Sitting of 8 February 1994

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

  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Stephen David Wyatt Milligan, esquire, Member for Eastleigh, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    NATO Summit
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the NATO summit.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The NATO summit successfully set the agenda for the alliance to meet the challenge of enhancing European stability. Alliance leaders launched a partnership for peace in which the emerging democracies of eastern Europe will be able to develop a deeper relationship with the alliance through practical military and political co-operation.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that encouraging answer. Would he care to comment on the recent trilateral meeting with France and Germany which took place in London? Does he agree that that may well help Britain to play a leading role in the emerging European security and defence initiative?
    Mr. Rifkind: My recent meetings with my French and German colleagues provided a useful opportunity for informal exchanges of views about a wide range of issues. Perhaps the most interesting information that was shared at the meeting was the decision that the French Government have reached to join the military committee of NATO, in which they have not fully participated since the days of General De Gaulle. They also expressed an intention to participate in informal meetings of Defence Ministers. We welcome that closer association of France with the workings of the alliance, as it is especially important that the views of the French should be available when subjects such as peacekeeping, partnership for peace, counter-proliferation and other matters of that type are being discussed.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: If a non-NATO country joins the European Union and becomes a full member of the Western European Union, what will its relationship be with NATO?
    Mr. Rifkind: They are obviously separate alliances, but it is assumed that, as countries move towards membership of the European Union, if they also wish to consider a closer association with NATO the two would naturally seem to go together, as would involvement in the Western European Union. It is obviously better that there is common membership so far as possible, but that will depend on the pace of progress, not only for the European Union but for other matters relating to military integration.
    Mr. John Marshall: Do the NATO leaders recognise that there will never be a negotiated peace in the former Yugoslavia so long as there is a huge imbalance in firepower there, and is that not an irrefutable reason for lifting the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Muslims can have a chance to defend themselves?
    Mr. Rifkind: It has been the policy of the United Nations for many years, not only in relation to the former republic of Yugoslavia, that when wars take place it would be inappropriate for the United Nations to take sides in a conflict of that type or to encourage the supply of arms to any of the combatants.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: One of the most welcome results of the NATO summit was the commitment to open Tuzla airport, which would greatly enhance the credibility of the United Nations and greatly assist the humanitarian effort in central Bosnia. What steps have the Government taken, either on their own or with their NATO allies, to implement that commitment? Is it understood that for Tuzla airport to be opened and kept open will require not only air power but the deployment of forces on the ground, possibly up to brigade strength?
    Mr. Rifkind: Two decisions were taken at the NATO summit. One decision was to ensure the relief of Srebrenica, where it has not been possible for the Canadians to be relieved by other UNPROFOR forces. The second decision was to call for an urgent study of ways of opening Tuzla airport. The Dutch have now sent an advance party into Srebrenica and it is believed that the relief operation will be completed during this month. We obviously still need to study the results of the further work that has been commissioned with regard to the opening of Tuzla airport.

    Bosnia
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently serving in Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: There are at present some 2,300 troops serving on the ground in former Yugoslavia, of which some 1,500 are based in Bosnia-Herzegovina supported by the remaining 800 in Croatia. I returned this morning from a visit to Bosnia, including Sarajevo, where I have seen personnel of all three services hard at work in the former Yugoslavia as well as the Adriatic and Italy. It is clear from my own experience that, despite the difficult and

    127
    dangerous conditions in which they operate, our forces continue to make a vital contribution to UNPROFOR in the performance of its humanitarian mission.
    Dr. Spink: In the light of his recent visit to Bosnia, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in paying tribute to all the British forces with the United Nations for their courage and skill in delivering the humanitarian aid that has probably saved about half a million lives in Bosnia and is certainly protecting thousands of lives now? Is he aware that senior officers in Bosnia are fully satisfied with the current scope of their operations, and will he refrain from taking any action in the short term which, although it might give instant gratification, would, in the longer term put at greater risk the people of Bosnia, the United Nations and British troops?
    Mr. Rifkind: I warmly endorse my hon. Friend's tribute to the work of the British and other United Nations forces. He is right to say that that has a crucial impact on the saving of lives. The Bosnian Prime Minister, whom I saw in Sarajevo two days ago, stressed that without that humanitarian aid the people of Sarajevo would have starved over the past year. It is, therefore, important that in any new initiative being considered we continue to attach the highest importance to the United Nations being able to meet the crucial humanitarian requirements of the people of Bosnia, not only in Sarajevo but elsewhere in that country.
    Mr. Mullin: Air strikes alone will achieve nothing in Bosnia. They will have to be matched by a commitment of ground forces if anything is to change. To pretend otherwise is just a gimmick, so why are those who were so keen to commit ground forces in the Gulf to reinstate the tyranny in Kuwait not at all enthusiastic about doing so in what would be a much better cause?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion goes against all military advice and military common sense. The fundamental distinction between Bosnia and both the Falklands and the Gulf is that the latter territories had been invaded by foreign armies, so when all other means had been exhausted it was possible to expel the aggressor by military means and send him back where he came from—from the Falklands to Argentina, and from Kuwait to Iraq. As the hon. Gentleman must be aware, the vast majority of the people involved in the fighting in Bosnia are themselves Bosnians, whether they be Serbs, Croats or Muslims, and have shared the same villages and communities. Therefore, whichever community they come from, there is no way in which an external army could expel them from their own country.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that those most keen to be first in, such as the Front-Bench spokesmen of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, are often also first out, as was seen during the Falklands crisis? If we were to intervene militarily it would be at the expense of our relief work in Bosnia and we should run the risk of becoming bogged down in the Balkans—something which successive British Governments have avoided for a century.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly true that any initiative under consideration at present, or that may be advocated by anyone with an interest in such matters, should fulfil two requirements: it must be consistent with the need to show
    128
    political leadership and political will, but that political will and leadership must be rooted in sound military judgment. If it is not so rooted, it will be a cruel deception on the people for whom it is designed. It is, therefore, essential that both those criteria be satisfied before any new initiative is taken.
    Dr. David Clark: Following the appalling and meaningless slaughter in Sarajevo at the weekend, does the Secretary of State accept that one positive way forward would be to demilitarise and internationalise Sarajevo, making it a true safe area? Will the Government join in an ultimatum to the Serbs to the effect that if they do not accede to that request they must face the consequences of air strikes?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows that these matters are currently being considered by the United Nations. Of course, we all share his reaction to the atrocity in Sarajevo on Saturday: it was an act of pure terrorism against women and children and must be seen in that light. What we must now consider is whether action that might be taken can meet our various objectives: the continuation of aid, which most people accept as being highly desirable; the need to try to influence the behaviour, particularly of the Serbs but also of other factions, with regard to the commitment of military and other atrocities; and our obligation as a national Government in the protection of our own forces, who are already doing a very difficult task in Bosnia. I hope that the whole House will agree that it would be unwise to follow any initiative that would put in jeopardy those other requirements.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is it not significant that the recently appointed American Secretary of State for Defence has said that, when considering air strikes, attention should be paid to the fact that the 22,000 lightly armed United Nations troops on the ground are surrounded by 200,000 combatants who are capable not only of fighting a war but of winning it? In those circumstances, does my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the new realism of the American Government? Will he give an assurance that that sense of realism will prevail and that if the Americans wish to contribute more to the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia they are welcome to do so?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the views of Mr. William Perry, the new American Defence Secretary, whom I met in Germany on Saturday. As my hon. Friend indicated, Mr. Perry confirmed that it was his view that all countries must take account of the need to ensure the safety of United Nations forces currently in Bosnia, and that it was important, before any conclusions were reached, to take into account the advice of the military commanders in Bosnia, who clearly have an awesome responsibility which must be an important factor in the considerations currently under way in the United Nations and elsewhere.

    Low-rent Accommodation
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the supply of low-rent accommodation for ex-service personnel and their families.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): My Department works closely with

    129
    housing associations and the Housing Corporation to ensure that service leavers have access to low-cost housing.
    Mr. Miller: I am sure that the Minister will accept that the recent £150 million cut in local authority credit approvals and the £334 million cut in housing association capital expenditure will inevitably lead to a reduction in affordable housing. I am sure that the Minister will also accept that the Ministry of Defence has some 15 per cent. of void properties, while the figure for local authorities is currently 1·9 per cent. Is that the way to treat people who have risked their lives in the interests of the country when their pay and conditions are being cut?
    Mr. Hanley: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Housing Corporation has suffered funding restraints for 1994–95. That will mean a reduction in the availability of some low-cost opportunities; I do not deny that. The joint service housing advice office does a tremendous amount of work in providing housing for people leaving the armed forces. There is a wide range of attractive schemes. Nomination rights have been worked out recently with a number of local councils, including Portsmouth, Chatham, Shrewsbury, Bristol, Plymouth and Doncaster, and negotiations are under way in East Anglia and Berkshire. The authorities have provided 925 housing units, which have been returned to the associations in exchange for 469 nomination places. There is also a do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme. A recent survey of those leaving the armed forces showed that nearly 80 per cent. intend to own their own homes, and we are helping with low-cost solutions to that, too.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that when service men leave the armed forces prematurely or when there is a divorce, there is a tendency for the family to apply to the local authority where they are currently based? That places an intolerable burden on garrison towns such as Gosport, which I represent. Will my hon. Friend ask the Department of the Environment to review the circular in which it asks local authorities to give priority to service personnel even if they originally come from other local authority areas? That would relieve the pressure on garrison towns.
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. There is, of course, additional pressure on garrison towns. That is why most of our initiatives are centred in garrison towns. I will willingly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is looking at the matter closely.
    The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned that a number of houses are left unoccupied by the armed forces. It is right to stress that we have pressures in the armed forces which are not present in district and local councils, inasmuch as we need to have housing that is not only refurbished, but available for occupation at short notice—possibly by large numbers of people. However, we try to keep the number of empty homes down to a minimum and we have sold many in the past year.

    United Nations Operations
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the ability of the British armed forces to contribute to United Nations operations.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): We shall continue to ensure that our forces are well trained and well equipped for present and future United Nations operations. Britain's armed services are already regarded as one of the finest peacekeeping forces in the world.
    Mr. Connarty: At a time when there is talk in the European Union of air strikes and when France is talking about possibly pulling out if something is not done, does the Minister accept that there is a suspicion that it is the overstretch in the British armed forces that is making them unable as well as unwilling to commit other troops? Does he accept that it is difficult for United Nations staff to draw up contingency plans when member states such as the United Kingdom will not identify troops that will be available? When will he reply to the letter from NATO asking the Government what troops they are willing to commit to a peace initiative in Bosnia?
    Mr. Aitken: There is no suggestion that if the commanders of our contingent in Bosnia or the United Nations commanders ask for a certain number of troops they will be denied them.
    Mr. Colvin: How many of our Territorial Army units are currently involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations? Does the Minister agree that if we are to fulfil role 3, as set out in the defence White Paper, it is important that our Territorial Army becomes the first line of reserve in the British Army, rather than the last as at present? Will my hon. Friend bear that in mind when he considers his response to the current consultation document, "The Future of Britain's Reserve Forces"?
    Mr. Aitken: No territorial units are involved in United Nations operations at present, although individuals from the Territorial Army are involved. My hon. Friend's more general point is currently under active consideration.
    Dr. David Clark: Bearing in mind that air strikes alone, without the use of ground troops, have never resolved a war, does the Minister recall the United Nations Secretary-General calling last June for an extra 7,500 troops for Bosnia, of which only 2,800 have materialised? Is the reason why no United Kingdom troops were offered the fact that none was available because of overstretch? If that is the case, will the Minister ensure that an approach is made at the North Atlantic Council meeting this week to ask the United States to send ground troops to augment the United Nations presence as part of a new strategy which could involve air strikes?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have noted that we are the biggest contributor of troops to the UNPROFOR contingent at present. Our contribution is good in terms of numbers. The other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred are matters for the United States Government. I am sure that they will be discussed at the forthcoming North Atlantic Council meeting.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the first question to ask before committing British troops to supporting military action under the United Nations is whether a British national interest is involved? British troops should not be asked to risk their lives in some vague activity directed towards our becoming some form of world policeman.
    Mr. Aitken: I think that my hon. Friend underestimates the fine job of humanitarian duty that the British troops are now doing in Bosnia. Of course, in general terms, one of the considerations that has to be borne in mind in any military action is the degree of national interest on behalf of Her Majesty's Government's forces.

    Nuclear Weapons Arsenal
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal following the ending of the cold war.
    Mr. Aitken: The Government have already announced substantial reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear forces and weapons, including a cut of more than 50 per cent. in our sub-strategic stockpile.
    Mr. Cohen: Instead of the Government's creative accountancy in the area, will the Minister consider how other countries view Trident? Especially since the non-proliferation treaty is coming up for extension next year, would an equivalent Minister of another country consider doubling the strategic warheads, as 96 strategic warheads per Trident submarine have replaced 48 per Polaris submarine? Has not the Home Office recently disbanded the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation which existed to detect nuclear blasts and radiation, travelling around the country in the course of its work? Has the Home Office disbanded it because it believes that there is no need for it—and if there is no threat, why do we need Trident?
    Mr. Aitken: The House is used to listening to the unreconstructed voice of old-fashioned unilateralism from the hon. Gentleman. When it comes to accountancy matters, the hon. Gentleman has his figures seriously wrong. When the Trident submarines are fully in service, the explosive power of Britain's operational total of strategic and sub-strategic nuclear inventory will even then be substantially lower than before the Berlin wall came down. It would be a reduction of more than 25 per cent.
    Mr. Booth: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the past year, £27 million of British taxpayers' money was spent in Russia on dismantling nuclear equipment and transporting it away? Is that not an example of the generosity of Britain and the good sense of the Government which deserves credit?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point, with which I agree. It was an imaginative gesture by the Government and we gave slightly more to the Government of Russia than my hon. Friend suggested—some £35 million in total—so that they could build, or have built for them by GKN in Britain, safe carriers to move their nuclear weapons to places of safety.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State personally received the petition handed
    132
    to the Ministry of Defence on 27 January by Grandparents' Action Against Trident? Will he also confirm that the Secretary of State has read the petition and understood the arguments against what the grandparents call Trident madness? Does he especially understand the basic point that it is unsustainable for the Government to argue that nuclear weapons are essential to the national defence of this country while, at the same time, arguing that nuclear weapons should be outlawed for the defence of almost every other country?
    Mr. Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend's private secretary received the petition and has given it to my right hon. and learned Friend. On the second point, I simply cannot agree. It is still an uncertain and dangerous world and a minimum nuclear deterrent is essential ultimately to safeguard Britain's security.

