-operate to settle the dispute peacefully.
I am not in the business of apportioning blame or of seeking to make excuses for things which have gone wrong in the past. My concern—I believe that it is the concern of all those involved in the CSCE process—is to resolve this terrible situation. That includes the United Nations Secretary-General. He has sent several fact-finding missions to the region. He believes that we shall not do better than the CSCE Minsk Group as the right forum for negotiation. Therefore it is not a case of the UN not becoming involved but of the best people to try to resolve the situation.
I understand that among the members of the CSCE group—it includes Turkey, Russia, Sweden, Italy, France and Czech republic—there is a real belief that they could now make progress forward. They too believe that nothing would be gained by switching negotiations to the United Nations.
Similarly, the British Government believe that any future monitoring peace-keeping force should be employed under the CSCE aegis rather than through the United Nations. I am told that the CSCE thinking on that has reached an advanced stage. When we have further information, I undertake to write with it to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. However, the real point is that such a course seems to be the one way forward. It is not only for that reason but because we wish to play a more active part that we are considering joining the Minsk Group.
In our debate last December, my noble friend Lady Cox accused my noble friend Lady Trumpington of a silence on ethnic cleansing. At col. 545 of the Official Report of 15th December 1992 my noble friend stated:
"I must make clear that ethnic cleansing of any sort anywhere is completely deplorable, but the picture in Nagorno-Karabakh is not clear-cut."
She spoke of the numbers. Let me make it clear beyond all peradventure. Ethnic cleansing is wrong and there is no way in which we, for any reason, are prepared to see ethnic cleansing and we will do all in our power to stop it. But the best way of stopping it is by getting the parties to the dispute to decide that they themselves want to bring ethnic cleansing to an end.
984
In his interesting speech, the noble Earl made a number of fairly bitter criticisms about the United Kingdom's position on Nagorno-Karabakh. Like the rest of the international community, we recognise the independence of the countries of the former Soviet Union on the basis of the existing republican borders. Whether we like it or not, under international law the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh is still Azeri territory. That insistence on the inviolability of frontiers was recognised in successive UN resolutions. The UK position is in line with that of other Western countries. The principle of the inviolability of existing borders is recognised by the international community. It is also a basic principle of the CSCE. If we were to throw that away, there would be absolute chaos in the current situation even if, in the future, countries may decide, as did Eritrea by its own referendum, to become separate. But at the present time there is no means of achieving that situation.
We will not prejudge the results of those Minsk negotiations on the future of Nagorno-Karabakh. On the contrary, we shall align our policy with our partners in the Minsk process because we wish to see peace. I am glad to say that during the two-day visit to Armenia by my right honourable friend Mr. Hogg. none of the Armenian leaders nor the Nagorno-Karabakh representatives has questioned the British position. They have understood it for what it is.
The noble Earl also made considerable criticism of the Western media and indeed of the British Government for being interested in the oil in Azerbaijan. I believe that Britain is right to be pleased that a British company is a member of the consortium which will help Azerbaijan to develop its oil fields. We also want to see opportunities to work with the Armenians in Armenia. However, the only key to transition from communism will be economic progress. That means that all countries trying to break away from the past must find sensible trading ways of unlocking their economic potential. Therefore there is nothing wrong in Britain being supportive of British companies wherever they go. I can assure my noble friend Lady Cox that the British Government are not taking an asymmetrical response, as my noble friend put it. We are looking for opportunities wherever they can be used for the benefit of the countries concerned. If British companies have the know-how to give that help, then British companies are well advised and supported in so doing.
Many other points have been made in the debate. It is a great temptation to deal with each and every one of them. However, I wish now to turn to the question of power and the fact that one of the greatest difficulties in the region is that, through the blockade imposed by Turkey on Armenia, the Armenians have been without electricity. We have called on Turkey and the other states to allow humanitarian aid. Power is needed for humanitarian reasons too; it is not outside it. However, as noble Lords will well know, relations between Armenia and Turkey are fraught with historical animosity. The position has recently been hardened by the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenian incursions into Azerbaijan. Therefore it is not an easy situation to solve.