    Drugs Tests
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce random tests on service men for drugs.
    Mr. Hanley: The armed forces are currently considering the introduction of compulsory drug testing of personnel on a random basis.
    Mr. Townsend: May I encourage the Minister to continue in that direction? Is he aware that many service men, especially those serving in dangerous occupations such as on submarines, would welcome random tests and believe that they would be a useful precaution, bearing in mind the immense expense of equipment which is in the hands of young service men.
    Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. The Army has carried out two studies, one in Berlin and one in the United Kingdom, into compulsory drug testing on a random basis and I hope to see the results of those tests shortly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that being a member of the armed forces is different from being a civilian. Soldiers have greater responsibilities in that they often operate with weapons, ammunition, explosives and heavy vehicles, often in difficult or dangerous circumstances. At sea and in the air, they are responsible for extremely expensive equipment. The consequences of being impaired by drugs are much greater for them than for those in most civilian occupations. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend—we must make progress.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern among fishermen in the Clyde and elsewhere of the dangers posed to fishing boats by submariners who may be taking drugs, especially on United States submarines? Will he raise this matter urgently with the United States Secretary for Defence?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman has been most devious in getting in his question. He knows that we have recently announced a SUBFACT scheme and that the code of conduct operates in his area. He is right in one regard—if any submariner were influenced by drugs or under the effects of drugs, it would be severely dangerous, as it would be if a fisherman were under the same effects.
    Mr. Hargreaves: If my hon. Friend is considering that course of action, will he advise his colleagues in his Department that they should also look carefully at the

    133
    possibility of service men taking anabolic steroids, as they are most certainly proven to be connected with violent, if not criminal, behaviour?
    Mr. Hanley: I can assure my hon. Friend that if a member of the services were found to be taking anabolic steroids, he would be liable to administrative discharge.
    Mr. Martlew: I agree with much of what the Minister said, but does he agree that the emphasis should be placed on prevention rather than on detection and that what we need is schemes that give rehabilitation for, education on, and prevention of, the use of drugs by the armed forces? Is it correct that the Government have allowed the resources for such schemes to be cut recently? Will the Minister give the House the commitment that resources will be made available for those schemes to allow our service personnel, many of whom serve in dangerous areas such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia, to resist the temptation of illegal drugs?
    Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman said: it makes a nice change. The armed forces provide lectures, videos, posters and a whole range of measures aimed at preventing members of the armed forces from taking drugs and, indeed, alcohol.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to withdraw United Kingdom forces from Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: British forces will continue through the winter to support the United Nations in carrying out its humanitarian mandate. No decisions have yet been taken about the deployment of British forces thereafter.
    Mr. Brandreth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and welcome his tribute to our troops for what they have already achieved in the former Yugoslavia in terms of saving lives and delivering humanitarian aid. Can he confirm that in any future decisions that he makes, he will be guided by the advice and counsel of our commanders on the ground, and that of paramount importance to him are the security and safety of our troops?
    Mr. Rifkind: This is a matter of great importance. Indeed, it was one of the central issues that I discussed with General Sir Michael Rose, the United Nations British commander in Bosnia. Clearly, it is a matter which is relevant not only to British troops but to French, Canadian and Norwegian troops and to those from a number of other countries that are contributing to the United Nations presence in Bosnia.
    Ms Hoey: Does not the Secretary of State realise that even discussion and talking like this about withdrawing British troops gives the Serbs a green light to continue their aggression? Does he agree that if the Government make that decision—I hope that they will not do so—what they would have to do immediately on withdrawing British troops is allow the Bosnians to arm themselves and to lift the arms embargo?
    Mr. Rifkind: No one is talking about the possibility of some unilateral British withdrawal. What it is appropriate for the United Nations to consider is how long its
    134
    commitment to UNPROFOR will last and how long it is possible and desirable to carry out what is a difficult and arduous task. We had all hoped that by this time there would be a political settlement in Bosnia, which would have allowed the United Nations involvement to be transformed into a more traditional peacekeeping role. That has not happened, and inevitably a legitimate debate is taking place about what the implications would be for the United Nations if the parties involved in the traumatic war do not reach a solution in the reasonable future.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Is not the Government's prime concern the safety and security of the British troops now stationed in Bosnia? In the light of that, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, with regard to the proposed air strikes, that great concern should be taken to make sure that the troops are not placed in a position of great insecurity? That would not help matters, and the troops may be used as piggy in the middle by both sides.
    Mr. Rifkind: Those considerations must be taken into account. The Government have accepted for some time that there may be specific circumstances in which the use of air power would be appropriate. We have particularly spoken of the acceptability of air power if, for example, UN forces were themselves under attack. Whatever consideration may be given to that question, I can assure my hon. Friend that the security of our forces will be of importance not only to the British Government but to all countries presently considering new initiatives.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The circumstances in which air strikes would be internationally sanctioned with the authority of the UN have been strictly defined to be the protection of the troops on the spot. Does the Secretary of State believe that the UN Security Council would have to be approached again before there were any air strike for wider purposes, such as punitive purposes? If so, what is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment about the response of the Government of Russia?
    Mr. Rifkind: United Nations Security Council resolution 836 allowed, and indeed encouraged, the consideration of any possible means of ensuring that there was not a stranglehold on Sarajevo, and that gives us a degree of flexibility. It would be appropriate for the Secretary-General to consult members of the Security Council if any further action were thought to be desirable. However, I do not believe that it would require a further resolution of the Security Council, for the reasons that I have given.

    "Options for Change"
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with "Options for Change" in the Army.
    Mr. Hanley: We have made good progress in implementing the decisions announced in July 1991 in "Britain's Army for the 90s", as subsequently modified by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his statements to the House on 3 February 1993 and to the Select Committee for Defence on 1 December 1993.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to spell out the enhanced role of the Territorial Army under "Options for Change"? Does he recognise that

    135
    Territorial Army units must be large enough to be viable, and that the recent reduction in battalion establishments needs to be reversed? Will he keep open as many drill halls in East Anglia as possible to maintain vital links with a population that respects and supports the work of our volunteer reserve?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is assiduous in representing the interests of the Territorial Army in East Anglia, and particularly Norwich. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has said that we are looking at opportunities to enhance the role of the Territorial Army. We have had consultations, and we are now looking at what legislation can be put in place.
    As to the size of the units, my hon. Friend will realise that the size of a unit must be appropriate to its role. We believe that the post-"Options" size of battalion of 500 is appropriate, and there is no reason at this moment to alter that. I say again that my hon. Friend's representation of the interests of the Territorial Army is a model to us all.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the preliminary findings of the Scotland Yard investigation in the Falklands in relation to allegations against 3 Para to be put in the Library?
    Mr. Hanley: That is a matter not for the Ministry of Defence but for Scotland Yard.
    Sir Anthony Grant: One of the results of the "Options for Change" policy is that some of the best-trained and best-motivated people in the country are available for service elsewhere. Will my hon. Friend do everything that he can, in conjunction with the Home Office, to encourage those people to serve in the police force, as that may improve the rather fuddy-duddy image of the police?
    Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but I assure him that where there is talent, the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force want it for themselves.

    Western European Union
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union has had regarding the probable increase in membership of the assembly of the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: There have been no discussions on the matter in the WEU Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Thompson: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Council of Ministers, in its wisdom, created a level of associate membership of the Western European Union. Currently, Turkey, Iceland and Norway are applying for membership at that level. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the criteria laid down for associate membership are appropriate when one considers the possibility that countries of the former Soviet bloc in central and eastern Europe will apply to join the WEU? Would they be appropriate if a situation such as that in Bosnia arose in any of those countries?
    Mr. Rifkind: We consider the criteria to be appropriate. Full membership is relevant to those who are also members of the European Union. Those countries that have sought associate membership either do not seek full membership
    136
    or have not yet become members of the European Union. Therefore, the status of associate member meets that criterion.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is an overwhelming need to get the countries of central Europe on side where the future of European security is involved? Does he agree that one of the best ways, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) said, is proper association with the WEU? It can lead to all kinds of good works in the future.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is appropriate that we seek to develop links not only with the countries of central Europe but with the countries of eastern Europe such as the Ukraine and the Baltic republics. I believe that, within the framework of the partnership for peace proposals, it will be possible to see the development of links with not only NATO but the WEU.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that many parliamentarians in eastern European countries believe that the Western European Union can be used as a guarantee of their security? Does not he think it reasonable to ensure that a more realistic assessment is conveyed to those states?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct—article 5 of the Brussels treaty gives total and unqualified commitments to the security of member states. Therefore, it is important that in any consideration of extending that membership, the full implications are taken into account.

    Devonport
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the work load at Her Majesty's dockyard Devonport over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Aitken: Devonport dockyard will continue to receive an allocation of Ministry of Defence refit work in accordance with the needs of the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing and justifiable concern about the predicted level of the work load at Devonport? Does not he realise that that could have an adverse effect on the total numbers employed and on the balance of the work force? In view of that, would not it be right to review the Ministry of Defence contract work for surface ship refits at Devonport? At present, only three out of a possible 11 have been allocated to Devonport.
    Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend was good enough to acknowledge, the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in June last year secured a good future for Devonport: all future nuclear submarine refitting work will be done there. I understand the anxieties that my hon. Friend has expressed about employment figures. I cannot promise that any new refit work will be allocated that would take away from the commitments given to Rosyth, but I note that several service ships will continue to be allocated for refits to Devonport until 1997. I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend has made until that moment.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Will the Minister give a commitment that any increase in the work load for Devonport will not be achieved by closing either Rosyth

    137
    royal dockyard or Rosyth naval base? Will he make a statement about the future of both those establishments for the next five years and explain why naval personnel at the Rosyth base have recently been sent a questionnaire asking them where they would like to move if the base closes?
    Mr. Aitken: On the hon. Lady's first point, I can certainly confirm that the commitment to the allocated programme for Rosyth that the Government announced still stands and is firm. On her question about Rosyth naval base—a separate matter—and the questionnaire, I should make it clear that in the defence costs study we are considering all naval infrastructure, including many naval bases. No decisions have been taken; nor will they be taken until after the recommendations and the context of the studies have been presented to Ministers.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: In looking at the work load that will go to Devonport and the increase that will result from moving flag officer sea training, will my hon. Friend have special regard to the port auxiliary repair unit, PARU, in my constituency and allow it to bid for small ship repair work from both the Ministry of Defence and civilian firms when it is transferred to civilian management, which is what we intend to do?
    Mr. Aitken: It is our policy to have as much competition as possible for small ship repair work, so the organisation in my hon. Friend's constituency should have a fair chance of winning some of that work in competition.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Dowd: And very entertaining they were, I am sure. Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government's proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill for the measure of a pint of beer represent a total surrender to the interests of a big brewers, who are such generous backers of the Conservative party? Taken together with the craven submission to the interests of tobacco companies over advertising, does not that demonstrate conclusively that whenever the interests of the Tory party's paymasters are involved, the customer is always the loser?
    The Prime Minister: On both counts, the answer is no. In the Deregulation and Contracting Our Bill we are concerned about removing burdens on business. The principal reason for seeking to remove burdens on business is to encourage their competitiveness, their profitability and their success and to encourage the creation of jobs. It is no good the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues parroting remarks about wanting jobs if they then oppose the measures that will help to create them.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive destruction of a great European capital city and the extinction of a sovereign state that we recognise are unacceptable?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the problems of Sarajevo and he will know that I will be discussing those with my right hon. Friends this afternoon and that the North Atlantic Council will have a further meeting tomorrow.
    Mr. John Smith: On that point, does the Prime Minister appreciate that, if no action is taken to protect the people of Sarajevo from the pitiless shelling to which they have been subjected, the Serbs are bound to conclude that no action will be taken against them whatever they do?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the United Nations Protection Force contingent is in Bosnia to help the civilian population. The United Nations cannot end the civil war by force. That is a point which is generally understood and I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that. That has never been a feasible option. Ultimately, peace will come only at the negotiating table, but the United Nations may need to use force for specific purposes—for example, to carry out its mandate and to protect its own people in Bosnia. It may need tactical air support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We have always been prepared to see air power used for those purposes, provided that the commanders judge it appropriate.
    On the question of Sarajevo, I do not believe that we can wait for action to follow an overall settlement. I do not believe that it is right to tolerate the continued mortar and artillery attacks against the civilian population. UNPROFOR, with support from NATO, must apply immediate and strong pressure to halt those attacks.
    Mr. John Smith: I appreciate that we cannot end a civil war by military intervention, but should not we set ourselves some minimum objectives? For example, should not a political objective be set to remove all the weapons within striking distance of Sarajevo, with the threat that if that is not done, air attacks will be pursued? Why do the Government not say that that is one of our, and our allies', political objectives?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) a few moments ago, the North Atlantic Council will meet tomorrow to consider, on the advice of military commanders, what pressure can most effectively be applied and how. If we use air power, we must be clear about the objectives of that action. The aim must be to reinforce pressure to end the bombardment of Sarajevo. To that end, the United Nations command must be able to set clear and specific conditions, knowing that tactical air support is available to back it up if necessary.
    Any use of force must be forward looking. It must seek to improve the situation in Sarajevo and contribute to the pressure on the parties to end the war. Those are not easy options and no one in the House believes them to be so. Any decision must take careful account of the importance of the humanitarian operation and the safety of the civilians and soldiers running the operation. Those are the objectives that NATO must consider tomorrow in determining how to proceed.
    Mr. John Smith: On the precise point about the threat to Sarajevo, will the Government support a proposition that an ultimatum should be issued to the Serbs to withdraw the weapons of attack from striking distance of Sarajevo?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday made a clear recommendation that
    "The aim should be to bring about the immediate lifting of the siege of Sarajevo, using all means necessary, including the use of air power"—
    but it then went on and looked to the North Atlantic Council to carry forward that process. That decision was precisely in line with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he was received by textile workers at Firth's in my constituency 10 days ago, what their assembled customers told him and whether he was able to reassure them about the future?
    The Prime Minister: It was a most enjoyable visit to Firth's. It is perfectly clear that the company is very successful. Its order book and exports are expanding, and it has invested in the most modern manufacturing equipment for textiles. There was no doubt about the success of that firm in the minds of either its management and work force or its customers who were present on that occasion.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister's new, more muscular mood on Bosnia is welcome, but may I remind him that it is now four weeks since he told us of his determination to open Tuzla airport as soon as possible, and probably five weeks since the launching of the Serb spring offensive aimed at obliterating what remains of Bosnia? Can he tell us of any progress in opening Tuzla airport to which he has set his hand?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is under consideration within the United Nations and NATO. It is not a unilateral matter for the British Government. The United Nations, with NATO's support, is taking a firm line over the roulement of troops at Srebrenica, the opening of Tuzla airport, confronting obstacles to road convoys, warning off the Croatian army and demanding an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. All those important and difficult matters are being considered by the commanders on the ground on a day-to-day basis. They are receiving the full support that they need at a political level.
    I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop pretending, as he does so often, that there is some easy, magical and painless solution to a problem that is intensely difficult for the commanders on the ground and everybody concerned with the operation. The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one respect only: he has been consistently wrong on every course that he has advocated since this dreadful conflict began.
    Mr. Paice: When my right hon. Friend was a banker, before he came to the House, how would he have reacted if a business man had presented him with a business plan that concentrated on building up overheads, increasing jobs at the expense of output and maximising wages whether or not the business could afford them? How would he react to a business plan with the social chapter, a minimum wage and returning to all the problems that beset business in the 1970s?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that I would have reacted to it in exactly the same way as business men will today. They are perfectly clear about the business
    140
    environment that they want. They want minimum interference from the European Community, the Government or local government. They want low inflation, the lowest possible interest rates and the right business environment. They do not want a 1960s-style business plan.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Jones: Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today that John Cahill, the chairman of British Aerospace who has just sold Rover to BMW, is to get a pay-out of nearly £10 million after only two years with the company? How can that be justified?
    The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me.
    Hon. Members: Resign.
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Sir Peter Fry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Peter Fry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best business plan for Britain is an economy with inflation at 1·9 per cent., the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community and the lowest interest rate for many years? Does he also agree that the business plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would put British business straight into the hands of the receivers?
    The Prime Minister: We all know of, and see regularly, the hostility of Opposition Members to business but the economic conditions that we have now put in place—low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax—are precisely what business wants. The Governor of the Bank of England said the other day that economic prospects today are better than at any time in his professional career. We have the basics of the economy right and British business needs the opportunity to build on those basics to create the prosperity, the growth and the jobs that everyone in the country wants.
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Eagle: If the Prime Minister does not believe that a £10 million pay-off to somebody who has just sold our last remaining car industry to foreign competitors is not a matter for him, will he please explain to the House precisely what is a matter for him?
    The Prime Minister: I am intrigued at what the two hon. Ladies say. What intervention and control would the Opposition propose?
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: The House will be aware of today's announcement that British Telecom intends to extend its cheaper afternoon rate to peak periods. In welcoming those price reductions, will my right hon. Friend agree that they would have been impossible under a Labour Government because of the Labour party's pathological opposition to privatisation and competition?
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those changes have come about because we decided, against the
    142
    opposition of Labour Members, to privatise the industry. I gather that many calls will now be 25 per cent. cheaper. That is very good news for everyone who uses the telephone. By privatising British Telecom, increasing competition and introducing a proper sense of regulation, we have helped to make the services more efficient, more reliable and better value for everyone who uses them. That is what happens when one leaves the private sector to run things, when one does not seek to over-regulate and over-control in every respect.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) (Amendment)
3.30 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quietly so that we may get on with the business. I am sure that you can make yourself heard, Mr. Greenway.
Mr. Greenway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 1(1) of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990 so as to increase the age set out therein.
At the turn of the century, the life of everyone depended upon the horse. Horses pulled the plough to harrow the soil and the implements by which the seeds were sown. When it was time to harvest, the horses were there again, pulling the cutting machines and the carts of grain, straw and stubble so that people might be provided with bread, and other horses and animals upon whose existence man depended might be given sustenance.
Horses pulled buses in our streets, fire engines, milk floats, hackney carriages, refuse carts, tinkers' carts and the conveyances of city gents and their ladies, and they carted childen to schools if these were any distance from home. Doctors went round their patients on horseback. Bishops travelled their dioceses on horses, and gaiters remain the official dress of bishops. Indeed, Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, who crowned our present Queen, never wore anything else when on official duty.
Members of Parliament often travelled to the House in carriages or by some other means of horse transport. No area of life was not touched, directly or indirectly, by this noble creature.
Sadly, there was plenty of terrible cruelty through neglect and wanton beatings. However, most horses were loved and thoroughly cared for by their owners. This was especially true where the owner was wise enough to realise that the cared-for horse lasted much longer and was able to work much better than the abused horse. There was manure in plenty on the streets for everyone, but even then there were those who, in the discharge of their self-appointed task of defending the environment, saw that as wanton pollution.
Then came the internal combustion engine—or, as Winston Churchill so aptly described it, "the infernal combustion engine". Growing numbers of machines have gradually seen cars, lorries and other motor vehicles replace horses in carrying people to the places to which they want to go and in trawling loads of everything, from beer to bridges for rivers and roads. Horses have become ever fewer on our roads, and a horse and cart is now a very rare sight in towns, although driven ponies and traps have returned to some country areas as a healthy, fresh-air means of transport. Nowadays, the only horses seen on our roads are those ridden by children and adults for pleasure, and police and Army horses, which do superb work.
This morning, I had the pleasure of riding a 21-year-old mare called Launceston, an Army horse, in Hyde park's Rotten row, with Captain Charlie McEwen. As ever, the experience was marvellous—on a crisp, sunny morning—and I was reminded again of the need for me to do all in
144
my power to keep horses among us, and for the House to do the same. Horses are so civilising, yet so challenging, that their influence on society can only be good.
In 1964, as a senior housemaster at Sir William Collins school—a comprehensive for 1,100 boys at King's Cross—I was allowed by my then employer, London county council, to take 20 groups of boys each week for lessons in riding and stable management, paid for by ratepayers and taxpayers, and to observe the effects. Those were fine, tough boys, who stood no nonsense from anyone; but they had to respect the horses to be able to ride and control them, and they had to be able to control themselves to achieve that.
My scheme spread to cover disabled children in special schools, who benefited enormously from riding. It must continue, for both ordinary and disabled children.
Horses now face such dangers on the roads that it may soon become too dangerous to ride on roads unless something is done to improve safety. In 1993, riding attracted 3·5 million people; it seems incredible that it is not mandatory for all riders to wear hard hats on the roads.
On 29 August 1993, The Times reported that there were 32,000 admissions to casualty departments every year as a result of contact with horses—which is an accident rate of 87 men, women and children per day. According to the Daily Mail of 24 September 1993, every year 30 people are permanently paralysed and 15 lose their lives.
As the department of neurosurgery at the Radcliffe infirmary pointed out in 1984, all six of the unhelmeted and improperly helmeted riders who died that year died of primary brain damage; with proper headgear, they could have been saved.
The great danger is that horses may become extinct as their practical uses diminish and the roads become ever more dangerous. Furthermore, we are told that a county the size of Oxfordshire is disappearing under the bulldozer every 10 years: that can only mean ever more riding on roads at a time when traffic is increasing vastly every day. We must ensure that the legislation controlling riding on roads is adequate to provide enough protection for riders to be safe in traffic. Protective headgear can and will save lives.
We should bear it in mind that even the most experienced riders will fall from time to time. Recently, the country was in a state of consternation when it was learned that Her Majesty the Queen had fallen from her horse and fractured her wrist. Naturally, there was much speculation about what would have happened if the accident had been more serious, as it easily could have been.
Her Majesty could have experienced a much worse injury had she fallen on the highway, or fallen on her head with only a headscarf to protect her. The worst could have happened if the horse had been at a walk on the road—let alone if Her Majesty had been travelling at a spanking trot, or even galloping, on a horse that bolted: that can easily happen even to the best horses.
Moreover, even the best horses can suddenly forget their manners and rear, or behave unexpectedly. The Daily Mail of 18 January 1994 stated that the Queen's accident was just one of a number of royal riding accidents, some of which had been fatal:
"William III, who succeeded James II in 1689, broke his collar bone when his horse stumbled on a mole hill at Hampton Court. He subsequently developed pleurisy and died."
Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel suffered a similar fate when he fell off a horse in Hyde park and died in agony three

145
days later. The leisurely ride of Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce of Winchester was interrupted when he was thrown from his horse and killed instantly. A startled Prime Minister Melbourne watched Queen Victoria stumble from her mount.

Those notable examples show that riding can be dangerous. As a spokesman for the British Horse Society put it:
"Riding is genuinely regarded as having some element of risk attached to it. It is sensible to take precautions against these risks".
Our ancestors did not have the choice, but protective headgear, in the form of hard hats and helmets, can and does save lives. At £25 and £35, that is not too high a price to pay. At present, no law requires the use of a hard hat above the age of 14, but organisers of safe-riding initiatives, including the British Horse Society, of which the Queen is patron, on whose council I have served for 21 consecutive years, and whose award of merit I am proudly wearing today, constantly recommend safe riding hats for everyone, whatever their age.
We must do our utmost to ensure that all riders are safe. We are on moral high ground. How can we let parents say to their children who are under the age of 14, "You have to put your hard hats on because we are going riding, but I do not need to wear one"?
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Stuart Randall, Mr. John Carlisle and Mr. kin Mills.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) (Amendment)
  HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 1(1) of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990 so as to increase the age set out therein: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 February, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

  Points of Order
  3.42 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the subject of answers to questions. If it is in order, as I understand that it is, for the Prime Minister to answer questions about the wages of ordinary workers who are struggling to make ends meet, why is it not possible for him to answer a question about Mr. Cahill, who is to receive a £10 million pay-off after selling the British Rover company to BMW? Is not the Prime Minister responsible for such matters?
  Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers, Back Benchers and Front Benchers are responsible for the comments they make in the House. it is not the responsibility of the Chair.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: My point of order, Madam Speaker, arises directly from the events at today's Prime Minister's questions, which is increasingly becoming a farce—I think that viewers, of whom there are a million, would agree with that.
  Was it in order that, during questions, the Prime Minister gave a detailed answer on the privatised British Telecom in response to a planted question from a Conservative Member, but that, when it came to the rather more difficult question about another privatised company, British Aerospace, he said that it was not a matter for him? We need to know which questions the Prime Minister is willing to answer and which he is not. As long as he continues to perform as he has been, he will bring this place into disrepute.
  Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