985
We must look at how we can help to bring all those problems to an end and, at the same time, allow the Armenians to have power.
One of your Lordships referred to the Medzamor nuclear power station in Armenia. It is probably well known that that lies on a geological fault line. That was the reason that it was switched off after the 1988 earthquake. But the European Community has funded a safety study of that power station and we hope that, before they come to a decision, the Armenian Government will take account of the outcome of the work which the European Community has done there and that of other studies. We realise the sensitivity of the issue and we are trying to help.
My noble friend Lady Cox spoke of attacks on the oil pipeline supply to Armenia. I know that that pipeline was blown up on several occasions in Azeri populated areas of Georgia. I must say to my noble friend that, even when that pipeline is repaired, the current chaos in Georgia will make it extremely difficult for regular supplies to get across. But through the European Community we have agreed to supply fuel aid to Armenia, subject to the guarantee that it will be used for civilian humanitarian purposes. Supplies should begin very shortly. Therefore, I hope that that may in some way go towards helping in what is a very difficult situation.
I implied at the beginning of my reply to the debate that it is not our role to apportion blame. We must use our influence on the situation as it is. We must not take one side or the other or take the side that we think it should be. It is important to look forward and build on what the CSCE has tried to do.
We want to be positive. Certainly any changes to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh can happen only with the agreement of all. We well know that Azerbaijan will not simply cede independence. That is why it is very sad that this evening, after 10 months, we can say that there have been few positive developments. There have been far too many setbacks. But I have some hope. The informal ceasefire which came into force in August has been a plus, despite the recent serious violations. We call on all sides to withdraw their forces and to co-operate with the Minsk negotiating process. We need to step up our efforts for a lasting peace.
I hope that the conference will at last be held in Minsk. The preparations have been taking place for a very long time. The one thing that I say to your Lordships is that, as in so many other vexed situations like this, no outsider can impose a solution, whether through the CSCE or any other forum. What we can and will do, and are already doing, is to work tirelessly to bring together the parties and to encourage them to make those concessions needed for a durable settlement. Lifting the blockades on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh will be an important part of that process. But to achieve that, historic compromises will have to be made both by Armenia and by Azerbaijan if they really want peace.
We are ready, willing and anxious to do all that we can. I only hope that the peoples of the area will be ready to have discussions before another winter takes the toll
986
of many thousands of victims of the conflict, because we shall be in an even more difficult situation in the spring of 1994. I have hope. We shall work at it. I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward the debate this evening.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, given that the Minsk process can succeed only if it produces a viable solution on the ground and given the isolation and the need for some quasi independence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the need to appease those around it, will my noble friend consider, perhaps in consultation with other countries, the direction of development aid to the region to secure the economic viability of the areas concerned? That could be made known to the conference before it concludes so that it could be seen as an option.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hoped that I had said in answer to my noble friend Lady Cox that I am quite prepared to look at what more we can do. But I must say to your Lordships that, until the fighting stops, we cannot even go in to make an assessment of what will be the most applicable development aid. Therefore, willing as I am to help people to help themselves—that is what development aid is all about—we cannot proceed down that path until the Minsk process is under way. It will be known that we are willing to help although it may not be an area of which we have great experience. However, before anything effective can occur, the fighting must stop. Let us hope that the Minsk process can quickly begin and produce a thoroughly good result.

British Railways (No. 4) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House: That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 4) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session, the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That their shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House: That the Promoters of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees clue on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

London Underground (Green Park) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—That the Promoters of the London Underground (Green Park) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later
988
than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in Session 1991–92 or the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1991–92 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Croydon Tramlink Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders: That the Promoters of the Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bib which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders: That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Humber Bridge Bill [H.L.]
London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons that they agree with the resolution of this House of 26th October.
Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Bill

King's Cross Railways Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have considered the Lords Message of 26th October and have made the following orders: That the Promoters of the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill, the Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Bill and the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

  WEST BANK AND GAZA: FUNDS PAID TO UNRWA
  WEST BANK AND GAZA: FUNDS PAID TO UNRWA
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: NOMINEES TO COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: NOMINEES TO COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
  WOMEN PRIESTS: EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL PATRONAGE
  WOMEN PRIESTS: EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL PATRONAGE
  PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE
  PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE
  STUDENT SUPPORT COSTS
  STUDENT SUPPORT COSTS
  STUDENTS: THE 21-HOUR RULE
  STUDENTS: THE 21-HOUR RULE
  PIT BULL TERRIORS
  PIT BULL TERRIORS
  "GUINNESS" TRIAL: PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY
  "GUINNESS" TRIAL: PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY
  ARRESTS: PRESS AND TELEVISION PRESENCE
  ARRESTS: PRESS AND TELEVISION PRESENCE
  PRISONS: MINISTERIAL VISITS
  PRISONS: MINISTERIAL VISITS
  GULF WAR: MERCHANT SHIP CHARTERS
  GULF WAR: MERCHANT SHIP CHARTERS
  BOSNIA: MERCHANT SHIP CHARTERS
  BOSNIA: MERCHANT SHIP CHARTERS
  BEER AND CIDER MEASURES
  BEER AND CIDER MEASURES
  GENERAL MEDICAL PRACTICES
  GENERAL MEDICAL PRACTICES
  PREPACKED GOODS: SIZE CONTROL
  PREPACKED GOODS: SIZE CONTROL
  RAILWAY PRIVATISATION: INSTRUCTIONS TO FRANCHISING DIRECTOR
  RAILWAY PRIVATISATION: INSTRUCTIONS TO FRANCHISING DIRECTOR