Orders of the Day

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have to announce that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 7 and 9 o'clock. I trust that other hon. Members will co-operate by voluntarily reducing the length of their speeches.
  3.43 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I shall start by setting the Bill in the wider context of our competitiveness as a nation. There is not one item, or even one group of agenda items, that constitutes national competitiveness. There is not a given moment when that competitiveness can be measured in final or absolute terms. The essence of competitiveness is that it is a process, perhaps even a culture, which, to be effective, must be ongoing. It permeates society and affects the attitudes of the public and private sectors alike. In the private sector, it should embrace the smallest sole trader and the largest multinational corporation. In the public sector, it embraces major issues—the management of the economy, the quality of training and the output of our schools—but it must also penetrate less familiar but contributory factors such as standards, design and, of course, the regulatory climate.
  The Government have announced their intention to publish a White Paper on competitiveness, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of our performance and indicating where we are ahead, how we stay ahead and, where we are behind, how we catch up. The Bill is one part of our approach to one aspect of our competitiveness—the regulatory climate.
  No advanced society can manage itself outside a regulatory framework. Indeed, it is impossible to contemplate the sophisticated assumptions on which we conduct our everyday lives without the underpinning of regulation. Inevitably, regulation is about restraint. The central issue that confronts us as we manage the Government's deregulation initiative is, therefore, the balance between the legitimate entitlements of society and the damage that can flow from the over-fussy, over-prescriptive use of restrictions.
  Regulation can be a spur to innovation and competitiveness. Regulation can be vital to protect the safety of workers, of customers and of the environment. If the balance is tipped too far, however, there can come a point where the real costs outweigh the assumed benefits. That can be particularly true as time passes, as practices change and as new technologies emerge. Regulations that were once considered right and necessary can become burdensome. Businesses feel that they are swamped with red tape and no one should underestimate the significance of that, particularly for the smaller business.
  I have been struck by the different psychologies that can be found in small, often owner-managed, businesses and the larger, often international, corporations. For the former, it is often the boss, in what time he or she has to spare, who
  148
  has to face the forms, the questions and guidance notes. Let us imagine trying to wrestle with an illuminating passage from "Home Office Guidelines on Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations 1992", which states:
  "Alternative escape routes should generally satisfy the following criteria: (from any point from which there is initially a single direction of escape) they are in directions apart, equal to 45 degrees plus 2·5 degrees for every metre travelled in one direction. See appendix 1."
  I am extremely happy to say that it is now being rewritten.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who was the Home Secretary in 1992 and what did he do about it?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that it was rewritten by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  Before the Opposition leap around with expectation, let me read from an order issued by the Excise Office in 1976 under the then Labour Government. I am sure that the Opposition will now be carefully listing the incumbents of the various offices responsible for the Excise Office in 1976. The difference is that the order was still on the statutue book when the Labour party left office, but we changed it. I was trying to be bipartisan by quoting one example of regulations passed under a Conservative Government and then one of measures passed under a Labour Government, but the Opposition cannot resist the temptation to deal with this important issue in the traditional banging about of party politics.
  As the Opposition have tried to provoke me, let me be provoked and quote from the 1976 Excise Office order. It states:
  "Relief in respect"—
  [Interruption.] I thought that the Opposition might listen as I am quoting from an order passed under a Labour Government. It reads:
  "Relief in respect of assimilated articles. The use of oil in manufacture or preparation of an assimilated article does not earn entitlement for relief from duty. But entitlement in respect of oils so used may be earned by subsequent use of the assimilated article in the manufacture or preparation of an article that is not an assimilated article."
  Quite honestly—
  Mr. Eric Illsley rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I wish to make other arguments.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Heseltine: My problem is to keep the hon. Gentleman out.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Secretary Heseltine.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the President kindly give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: Of course.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the President agree, first, that regulations come before Statutory Instruments Committees for clarification and authentication and, secondly, that when they are made by, one hopes, knowledgeable officials and agreed by, one hopes, well-versed Secretaries of State, the technical language can probably be understood only by the people whose everyday work is involved in carrying out and complying with those regulations? Does the President agree that it would be easy to guy any good statutory instrument on those grounds.
  Mr. Heseltine: The question reveals the attitude of the Labour party. As Ministers, we are not supposed to understand; as members of the Committee, we are not supposed to understand; as ordinary people, we are not supposed to understand; but there are some awfully clever people somewhere who do understand, who draft that sort of stuff.
  Just try, Madam Speaker, going to those thousands of rooms at the back of hard-pressed businesses where ordinary men and women try to earn a crust and saying to them, "We have all these awfully clever people in Whitehall who understand all that stuff." The fact that business people spend hour after hour, night after night, trying to understand the regulations and we do not understand them simply puts us in the same chaotic position. It must be incumbent on us to make regulations in a language that the ordinary man and woman in the street can understand. It is no excuse for the Labour party to say that it does not matter if they do not understand it as long as clever people understand it. I am not saying that.
  This afternoon we are getting a surfeit of over-regulatory zeal here, with half the parliamentary Labour party rising to its feet to try to over-regulate my speech, on which I should like to make progress, if I may.
  Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I give way to the hon. Member for Workington.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the case of the two quotations that he has read to the House, will the President read the explanatory memorandum on the back, which is what we normally read when we want to understand statutory instruments when we debate them?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a 10-minute limit on the time of speeches and it will be important for him to have the chance to make that important argument if he can cram it into the time that you, Madam Speaker, may or may not give him.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I will not make progress if there is any further discussion about that.
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Illsley rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I will not give way. The place must calm down, if I may suggest it. [Interruption.] Madam Speaker, that was not intended to be lese-majesty, if that is the right approach to your distinguished office.
  I am trying to argue, patiently and at some length, that that type of officialese—garbage-speak, if I can coin a phrase—is all too characteristic of government, whether it is local or national. We all know examples of it—the sub-paragraphs, the multiple choice questions and the complications of language. They can drive people who have to fill in the forms and understand the regulations to despair.
  That frustration and despair are often a great deal more intense in the small business than they are in the large. The reason is not difficult to find. Larger companies are more able to afford the professional advice or the skilled staff to cope with the intrusions of the public sector. That is why
  150
  we have ensured, in our deregulatory initiative, that we take special account of small businesses when we consider the burden that that type of activity places on them.
  Our deregulation initiative put in place a system to scrutinise the regulations that affect the wealth-creating process. We set out to review those regulations that were imposed by primary and secondary legislation, those regulations arising from domestic initiative and from European requirements and those regulations that were the product of administrative decision by the army of inspectors that enforced all those regulatory decisions.
  We were not prepared, in the exercise, to rely on the advice of the people who had drafted the regulations in the first place. Therefore, we invited Lord Sainsbury to chair eight task forces, which were drawn largely from the private sector, as they began to work their way through the thousands of regulations that actually exist.
  As a result of that intense work, the business task forces have made more than 600 recommendations. We have [Interruption.] It is fascinating; the Labour party is solemnly trying to persuade the private sector that it has at least entered the 20th century, yet the moment that the House debates the issues about which the private sector cares most, all that we hear from Labour Members are sedentary interventions about trying to recreate a class divide that the whole country, with the exception of the Labour party, knows disintegrated during the 1980s.
  Mr. Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that, year after year, the Government have set their face against providing time to debate a Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments report about poor drafting and extensive use of powers that Ministers do not have. A Committee with a majority of Conservative Members has several times asked the Leader of the House to require that the Committee's report be brought before the House before the statutory instruments are taken, yet the Government have refused time after time.
  As the right hon. Gentleman is so worried about statutory instruments, may I ask him why in 1992 the Conservative Government produced almost 3,500 of them—more than at any time in the history of Parliament, and almost double the highest number produced by any Labour Government?
  Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that has happened because we have completed the single European agenda, which has meant harmonising the entire range of such matters throughout western Europe. That has required a whole range of reforming regulations. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, and I shall deal with that subject later in my speech. Moreover, as he also knows, and as I shall explain later, our proposals for special scrutiny under the Bill go a long way towards meeting some of his objections.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Arising from that point, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the measures that have given most cause for concern and anger in recent years have come under the general heading of food safety or food hygiene. They have affected hotels, restaurants and the tourist industry in general, as well as shops and all sorts of other businesses throughout the country. In the explanatory material on the Bill, I see few examples of such horrors, which Christopher Booker, among others, has exposed. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Bill will eradicate as many of those horrors as possible?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The answer to his question is that all those issues are under review.
  I was about to say that, as a result of the exercise that I described, the business task forces have made more than 600 recommendations. We have announced that we have accepted about 250 of those, and 280 are still under consideration. We rejected about 70, because we felt that the public interest demanded their preservation on the statute book.
  When the Bill was published, we issued a booklet called "Cutting Red Tape", which is available in the Library and the Vote Office and which shows the scale of our first response. About 440 proposals are being implemented now or are under active consideration, and we expect recommendations from the voluntary sector task force shortly. We have already identified many changes that would not remove any necessary protection and could usefully reduce burdens.
  I shall give some examples of what those changes amount to. Why, for example, should not the Patent Office accept documents electronically, instead of on paper? Why is Government approval needed for parking control equipment used by local authorities to enforce traffic orders? Why should insurance companies have to submit detailed information, which is no longer needed for prudential supervision?
  Those are only a few examples. If we needed to find time for primary legislation for every such change, change would take years to achieve. The first four clauses of the Bill therefore provide an order-making power to allow the amendment or repeal of outdated or unnecessarily burdensome legislation.
  The order-making power could be used to replace a system of regulation with one that was less burdensome but achieved the necessary protection. We have built in considerable safeguards and constraints on the use of that power: necessary protection will not be removed; consultation with interested parties is required; a draft order would then be laid with an explanatory document giving the reasons for the measure, including savings in compliance costs.
  The nature of the deregulation order-making power is that it could cover a wide range of policy matters that may need separate consideration. I understand the sensitivity of that issue. In our view, it is therefore appropriate to provide a special and exceptional form of parliamentary scrutiny in addition to consultation. We have provided a 40-day period during which such additional scrutiny could take place. We have submitted proposals to the Procedure Committee on the form that such scrutiny might take.
  The key elements of our suggestions are set out in the explanatory guide to the Bill. We have suggested that a new scrutiny Committee might be set up in each House, with power to examine witnesses and seek additional information. The role of the new Committee—it might be for the consideration of both Houses where they have a joint Committee—might be to consider whether the subject matter was appropriate to be enacted in subordinate legislation and whether the proposed order would remove any necessary protection. Such Committees could recommend whether particular proposals should proceed or whether they should proceed only if amended in some way.
  The Bill provides that Ministers would have to take account of the outcome of the scrutiny and of any other
  152
  representations in finalising any order. I should make it clear that the Government will look carefully at any other option for effective scrutiny that emerges as the Bill proceeds.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the President of the Board of Trade make it clear what he means in clause 3 by
  "consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests"
  or
  "consult such other persons as he considers appropriate"?
  Having described the mechanism—"Cutting Red Tape" says that the Government have identified 3,500 regulations that they may wish to remove—how on earth will that procedure not be swamped by the sheer volume of the changes that he wishes to introduce?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the process of consultation will be wide. It is obvious. Anyone who has read the explanatory memorandum will know that we are trying to give the fullest possible opportunity for people to make representations. But that is for the scrutiny committees to determine. The hon. Gentleman asked about the scale of the problem. We are fully aware as a Government that the scrutiny committees have absolute power to determine the pace at which the process can go through. Therefore, we must have regard to the workload that they can carry. We shall do that in a practical way.
  Sir Peter Hordern: I know that my right hon. Friend has not come to this part of the Bill yet, but I am concerned, as are some of my hon. Friends, about part II and contracting out. My right hon. Friend will know that that part of the Bill concerns the powers of the Minister or an office holder to contract out.
  As Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, I should like to say that the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General appears to be in some doubt under the powers of the Bill. Hitherto, and for 140 years, the position of the CAG has been in no doubt whatever; he is a servant of the House and is not subject in any way to ministerial orders. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give the House an assurance that the measures in the Bill will allow separate rights of contracting out by office holders, not through the aegis of Ministers? It would be quite intolerable if there were any suggestion that the CAG came in any way under the powers of a Minister, since the CAG has the power to pronounce on Government matters and he must be wholly independent of Government.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point, which a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are in their places have also raised. I anticipated the possibility of the matter being raised, so I can give a considered reply to what my right hon. Friend said.
  Our policy in drafting clause 57 was to ensure that in the functions of an office holder, it would be the office holder—he or she alone—who could give the authorisation to make use of contractors, should an order be laid by a Minister and approved by both Houses. Any order could, therefore, be enabling only. Nothing in the order could suggest compulsion if the office holder chose not to make an authorisation; the powers are, therefore, voluntary. I am advised that clause 57(2), as drafted, gives effect to that policy. If, however, hon. Members believe that differences

  153
  in interpretation of the clause may arise, I have no hesitation in giving an undertaking to table in Committee an amendment to make the matter clear beyond doubt.
  We have published a list of 55 measures that illustrate the sort of measures for which we consider the order-making provision would be appropriate. They are also listed in the publication "Cutting Red Tape", to which I have already referred. We recognise that how a regulation is implemented and enforced can be just as crucial for business as what is said in it. The task forces have helped to identify problem areas in enforcement. As a result, we have produced guidance material for enforcement authorities and business. Some 18 local business partnerships have been developed to encourage business organisations to work with their local authority to make it easier for them to comply with regulations enforced by local government. Most of the 70 enforcement agencies in central Government have now published codes of good practice.
  Reducing the burden of existing regulations is only part of the process. We want to ensure that before new regulations are introduced, the implications are fully thought through. Before new regulations can be introduced, a full compliance cost assessment must be carried out. We are also strengthening the system for assessing the effects on business of EC legislation and we are persuading our EC partners to take more account of business needs. The Bill is only a part of our campaign, but it is an important part.
  Chapter II of part I deals with a wide range of matters that the House will wish to explore in Committee. It includes matters as diverse as building societies, slaughterhouses, shop hours, children in pubs, market arrangements and competition law.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I imagine that the President of the Board of Trade realises that, over the years, major pieces of legislation have been reversed or substantially changed within a year or two; examples of that are the poll tax, criminal justice provisions, education provisions and the Child Support Agency. He will not, therefore, be surprised to know that the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain is afraid that clause 21, which appears to take away from local authorities powers over markets and fairs, will actually lead to an increase in the power of local authorities to interfere in the setting up of fairs and markets. Can the right hon. Gentleman put those fears at rest and confirm that that will not happen?
  Mr. Heseltine: I can help the hon. Gentleman. Nothing in the Bill will increase the powers of local authorities. The Bill takes away the powers of local authorities, in some limited cases, to prohibit markets operating within six and two thirds miles of the central area. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman.
  Chapters III and IV of part I make the licensing system for operators of goods and passenger vehicles much less onerous. The main provision is a move from licences renewable every five years to licences that can last for the lifetime of a person or of a company. As with all good regulation, the Government aim to deliver services according to need and with the least possible burden on the taxpayer. That means finding ways to encourage the delivery of quality services at the best value for money.
  The contracting-out provisions in part II will, subject to essential safeguards, provide us with the means to sweep
  154
  away unnecessarily restrictive distinctions between what can be done by contractors and what must be done by civil servants. It will, thus, widen the range of activities that can be tested in the marketplace. The provisions in the Bill provide an order-making power for that purpose, but one which excludes functions affecting the fundamental liberties of individuals. It ensures that accountability and legal liability remain unchanged and provides strong safeguards for confidential information.
  There is one other matter, which was raised earlier and was raised previously by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I do not dispute the fact that many of the regulations that we are reviewing have themselves arisen over the lifetime of the present Government. Two things have coincided with that process. First, as I told the House a few moments ago, there has been the completion of the single market and, secondly, there has been a growing awareness of the need to intensify our drive to competitiveness in Europe and, above all, the realisation that Britain now has a real advantage over our European partners, which we are determined to maintain.
  The single market required the completion of the Cockfield agenda. Initially, some 300 agenda items were listed for agreement across the 12 members of the Community and the implementation of those items in case after case required regulatory action in the British Parliament. If we have over-regulated, over-prescribed, or if we have overdone it, it is a sign of strength to recognise that and to put it right. It would be a sign of weakness to shrug our shoulders and allow the drift to continue.
  It is a sign of neither strength nor weakness to do what the Labour party has done. It is a crass misjudgment to go on repeating what the Leader of the Opposition again repeated on Sunday. We, he said,
  "will sign up to the Social Chapter".
  That social chapter represents the greatest regulatory overload in history. It is the surest way to choke off the investment boom from overseas companies.
  Howard Davies of the CBI put it starkly in the past week. He said that Labour's support for the social chapter
  "ignores the rest of the world, ignores the whole purpose of the single market and ignores the unemployed".
  He went on to say:
  "The main aim of the single market is to make Europe more competitive, by increasing competition and expanding the size of European companies' home markets. The Social Chapter works in the opposite direction, imposing costs on European employers, for uncertain benefits".
  That is the stark position that the CBI has put before the country. The social chapter means fewer jobs and longer dole queues.
  Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not believe what the director general of the CBI has so clearly spelt out. It is difficult for the Labour party to square its assiduous courting of the CBI with the fact that every time it receives a piece of the CBI's advice, it is among the first to disown it. That is the real world. The Labour party still does not understand the need to make our companies efficient and to give them the climate in which they can compete. The Labour party still does not believe that it is compatible with national interests in Britain to have opted out of the social chapter, thus avoiding the dramatic costs which would have been put on us.
  The Labour party cannot understand that our flexible labour markets are the envy of our continental partners and

  155
  that the social chapter would undermine all that we have fought to achieve in this country. In reality, it is yesterday's dogma masquerading as tomorrow's panacea.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: So that we can test the Secretary of State's rhetoric, will he answer this fairly simple question? He has given his enthusiastic support for the takeover of Rover by BMW. Give his analysis of the huge commercial advantages of operating in a country without the social chapter, as opposed to one with the social chapter, can he confirm that it is his view that if BMW is faced with the prospect of cuts in the future, it will make cuts in Germany where the costs of the social chapter are high, rather than in Britain where they are low?
  Mr. Heseltine: The real danger to cuts in investment and jobs in this country is the fact that the Labour party has signed up to the European socialist election manifesto, which threatens our industry with a range of restraints that are incompatible with prosperity.
  Labour Members need to understand what danger they pose to our industries. Let them understand what the Leader of the Opposition signed up to in November when he flew to Brussels. He signed up to a
  "substantial cut in working time"
  and the possibility of a 35-hour week; "European works councils" and "European sectoral collective agreements"; and "a guaranteed minimum wage". Those are the ways in which employment and investment in this country will be threatened.
  Labour Members pretend that they have a solution to this problem. They say that they have a package of measures. On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition proudly proclaimed:
  "Like our partners in Europe, the Labour Party understands that economic success depends more than anything else on the knowledge and the skills of our people. We need to build a self-confident, acceptable, highly skilled and highly motivated workforce to meet the demands of a competitive, rapidly changing economy."
  Let us take a look at those partners in Europe to which the Leader of the Opposition was referring. At present, there are two countries in the EC that have a guaranteed minimum wage—Spain and France. The former has a socialist Government; the latter only recently escaped from one. What have socialism and the minimum wage done for those two countries? In France, the unemployment rate is 11·7 per cent. and the youth unemployment rate is over 20 per cent. In Spain, the picture is even worse: unemployment is at 23 per cent., and rising, and 40 per cent. of those under 25 are unable to find work. Yet the Labour party threatens to impose the social chapter on this country and the economy.
  Labour Members talk about an adaptable work force to meet the demands of a competitive, rapidly changing economy as part of their business plan for Europe and Britain. How do they square that with a cut in working hours, a minimum wage and European sectoral collective agreements? It is an impossible concept to understand.
  Mr. Richard Burden rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: No. I am not giving way any more—[Interruption.] Okay, I shall give way—why not?
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the President for changing his mind. I look forward to his changing his mind on one or two other things in the future.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is so interested in lifting the so-called burdens of business, may we take it that he will also lift the burden on business caused by this Government's passing the buck on statutory sick pay? Will he lift the burden on business caused by the Government's failure properly to invest in nursery education? Will he lift the burden on business that was imposed in the past year by causing employers to seek from employees regular agreement to the check-off arrangement, which a great many firms have described as a burden on business? Will he lift those burdens, or just the ones that he picks?
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for thanking me for changing my mind. I did so because I could see the fatuous nature of the question welling up in his mind. The House will have been in no way disappointed by my judgment on that occasion.
  Britain today has an economic opportunity, the fact of which has rarely been more exciting in recent memory. One should remember Britain 15 years ago. For decades, Britain had had a declining share of world trade in manufactures. Britain had been bottom of the European Community and Group of Seven growth leagues for decades. Britain was widely described as the sick man of Europe.
  We have come a long way since then. Our share of world trade has stabilised. Our manufacturing productivity has grown faster than in any other major industrialised country. Our industrial relations have been transformed and our inflation record during the past year is the best for 30 years.
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts that we will grow faster than Germany or Japan. The German Economics Minister was quoted recently as saying that Britain provided a model for the German economy on deregulation. He paid tribute to the "exceptional results" that we have achieved in breaking down bureaucratic obstacles to starting up new businesses and managing existing companies. That is the sort of tribute which can be measured in terms of jobs and investment. It is in stark contrast to the willing acceptance and the posturing of the Opposition with every nostrum dreamt up in Brussels.
  The Bill represents an important step in reducing the burdens on industry, particularly small companies. It is about helping to increase our competitive edge and will sweep away unnecessary burdens on business. It has the potential to save British industry and taxpayers millions of pounds. It will make a substantial contribution to the more efficient working of our economy, and I strongly commend it to the House.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: The President of the Board of Trade, perhaps wisely, did not spend the greater part of his speech talking about the Bill which is before the House. Nevertheless, in those early passages which had some tangential relationship to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman presented it as a measure which would cut red tape.
  The Opposition are worried that what makes the Bill notable is not the extent to which it cuts through red tape, but the extent to which it cuts through the procedures of

  157
  Parliament. No business has a burden removed from it by the Bill to the remarkable degree to which the first four clauses lift from Ministers the burden of accountability to Parliament. Let us be clear what those four clauses propose. They propose that Ministers may be able to set aside Acts of Parliament by statutory instruments.
  I understand that such clauses are termed Henry VIII clauses in disrespectful commemoration of that monarch's tendency to absolutism. They have, of course, become increasingly common under this Government, as we would expect, given their tendency to absolutism. To be fair, the Henry VIII clauses which the Government have produced have so far been slipped into the back of Bills. They have been consequential clauses, temporary in their powers and always related to the Bill which contained them.
  The Bill is one big Henry VIII clause. It gives power to any Secretary of State to suspend any Act of Parliament by order. If there is any doubt, the opening subsection of the Bill, which the President wisely did not quote, says that the order may be made to suspend a full Act of Parliament if
  "a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion—
  (a) that the effect of the provision is such as to impose … a burden affecting any person in the carrying on of any trade".
  While the President was speaking, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) intervened to ask about the Food Safety Act. That Act was passed with support from both sides of the House. Under clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill, it would be possible for any Minister to come to the House and, by order, suspend an Act passed through the House only three years ago with all-party support.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Good idea.
  Mr. Cook: It would certainly be possible to find Conservative Members other than the hon. Gentleman who cried "Good idea" about a full Act of Parliament being lifted by statutory instrument, who would regard the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 as a burden on business, and who would want to see it reduced, amended or repealed by order of the House. It would certainly be possible to find cowboys in the construction industry who thought that way.
  I have not the slightest doubt that we would find Conservative Members who regarded the possibility of a Labour Government as a burden on business and, if they could find a Secretary of State who was of the opinion, would amend the Representation of the People Act 1989 accordingly. They may be wise to do so.
  The President of the Board of Trade referred to the Department of Trade and Industry document "Cutting Red Tape". The first example of deregulation given by the Department of Employment in its chapter of the document is the abolition of the wages councils. That section is as bold as brass. It presents the abolition of the wages councils as an important step in deregulation because it
  "freed 2·5 million workers from the rigidities of statutory minimum wage fixing."
  It took a Bill to get that abolition through the House.
  Let us hear it from the President. Is that the type of measure that will be brought in by order under the Bill? That is what clauses 1 to 4 give him the power to do. A measure such as that, which took away protection from 2·5 million citizens, could be bounced through the House in 90 minutes.
  I am surprised and sorry to see that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not in his place. Undoubtedly, he has an
  158
  important audience to address with his thoughts. I nurse the lively hope that we shall read about them in tomorrow's papers.
  Five days before the Bill was published, the Chief Secretary lashed out at those who undermined great institutions. He particularly warned the nation about those who would do a hatchet job on Parliament, which he called the world's premier debating Chamber. No wonder that, in the same speech, he warned the nation of the spread of cynicism. Nothing does a more thorough hatchet job on the proceedings of Parliament than the Bill presented by the Government.
  Let us be clear what would happen and what we would lose if clauses 1 to 4 were passed unamended. Ministers would be able to repeal full Acts of Parliament by statutory instrument. There would be no Committee stage in which the measure, was considered line by line. Statutory instruments cannot be amended; they have to be accepted or rejected as they stand. There would be no Report stage in which new clauses could be considered. The House would have to accept the priorities of the Minister who presented the order.
  There would be no Lords amendments in which the second Chamber gave us a chance to have second thoughts. We would not even have the now traditional debate on the guillotine motion, which is a standard part of the proceedings under the Government. Instead of that full, exhaustive process of legislation, we would have the miniaturised proceedings of a statutory instrument, which are usually taken last thing at night in 90 minutes dead, without even the troublesome need to move a guillotine motion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered whether Ministers have considered how a Labour Government might wish to use the legislation as it stands or even in marginally amended form. Do Government supporters really want to leave legislation such as this on the statute book?
  Mr. Cook: I do not know whether Ministers have considered that. I have to say that I found myself fantasising about it last night. The very fact that Ministers probably have never thought about it points up the problem we have with the Government. They have been in power so long that they cannot envisage anyone but themselves in power.
  Of course, there is an innovation in the Bill. That is that the proposal for a statutory instrument will first be put to a new Committee. I listened with interest to what the President had to say about the new Committee. He laid great stress on the new Committee and what it would say.
  If the President of the Board of Trade is genuine and that Committee will be such an influential part of the new process, I find it strange that clause 4—under which the committee is appointed and given those procedures—does not give it the power to reject a proposal, but only creates an obligation on the Minister to "have regard" to its views. We have had a lot of experience of the extent to which the Government have regard to the opinion of anyone other than themselves—we have had 15 years' experience of it.
  If anyone has forgotten the lesson of that experience, the Bill contains a good example. Clause 20 removes the rights of local authorities to object to new markets within the vicinity of an existing market. A year ago, there was some consultation about the proposal. The Association of

  159
  Metropolitan Authorities believes that 90 per cent. of those who responded were against removing that right, including the local authorities who would lose it, traders in existing markets who would have extra competition and the residents of those sites where the new markets might spring up, who would have extra hassle.
  Yet, such is the selective capacity of Ministers to have regard to other views that they have chosen to have regard to those of the minority 10 per cent., who were in favour, and not those of the 90 per cent. who were against.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: On the subject of market rights, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the city of Leicester has a right to control markets up to six and two third miles beyond its boundary. Is he aware that that includes the borough of Oadby and Wigston in my constituency, which is entirely outside the city of Leicester? The city therefore has power to control markets in another borough, although not one elector there has elected the councillors of that city—whether Labour or Liberal—or had any say in the matter at all. Is it right that that undemocratic practice should be allowed to continue?
  Mr. Spearing: Change the statutory instrument.
  Mr. Cook: I shall return to my hon. Friend's remark.
  I am aware that Leicester county council, which includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency, has expressed grave concern that some of the car boot sales springing up in that county are creating dangers to life and limb. I believe that it is important for local authorities to have the right to object.
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Mr. Cook: I shall not give way again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has put his finger on the problem. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is perfectly entitled to his point of view, and Opposition Members are entitled to theirs. If a matter required primary legislation, that allowed us to debate it. We can debate the contents of clause 21, for example. So why does the Minister need powers to do something by order, which would prevent the hon. Member for Harborough from tabling any amendments?
  The Bill contains one anomaly. Let us assume that the President of the Board of Trade really believes that his new procedures in part I are an improvement. Part II of the Bill concerns the remit of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the Office of Public Service and Science. It deals with contracting out central and local government provisions and does away with the irksome need for Ministers to pass legislation through this House if they want to hive off another part of the public service. Instead, the power of Parliament is contracted out to Ministers, who will be able to do so by order.
  Last month, the Public Accounts Committee warned us that the pace of the transfer of public functions to quasi-private agencies had led to
  "a departure from the standards of public conduct".
  Yet here we are, only two weeks later, debating a Bill which blithely refuses to have regard to the Public Accounts Committee and proposes powers which will pave the way for a more sweeping transfer of the functions of public service to the private sector.
  160
  The Bill has an explanatory guide, which lists 26 areas of public life which might be privatised under the provisions. Only two of those have ever been floated for market testing. The list includes the traffic commissioners, the Registrar-General, the official receiver, the rent registration services and court administration.
  Bizarrely, the gas measurements service is one of the functions that may go out to contract under part II of the Bill. That service is responsible for measuring the energy content of gas sales, and the accurate calibration of gas meters. Only one private company has the expertise to provide such a service throughout the nation, and that is British Gas, so that would leave the policing of the honesty of gas sales to the company responsible for selling gas.
  There is a simple test by which we can tell whether the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister responsible for the civil service believe that the new procedures in part I of the Bill will provide an increased and improved service. Why will not the orders to be laid under part II be subject to the same new procedures provided for under part I? Why will they not let a parliamentary Committee, such as the Public Accounts Committee, first consider any proposals to privatise another part of public life, so that it could monitor whether the Government have any regard for their own reports?
  Why not insist on the same extent of consultation with the public, who are the customers of those public services? Why not ask the tenants whether they want estate agents to bid for the rent registration service? Why have two different types of order in the Bill?
  There is another reason why we do not believe that the House would be wise to trust the Government with powers to do by order what they find too troublesome to do by Bill. It is as well to be frank about that other reason: we know the Minister to whom we are asked to give those powers. I do not mean the President, who is a big picture man, as he showed in his speech when he quickly moved off the Bill and on the big picture. I suspect that he will forget about the Bill as soon as he can decently slip away from the debate.
  The Minister who makes the hair rise on the back of our spine and reach into our pockets for a clove of garlic is the Minister for deregulation, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He has wisely not been allowed to speak in the debate until after the 9 pm watershed, in case he frightens young strangers. May I make a confession: I have a sneaking respect for the hon. Gentleman, based on the fact that I know where he stands. Usually so many miles to the right, he is visible only on a clear day.
  How did the Minister for deregulation choose to relax on the night of his Bill's publication? He spent it among friends, with the Libertarian Alliance—[Interruption.] I see that the Minister has other supporters in the Chamber. Among much else, the Libertarian Alliance has called for the deregulation of all drug offences; the abolition of a public police force; and privatising the currency so that every citizen will be at liberty to mint his or her own money.
  Instead of telling its members, "Away with fairies," and that he had better things to do with his time, the Minister showed that he was a spirit after their own hearts. He assured them:
  "Deregulation is really part of a much broader libertarian agenda which I fully share".
  We are asked to trust that Minister with powers to extinguish Acts of Parliament by statutory instrument. We

  161
  are asked to believe that he will "have regard" to the views of a Committee if it asks him nicely to drop a proposal. The House would be wilfully negligent—so negligent that it could be sued by its constituents—were it to hand over those powers to such a Minister.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Later, I shall address the hon. Gentleman, but that does not mean that I agree with anything that he says.
  Mr. Cook: The Minister has removed a weight from my mind in suggesting that he agrees with nothing I say. It would be worrying if he did.
  The Minister's candid expression of those trenchant views, however, helps this debate, because it shows where the real division on this matter lies between the two sides of the Chamber. It has nothing to do with red tape. We have no objection to a cremation of red tape that serves no useful purpose and binds the hands of business.
  As the President observed, Labour did not, after all, think up the vast majority of the regulations that the Conservative Government are now reviewing. The Government brought them in. Of the 3,500 regulations referred to the task forces, 71 per cent. have been introduced since the Government took office, and 21 per cent. since the present Prime Minister entered Downing street. Of those regulations from the Department of Trade and Industry, 84 per cent. have been introduced since the Government took office, 27 per cent. since the present Prime Minister entered Downing Street, and 13 per cent. since the President was appointed to the DTI.
  In the Queen's Speech debate, I pointed out that, when the Government came to power in 1979, "Butterworth's Company Law" was just under 500 pages—broadly comparable to a light novel by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) "Butterworth's Company Law" now runs to more than 4,000 pages—the equivalent of "War and Peace", the works of William Shakespeare and the Bible all rolled into one.
  To rub home that point, in 1979, the annex to that volume had 80 forms that businesses might be required to fill in. After 15 years of Conservative Government, the annex to the 1993 volume contains 265 forms. It is not for nothing that the number of business accountants has increased by 75 per cent. under the present Government.
  The Government are complaining not about our regulations, but about their own. It is their regulations which they believe to be pointless, burdensome and misplaced. Yes, if the regulations are pointless, we shall happily vote for the new provisions. For example, there is much merit in the new auditing proposals, which will significantly reduce the burden on very small companies.
  We shall not, however, support any deregulation that reduces the safety of employees, the health of the public or the protection of the consumers; that is the real divide between the Opposition and the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. We believe that Parliament has the right and duty to provide a legal framework to reduce those dangers.
  In his heart, the hon. Member for Tatton believes that the state has no business interfering in such matters. That is why, whenever Ministers talk about regulation, they talk about it only as a burden, as did the President of the Board of Trade.
  162
  Regulations that cut accidents at work are not a burden on business; they are a benefit to business, because they cut the cost of injuries to the work force and reduce the production lost through accidents.
  The Health and Safety Commission estimates the cost of accidents to business as between £11,000 million and £16,000 million every year. That is the really big burden on business; that is the burden which the Government should be trying to cut, instead of cutting regulations that reduce accidents, and the budget of the Health and Safety Commission which exists to police the regulations. It is another example of the Government being penny wise, pound foolish.
  Nor do we impose burdens on industry by obliging companies to meet high environmental standards. On the contrary; we shall leave British industry handicapped in the competition for world markets if we encourage it to settle for lower environmental standards than other countries will accept. We believe that Parliament has a duty to regulate to ensure fair play between producer and consumer.
  I understand that the Minister believes that consumers should be free to make up their own minds on what they want. Very well: consumers have made up their minds. They want Parliament to regulate for fair play. A recent poll by the National Consumer Council shows that 90 per cent. of consumers believe that the Government have a responsibility to provide regulations to protect consumers.
  Even in the Government's reduced circumstances in the polls, that 90 per cent. must include somebody who still wants to vote for them. That 90 per cent. of consumers see regulations not as a burden that costs them money, but as important protection for the money in their wallets and purses—an enabling measure which helps them get value for money.
  There is one consumer issue bigger today than it was before the Conservatives came to power. The operation of debt agencies has increased, because one of the real burdens imposed on the nation is the trebling of personal debt. The Government have published a list of measures that they might introduce under the new powers in clauses 1 to 4. One is to amend by order the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to reduce the obligation on credit agents to notify the Government about changes in their key personnel.
  In their constituency work, many right hon. and hon. Members will have come across the sharp practice of those who prey on the needs of those who are desperately in debt. Those hon. Members who have not, have either been extremely fortunate or not very active in their constituency work. My own experience is such that I agree with the spokesman for one consumer group, who said that we should be tightening rules on debt agencies, not loosening them.
  Sir Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the mood of the country. Many of those people who are helped with their debts are in the voluntary sector, and the voluntary sector is crying out for the cutting away of regulations, which are often more burdensome on them than on trade and industry. The hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point.
  Mr. Cook: If articulating the views of 90 per cent. of consumers is missing the mood of the nation, it is the hon. Gentleman who has the selective hearing problem.

  163
  I understand why the Government missed the mood of the nation; it was because of the people to whom they listen. There were no consumers on the task forces that they set up to advise them.
  The President of the Board of Trade made great play of the importance of small businesses and the importance to small businesses of cutting regulations. It is a pity that that was not remembered by whoever set up the task forces. There were no small businesses there either; it was the big boys. GEC, Bovis and Kingfisher were in the chairs of the task forces.
  Membership of the task forces reads like a list of donors to the Tory party. Between them, the companies represented on the task force made 88 separate donations to the Tory party. Four of the eight chairmen of the task forces come from companies that together donated to the Tory party only a few thousand short of £1 million in the last Parliament alone.
  They are the people to whom the Government are really prepared to have regard—not some Committee of the House—
  Mr. Spearing: The Sleaze (Pay-off) Bill.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is very supportive, but he must allow me to continue.
  One of the recommendations from the task forces that was carried into the Bill is that brewers can continue cheating us of the full measures in our pints. They can continue serving up to 5 per cent. of froth instead of 100 per cent. of beer. It certainly removes a burden from the brewers: the burden of providing a full pint to the customer who has paid for it.
  Mr. Heseltine: Why did 30 Labour Members of Parliament sign an early-day motion asking us to do just that?
  Mr. Cook: Thankfully, as the President of the Board of Trade does not yet have the power to act by order, those hon. Members will have the opportunity to argue their case when we reach that clause, and I shall listen.
  If the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote to me 30 of my Back Benchers, he may recall that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who was the Minister for Consumer Affairs until last year, said in the current issue of the CAMRA newspaper:
  "Once more a Conservative Government has caved in to the brewers".
  Nobody from the Campaign for Real Ale was on the task forces. I suspect that nobody on the task forces was from the drinking public. I doubt whether any of the exalted membership of the task forces has been in a public bar in the past 10 years.
  Mr. John Sykes rose—
  Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a moment to whichever of the hon. Gentleman has been in a public bar.
  Bass was represented on the food and drink task force, as was Whitbread, which has given £250,000 to the Tory party during the lifetime of the Parliament. That is why the provision is in the Bill: it has nothing to do with cutting red tape and everything to do with paying back the vested interests that bankroll the Tory party.
  Mr. Sykes: Leaving aside the fact that it is impossible to get a frothy head on a pint of London beer, how can the hon. Gentleman justify the extra expense on pubs across the country, when last year there were only 16 complaints, although 200 million pints of beer were served?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman concedes our case when he asks how they could meet the extra expense. Did we need any further evidence that the brewers are pocketing the money by short-changing the customer? That is where the money is coming from, and they are afraid of handing it over. The Government will have regard to those people, not to the House.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I have given way generously during this debate, and I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on many other occasions.
  There is, of course, a double standard that is represented by this Bill. The Government are so keen to deregulate—[Interruption.] We have in the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) another spokesman for the brewers. I should not want the Tory party to lose the money that it gets from the brewers.
  Mr. Riddick: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the brewers' imposing an extra 7p on the price of a pint of beer? That would be the cost of enforcing this provision. Let the hon. Gentleman now answer the question that has been put to him: why did 33 of his hon. Friends sign the early-day motion supporting the introduction of this provision?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has put a precise price on the point that was made by his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). We have been told that brewers now admit that they cheat drinkers out of 7p on every pint. For once, I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, who, when he was the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, said that the drinker should get the pint he pays for.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No. I have given way often enough. The hon. Gentleman has earned his keep from the brewing industry and will now have to stay in his place.
  Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to display total ignorance of the fact that brewers would have to introduce new glasses and new meters to correspond with these new measures?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Cook: None the less, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. Having consulted the Register of Members' Interests, I can tell the House that the hon. Gentleman is a parliamentary adviser to the Brewers Society. A more genuine point of order—although I shall not raise it—might concern whether the hon. Gentleman declared his interest before intervening in this debate.
  Mr. Riddick: It is in the register, you berk.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that I heard that remark correctly, but if I did, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
  Mr. Riddick: I withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.
  Mr. Cook: We can lay the hon. Gentleman's point in the place from which the cheques come.
  There is, of course, a double standard represented by this Bill. We have a Government who are so keen to deregulate the private sector—
  Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to labour the matter, but it is only fair to the House to point out that a Labour Member too is a parliamentary adviser to the Brewers Society. I can speak with some authority about this subject, as, unlike the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I happen to know something about it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members should be quite clear that if they have an interest in the subject of a debate in which they are taking part, that interest must be declared.
  Mr. Cook: There is a double standard in this Bill. We have a Government who, while keen to deregulate the private sector, keep rolling out more central control in the public sector.
  The President of the Board of Trade will recall that he began his career in the Government as Secretary of State for the Environment. Just after his appointment, he set out his strategy for the deregulation of local government. He said:
  "We will sweep away tiresome and excessive control over local government. They do not need, they do not want, the fussy supervision of detail".
  Fifteen years later, we have more central regulation of local government than any other country in Europe. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a bonfire of regulations, let us throw on that bonfire the red tape that ties up local democracy—the capping powers, the rules on compulsory competitive tendering and the Treasury regulations that prevent councils from using their own capital receipts to shorten their waiting lists.
  What about putting the torch to red tape in the national health service—the mountains of red tape invented through the Government's reforms? In four years, the number of managers needed to control the red tape has increased by 400 per cent. That burden on business, which was created by the present Government, could be removed by them. Such is the gulf between the hype with which Ministers preach deregulation and their own record in office.
  At his press conference to introduce this Bill, the President of the Board of Trade was strong on hype. He said:
  "This Bill will save hundreds of millions of pounds."
  When his Department was asked to quantify the hundreds of millions of pounds, it produced figures that added up to precisely £50 million. The Customs people, when they were approached, said, "We're a little puzzled by the figures." I suspect that the truth is that none of the measures in chapter II or in the background documents will make much difference, one way or the other, to the vast majority of British businesses.
  There is, however, one obvious exception. The document "Cutting Red Tape" contains one item that will make a big difference to the budget of every firm, large or small. I refer to the first entry from the Department of Social Security. That Department claims, unbelievably, that the imposition of statutory sick pay on employers cuts
  166
  red tape by reducing the administrative burden on the Department. It would take an Orwell to do justice to the double-speak which argues that imposing an additional bill of £750 million on industry reduces the burden on business.
  But most of these measures are fairly harmless. The removal of the 1889 Act that prohibits the sale of methylated spirit on Sunday and the repeal of the Pedlar Act 1887 are no doubt worthy tidying-up measures, but they are modest provisions that will not improve our international competitiveness. They are not a substitute for the industrial strategy that Britain needs.
  Last week, Britain's economy became the first major one in Europe without a car manufacturer. [Interruption.] Only five years ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs warned that British ownership and control of the car industry must be a matter for the Government. He said that, if that fact were forgotten, the British car industry would go further up the cul-de-sac. of extinction. Now that that is happening, he is laughing.
  This week, a group of senior industrialists launched a report that highlights the long-term damage caused by Britain's obsession with short-term financial priorities. Since the new year, we have lost 1,900 jobs in our biggest exporting industry, aerospace. That is not only a tragedy for those who have lost their jobs but a handicap for the economy, which is losing its pool of skilled engineers.
  These are the real challenges facing British industry. These are the big issues which the House should be debating. Instead, we have this mean-spirited little Bill, which will weaken our procedures in Parliament without doing anything really to strengthen our industry. It is the final proof of the bankruptcy of a Government who have been in office too long—too long to know how to solve the problems of the nation, because they are problems all of their own making.
  This is no time for a uniquely unpopular Government to ask Parliament for yet more powers. It is time for the Government to give back to the people the power to decide who should govern them. In the Division Lobby tonight, we may not prevent them from giving themselves these extra powers, but the people will soon strip them away through the ballot box.
  4.58 pm
  Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) may well pull out his binoculars when he hears me welcome this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has presented an awesome spectacle today. He has made very clear the extent to which we would be not only over-regulated but also deeply over-governed if—God forbid—we were to have a Labour Government.
  I welcome the Bill very warmly. For a long time, I have thought that we in this country have suffered from over-regulation in every part of our daily life. It is interesting—and this is a very important point—that in the early 1980s, when a similar difficulty was caused by our employment legislation and the restrictions that it imposed, we took steps to introduce measures on an incremental basis. Although we started relatively slowly to reform our laws, we introduced more and more legislation, which incrementally opened up the possibilities for employment on a free basis and for the exercise of people's rights. I hope that we shall introduce further legislation after the

  167
  Bill has completed its Committee stage—successfully, but no doubt with some jollity, judging by the early part of today's debate.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade rightly stressed the importance of the Bill in relation to our industrial competitiveness. We should consider not only our ability to compete with fellow members of the European Union, but the increasing competition presented by lightly regulated Pacific rim countries. If our small businesses are to grow and compete we, too, must be lightly regulated rather than over-regulated.
  Over the past few years, people and businesses have suffered as a result of regulation. Sadly, small businesses suffer particularly from over-regulation when there is a downturn in the country's economic fortunes.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Can the right hon. Lady explain how the current position has arisen—other than through the need to incorporate European Community directives in domestic regulations? For more than 13 years she has supported the current Administration, both inside and outside the House. If the current over-regulation is the fault of that Administration, why do they not reverse it? What could be simpler than to do that and admit that they are at fault?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Many of the regulations involved were introduced during the 1960s and 1970s when the Conservative Administration were not responsible for the legislation.
  Most of our constituencies contain small and medium-sized businesses in considerable difficulties. Many of those difficulties were brought about by over-regulation and over-complication involving such matters as value added tax, sick pay and administration generally. I was enthusiastic about the measures introduced in the Budget because I thought it important to relieve small businesses of some of the burdens of form filling—especially in connection with VAT—that officialdom has created over the past year.
  Many young entrepreneurs with certain skills—not necessarily accounting skills—start up small businesses. They are then confronted by a huge number of regulations. Some of the regulations relate to accounting procedures. Others, however, emanate from the DTI and other Departments which insist on burdening those young entrepreneurs with a plethora of regulations and forms, making it impossible for them to establish forceful, successful businesses which can compete with their rivals in other countries.
  That is the world on which we should concentrate. A young engineer, for instance, may be suddenly confronted by the VAT man or some other official, and told, "You must do such and such today, or we cannot allow you to continue in business". He may also have an important contract to fulfil on that same day. When considering the way in which the growth of new businesses is constrained, we should take account of the amount of business that is lost as a result of time factors and the restrictions imposed by today's over-regulated world. Young and even middle-aged people starting up businesses should have some idea of the accounting and management skills that they will need to acquire. That is a question of training. As I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will
  168
  acknowledge, the one-stop shop approach has already proved helpful. I hope that that scheme will be expanded, as I believe that it will assist with the regulations that will have to be introduced at some stage.
  I do not want to suggest that I am a total deregulator. I know perfectly well that we must live in a world containing reasonable restraints. I know that even in local government, which was cited by the hon. Member for Livingston, councillors and other officials often have to regulate and impose restraints, for good reasons. I should add, however, that I was a local councillor for some 10 years and I used to dread—and, indeed, leave—committee meetings dealing with what I considered to be interference in other people's business. In the development control and planning committees, every "i" had to be dotted, every "t" crossed; even the placing of dustbins was a matter for those committees. If we allowed some of the more enthusiastic regulators in the House of Commons to have their way, I believe that the House itself would be turned into a development control committee overnight. We would be dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" in every piece of legislation with which we were presented. There is no quicker way of obfuscating the proper business of the House—that of legislating on serious matters—than allowing ourselves to forget that we are not here to interfere in every moment of people's daily lives.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Are not the most welcome parts of the Bill those dealing with the fresh guidelines with which local authorities will be issued? No longer will an enforcement officer say one thing to certain groups of businesses while another officer in the same local authority says something completely different. At present, the arrangements differ from area to area. We need simple standard guidelines, full of common sense, which people will understand.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The regulations are so complex that it is possible for them to be defined in one way by a group of people in Birmingham, for instance, while another group in Bristol interprets them as requiring greater controls. When I was in local government, I found that it was possible to misinterpret every regulation that resulted from legislation passed in the House of Commons.
  Before I became a Member of Parliament, I also spent some time examining the task force proposals on deregulation. I was encouraged by those proposals, but less encouraged by "Cutting Red Tape". I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to be over-cautious. I fear that with a Bill of this nature it would be easy enough to withdraw from the initial thrust of legislation which would otherwise produce excellent results in the future. That would nullify all the efforts not only of enthusiastic supporters such as myself but of those who have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, although I trust that I shall not be among their number.
  A raft of opportunities is available for us to consider. Many are set out in the task force proposals and others will emerge as we consider the Bill. It is important for hon. Members to recognise that the Bill should set a trend whereby it will become the norm for people to consider legislation and its regulations closely, and for those regulations to be not only clear and simple but written in understandable language, which has not yet been achieved.

  169
  I am happy, therefore, to support the Bill and the efforts of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers to ensure that the Bill successfully progresses through the House.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, while welcoming the removal of unnecessary and out-of-date regulations, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which proposes to remove these regulations without providing a mechanism for proper debate and which encourages the transfer of decision-making over public money to private individuals who are in no way properly accountable to Parliament."
  The amendment makes it clear that I accept the case for getting rid of out-of-date regulations and regulations that are a genuine barrier to efficiency and understanding. I am more than willing to have constructive discussions with the Government to identify and agree on procedures that will achieve those aims. As the amendment makes clear, however, we are concerned about how those goals should be achieved, what the mechanism should be, and how we can ensure that the matter is properly debated. There should be a genuine attempt to strike a balance in the process; at present, the Bill does not do so.
  In his opening speech, the President of the Board of Trade acknowledged the creative tension that exists and set out the case for regulations and the continuing need for them. I am not always sure whether the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs agrees with his boss. He sometimes gives the impression that he has not been convinced of the case for any regulation.
  If one considers the task forces' report and the proposals that the Government have either accepted or rejected, it is clear that there was, even at the Department of Trade and Industry, tension on the subject of the task force. For example, the task force was opposed to the protection of hedgerows, whereas the Government were still committed to introducing legislation to achieve that end, which I welcome.
  Other serious tensions, particularly on small businesses, were well drawn out in the Library brief. It is easy for hon. Members to provide a catalogue of information from individual small businesses on regulations, planning controls and health and safety factors. Those small businesses are required to respond to those regulations, which causes them considerable difficulty. That problem was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in his Social Market Foundation paper, which identified that big businesses are sometimes relaxed about regulations. They not only have the mechanism to police and enforce them, but they regard them as a barrier to market entry for some smaller businesses. That argument should be noted.
  It is interesting that, in the same Library brief, the Small Business Research Trust showed the danger of not acknowledging the risks. It argues that many small businesses will concentrate only on picking up business on the fringes, because it is cheaper. That brings the danger that they will perhaps be tainted with the label that they are not of as high a standard as larger businesses. The legitimate questions that need to be asked are: should we abolish regulations for small businesses and give them derogations or should we help them to meet the regulations in two ways? First, we could ensure that they are simple and necessary—there can be a meeting of minds on that
  170
  matter. Secondly, we could provide small businesses with practical assistance that recognises the difficulty that they have in meeting regulations, which have too often been drawn up by the Department in consultation only with the large businesses, which do not have the problems.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in considering how to help small businesses to meet levels of regulation, we depart from the real issue: was it necessary to impose such regulations on those businesses in the first place? Is not that nonsense? We should get rid of those regulations that are not necessary.
  Mr. Bruce: We need to tackle both the problems that I mentioned because there will still be regulations that are necessary and which small businesses will find difficult. I accept the hon. Member's argument that we should always examine whether regulations are necessary and whether they create an unnecessary barrier or burden.
  I want to pursue the argument that many regulations have been introduced by the Government in the wake of privatisation and the broadening of the market. It may well be that, as the market becomes more effective, there will be room to lower those regulations. But we have to be sure of what we are doing, because those regulations were introduced for good reasons. If conditions have changed sufficiently and changes are justified, it will not present a problem. But concerns will continue in some quarters.
  The constitutional proposals in the Bill are of genuine concern. Clauses 1 to 4 represent a major constitutional change to the way in which the House does its business. As I said in my intervention during the President of the Board of Trade's speech, the Government, by recommending the new process, at least acknowledge that a radically different position exists and that the House needs to consider that. We should welcome that acknowledgement and consider the proposals.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is not the key difference that the Bill, for the first time, makes it much easier for regulations and legislation to be withdrawn? That is the key change from previous practice. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise and welcome that?
  Mr. Bruce: I am prepared to acknowledge that the B ill provides a better mechanism for removing the regulations than applied when they were introduced. If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, he will discover my concerns.
  My first concern, which I mentioned earlier, involves clause 3, which seems specifically designed to avoid the possibility of judicial review. It states:
  "Before a Minister makes an order under section 1 above, he shall—

  (a) consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals; and

  (b) consult such other persons as he considers appropriate."

  It goes on to state that if it is appropriate
  "to vary the whole or any part of his proposals, he shall undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as appears to be him to be appropriate."
  I am aware that there have been occasions in the past when judicial review has been successful because parties that believe that they should have been consulted have not been consulted, and they have been able to have the matter looked into. The clause seems to ensure that all the

  171
  Minister has to say is, "I did not consider it necessary to consult them, whatever their interest and however essential it was." The clause is too wide and I hope that it will be amended.
  Mr. Sykes: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the two Select Committees will have the power to call before them whomsoever they would wish to call?
  Mr. Bruce: The interventions are anticipating the arguments that I am advancing. I have acknowledged that the Government recognise that there is a need for new procedure. I am addressing their proposals. We should first recognise, however, that we do not yet know in detail how the new procedure will operate. All we have are recommendations from the Government that have to be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. I understand that that Committee has not started to meet to discuss the matter, although it originally said that it might do so. It is waiting for the end of the debate and for the Bill to go into Committee. It would be extremely helpful if the Committee report were to be made available before the Bill reached its Report stage. Otherwise, we shall be debating in a vacuum without any clear idea of the Procedure Committee's concerns.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has hit—perhaps untowardly—on a most important constitutional point. He asks that a body, perhaps a Committee of the House or, indeed, the Government, who no doubt have some views on the matter, present some ideas about the constitution of a Committee which, under Standing Orders, would discuss the probable views of the House. Would not it be more appropriate for that to happen only after Royal Assent has been granted because, prior to that, this House or another place might not wish clause 3 to remain part of the Bill?
  Mr. Bruce: I respect the hon. Gentleman's constitutional niceties, but I am being pragmatic. The Government have a majority and I should like to hear what the Procedure Committee has to say, for pragmatic rather than constitutional reasons. Incidentally, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments currently has no representative from the minority parties. I wish to put it on the record that, if the procedure is to be developed, I hope that the Committee will be more representative of the House as a whole. It is fine to talk about the theoretical and constitutional niceties of an alternative procedure, but I am worried about the practicalities.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is no longer in the Chamber, has already pointed out the statistical implications. We already face thousands of statutory instruments every year, but the Government are now asking for an additional procedure to deal with potentially thousands—or at least hundreds—more in any given Session. There is no chance of the Committee dealing with anything other than a tiny fraction of them. It will be able to undertake nothing more than a cherry-picking exercise, choosing to consider those that appear to be most contentious or those that are of most public interest.
  The President of the Board of Trade has offered us only an unquantified self-denying ordinance that the Government would undertake to be "reasonable", but we are being asked to give the Government additional powers
  172
  without any idea of what "reasonable" means. In those circumstances, the House is entitled to express its serious reservations about the implications of the proposals.
  A further constitutional implication is to be found in part II of the Bill, which deals with contracting out. It extends the removal of parliamentary control and accountability even further than the measures that have been introduced in the past 13 years. It is a matter of genuine concern and it is interesting that the debate is coming out into the open. When the Conservative party was in opposition, I remember that there was a great campaign against the wicked quangos which were being created by the Labour Government, but no one has created more quangos and provided them with less constitutional accountability than the Conservatives.
  The contracting-out provisions of the Bill take the notion a stage further. The provisions essentially mean that private contractors, private individuals, the employees of private contractors and the contractors of private contractors can act as if they were Ministers or civil servants and that the Minister can override local authorities and require them to transfer the powers of local government councillors and officers to private contractors. The Conservative party claims to believe in tight control and sound money, but it is creating a monster over which it has less and less control.
  The Public Accounts Committee has already identified the extent to which money voted by Parliament is being spent by people who are not accountable to Parliament. We are talking not about millions of pounds but about hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds being transferred to people who are not accountable to the House.
  I have often campaigned for fundamental constitutional changes to the way in which the country is run, and argued for a written constitution, a Bill of Rights and a fairer voting system, but let us leave that aside. Under the terms according to which the House chooses to operate as a sovereign Parliament, the basic rules are that Parliament votes money and Ministers are accountable to Parliament for spending it. Now, apparently, we are to be told increasingly that private contractors are responsible.
  I hope that the Minister will explain the real meaning of clause 60, because I have heard two interpretations. One was that if the Minister intervened and stopped a contract because he believed that a contractor was abusing his power, the contractor might be able to sue him for breach of contract, which would presumably mean that more public money could be lost. What is the use of the safeguard in clause 60 if a contractor has already disappeared with the money, gone bust or is simply unable to account for it? I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
  There has been a continual blurring of the proper role of Parliament and Ministers and of the proper control of money voted by the House of Commons for public services. That is unacceptable and it is why the Bill is much more important than it perhaps appears at first. Hon. Members, including those who, I regret, are not here today, should realise that we are not debating a simple Bill being promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The Bill will fundamentally alter the pattern of Parliament and will affect every Ministry and Department. It could mean that any Minister in any Department could unilaterally amend, abolish or repeal huge rafts of

  173
  legislation without proper consultation or debate in the House. We should not underestimate the significance of the proposals.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman has spent some time talking about the aspects of the Bill with which he disagrees, but he has not once said what the Liberal Democrats would do to cut the red tape which is holding back our businesses and stopping them flourishing and growing. He should stop sitting on the fence and instead tell us what his party would do.
  Mr. Bruce: I have no problem with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The amendment makes it clear that we are in favour of sweeping away unnecessary regulations, but that we are concerned about how it is done. I can, of course, identify proposals that we favour. One of our concerns that has been mentioned, but which the Government do not share, is that the imposition of statutory sick pay on small buisnesses is a big burden on them. Even small businesses say that the lack of markets and cash flow and their inability to get their bills paid on time are far more serious than regulation.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted the relief of the auditing requirement for businesses with a turnover of less than £90,000. I not only welcome and support that but point out that the Liberal Democrats advocated it in our alternative budget in advance of the Government's Budget. Indeed, we have made, and will continue to make, representations to the Government for the removal of unnecessary or overly restrictive regulations. If the Government approached the issue in a less partisan spirit, this would be a great opportunity to reach agreement to remove regulations which all parties agree are non-controversial.
  One fact that I am sure the Minister has already indentified is that no one believes that it should continue to be a criminal offence to provide someone with more than a pint of beer when they have paid only the statutory charge for a pint. We welcome some of the proposals to change shop hours and the relaxing of restrictions regarding children in pubs. Indeed, we have advocated many such proposals, so the intervention of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was irrelevant.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the practical problem that was highlighted in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that to overturn regulation on a large scale would take not years but decades if one were to follow the usual parliamentary procedures?
  Mr. Bruce: I am not convinced. Let the Government be honest: we all agree on the regulations that can be removed relatively easily because they are out of date, obsolete or marginal, but others, such as those relating to consumer protection, involve a fundamental difference in philosophy. It is odd that, while one Minister is saying that he will deregulate, when there is a major scandal or row or someone runs off with the money, another Minister tells us what he will do to ensure that consumers are protected and says that we shall have legislation in a few weeks. I do not know whether at that point the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will come over to the Opposition Benches and start to argue against it. It is only reasonable that the creative tension is acknowledged.
  174
  I can leave many details of the Bill to the Committee. However, one of the valid and legitimate objections made by the Association for Consumer Research is that the deregulation does not appear to have a coherent framework. That is a direct challenge to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. It will be helpful to Members of Parliament, to businesses of all shapes and sizes, to consumers and to all the relevant groups—whether it be for employment protection, health and safety, consumer protection, standards or whatever—to know the groupings of regulations that the Government are putting together to declare them obsolescent and get rid of them.
  There is no clear framework. We are getting rafts of unrelated deregulations with no pattern to them. The Government will simply decide to get rid of the regulations, which will be discarded in their hundreds. If they are grouped coherently, people will be aware of the benefit and businesses will understand the sense of it.
  My final argument is that the Government are in danger of pursuing a wonderful line of rhetoric—the hon. Members for Ribble Valley and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who intervened on my speech, would do well to consider that—which they will find that they are unable to fulfil. They will create hopes and expectations in the small business community in their constituencies, who will ultimately be disappointed because it has not proved practical because there is no coherent strategy. We are already beginning to experience that type of approach.
  The Government must also recognise that they are raising fears that consumer protection legislation will be weakened; that employment protection or people's rights, especially to redundancy payments, will be swept away; that health and safety provisions could be diluted. Those are the worries which will legitimately be addressed in detail in the Bill.
  I would suggest to the Government and to hon. Members that we need to have a constructive and honest debate about how we can, get rid of unnecessary regulations, and about how we can, by all means, introduce a culture that enables us to review regulations properly before they are introduced. I would suggest that that mechanism, if it is good for removing regulations, ought to be good for introducing them as well. The Government should consider that. We should realise that that is not as simple as it appears.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am glad to hear the constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech because I believe that there will be a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House on the meat of the measures that will be brought forth under the deregulation initiative. The order-making power will in general be used, as is evident from the nature of those which appear in this company document, for measures that will be uncontroversial. I believe, though, that the overall strategy is properly dealt with in that document and the other documents that were published at the same time as the Bill. Reviews are continuing over the range of Government policy in which consumers will have a full part to play when we consult them, before and after the Government make their proposals. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's fears are illusory.
  Mr. Bruce: I hope that I am right, but, as we get into Committee, we shall obtain more detail. Many of the proposals in the meat of the Bill will not cause major problems for the Government. Some will, but most,

  175
  probably, will not. The trouble is that most of the things that are identified in the accompanying documents are not in the Bill, and some are not clear.
  For example, I do not understand why European time should appear. It is acknowledged to be a non-regulation matter. Is there any serious suggestion that we could be forced on to European standard time on the basis of a statutory instrument, among hundreds of others, which cannot be debated as primary legislation on the Floor of the House? The future of the Forestry Commission is mentioned. Does the privatisation of forestry, if the Government were to go down that route, require primary legislation or not? We should be told.
  We are worried that fundamental structural changes could be introduced on the basis of a mechanism that will not allow for proper debate and amendment. If the Government are able to provide us with assurances in due course by the time that the Committee has sat, they will find that the Liberal Democrats respond constructively, but we shall have to be convinced that we are not discussing a constitutional outrage which will sweep away the proper responsibility of Parliament and the proper responsibility of Members of Parliament to scrutinise, to vote money and to hold Ministers to account for it.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the route that he has signposted. I shall confine my remarks to a very narrow sector—a point touched on earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) during an intervention.
  I do not oppose the main principles of the Bill. Deregulation provides additional opportunities for businesses by removing controls and bureaucracy. It stimulates new ideas and can do a great deal to create a climate in which prosperity and jobs can grow and flourish.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in his splendid opening speech, quite properly drew our attention to the benefits that will flow from the enactment of the Bill. I wish, however, to discuss a narrow part, and I am concerned about two clauses that might, at first sight, seem insignificant.
  They are outside the main thrust of this measure, but they have serious implications for the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner—the ombudsman. It is more probable that the Comptroller and Auditor General will also be affected, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said. It is even possible that the Clerks of the House would be unintentional targets of the legislation.
  My interest in the measure arises because I am Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It is, therefore, my intention to confine my remarks to the implications that the Bill holds for that office, even though it may have implications for other servants of the House.
  The relevant clauses are clauses 57 and 67. It will be seen that clause 57(2) and (3) draws attention to what might happen as far as the Parliamentary Commissioner
  176
  for Administration is concerned. It would seem from at least one interpretation that a Minister would be able to instruct an Officer of the House.
  I put it to the House that that would be something of a constitutional novelty. It has serious implications for the ombudsman, whose office was set up by the House and who is required to inquire into complaints made by citizens about the way in which Government Departments administer or implement Acts of Parliament. It is the ombudsman's duty—a duty that has been laid upon him by the House—to inquire into examples of maladministration—for example, in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Transport or the national health service.
  The ombudsman is required to publish a report following his investigation, which sets out his findings and suggests remedies. From time to time, therefore, the ombudsman is seen to be clearly critical of the way in which a Government Department discharges its duties and responsibilities.
  The Parliamentary Commissioner or the Health Service Commissioner can do that because he does not owe his existence to any Minister or to Government. He is an Officer of the House, and he is therefore independent and impartial, owing no allegiance to Ministers or Government Departments. If his office is contracted out, I believe that that impartiality will be substantially damaged. Like the judiciary, the ombudsman is involved in justice—justice for the citizen against an overbearing or maladministering arm of the state.
  A recent report by the Select Committee on the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration concluded that the independence of the ombudsman should be further emphasised and enhanced, and that it should be done by changing the way in which he is appointed and his office funded.
  In the report—only the second issued by the Select Committee in about 25 years—that relates to the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Committee said:
  "We recommend that the Government introduce legislation to meet the expenses of the office from monies voted directly by Parliament on estimates prepared by the Public Administration Commission. We also recommend that the Government introduce legislation to provide for the appointment of the ombudsman by the Crown on an address of the House of Commons. No motion being made in such an address except by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Chairman of the Select Committee and the Leader of the Opposition."
  The Bill, or rather the part of it that I have mentioned, goes in the opposite direction, with powers being transferred from the House to the Government. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends in government would not abuse their new powers, but someone else, perhaps in some new Parliament, might be tempted to do so.
  That is why I believe that the two clauses should be amended to remove the Officers of the House from the effects of the Bill. Alternatively, any decision conveying the powers and responsibilities of the Parliamentary Commissioner to any third party should lie firmly with the Commissioner himself. It should be his decision, not that of a Minister.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and me to meet him yesterday to discuss that specific issue. I thank him both for his courtesy and for his time. He showed considerable understanding of and

  177
  sympathy for the views that we expressed. I therefore hope that, when the Under-Secretary of State sums up, he will be able to reassure me on this matter.
  I regard it as an issue of constitutional importance, which has a considerable bearing on an Officer of the House and on the House itself. I shall therefore listen with even greater care than usual to what my hon. Friend says when he winds up.
  5.41 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: The day that the President of the Board of Trade published the Bill, he spoke on the "Today" programme on Radio 4, and was asked to give illustrations of the kind of burden that he meant to remove. Casting around for an example, he lighted upon school governors, and said that the governors he knew were always telling him that they were burdened with regulations. He did not pause to think where those regulations had come from. Therein is a microcosm of the story of the past 15 years. There we see the origins of the deregulation that is now being discussed.
  The Government said that they were a new kind of Government, representing a new kind of Conservatism, which had nothing to do with the old kind. They intended to take up society by the roots and remake everything they could get their hands on—the health service, local government, education, the trade unions—you name it, and in they would go to legislate. Of course, the consequence is that we have never been so legislated against.
  I am not sure whether I am allowed to say this, but the President of the Board of Trade was not telling the entire truth when he said, in his casual way, that Europe and the single European market alone had caused all that legislation. If one examines the figures, as I have done, and the pages and pages of Acts and statutory instruments dating from the 1980s, one finds that it was all there from the beginning.
  The record shows the simple story: since 1979, the Government have issued on average 500 more pages of legislation a year than the Labour Government of the 1970s—and also on average 500 more pages a year on statutory instruments. That is the background to the issues that we are dealing with today.
  Even more intriguing is the fact that, since 1985, there has been a deregulation unit inside the Department of Trade and Industry. Clearly, it has not been awfully successful, because in 1994 we apparently need a deregulation Bill.
  Mr. Steen: If the hon. Gentleman says that there has been too much legislation, why does he disagree with a Bill that aims to reduce it? The fact that we got it wrong in the past surely means that he will now say that we should put it right. That is exactly what we are doing. How can he possibly oppose that?
  Dr. Wright: I am grateful for that intervention, because I did not hear the President of the Board of Trade tell the story in quite that way. I did not hear him say, "Of course, we have rather screwed things up. We have got it all wrong since 1979. All those monstrous laws that we introduced were quite misguided, and we would now like to make a public apology for them. As a token of our remorse, we shall start moving in a new direction." In fact, I did not
  178
  hear much of an apology at all, despite the fact that, as we all know, all the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman talked about was derived from that period.
  What happened when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wrote his recent pamphlet on deregulation for the Social Market Foundation? He plucked out 10 or 12 B ills to illustrate what he was talking about—and of course, they were all Bills from the past five years or so. That conveys the fundamental truth about what is happening.
  The larger truth, which we must also establish, is that there are good and bad regulations: sensible regulations and regulations that are not sensible. It is possible to tell the story of regulation in a way that makes it sound rather different.
  For example, what about the demands from small businesses for a late payment scheme? They argue for a new kind of regulation that they would find helpful. The work of the Small Business Research Trust shows that regulations can be a spur to innovation and competitiveness. The environmental technology industry argued this week that the Government's failure to take environmental regulation seriously was holding that industry back from winning new markets.
  The food and drink industry was mentioned earlier, so I shall cite a recent statement by an organisation representing that industry:
  "Reducing the complexity of legislation through simplification and consolidation, together with ensuring that it is enforced to the same standard not only in the UK but also across the EC, would provide similar, if not greater, benefits to the industry than piecemeal changes to existing legislation."
  The Government have not persuaded even those they claim are the beneficiaries of their efforts.
  That is all simply a preliminary. The heart of the matter, and the issue of fundamental importance, is the manner in which the Government want to proceed. We are being offered a Bill entirely without precedent. Many Bills—a growing number in recent years—carry large order-making powers. Both the Education Act 1993 and the Child Support Act 1991 give their respective Secretaries of State more than 100 such powers. Since 1979, there have been 143 Acts relating to local government, and so on.
  There is no question but that the development of order-making powers is a phenomenon associated with the present Government. However, what is new and without precedent about the Bill is that the Government are saying to the House of Commons, "We would like you to give Ministers blanket powers to make orders to repeal legislation." Anyone who knows anything about the way in which Parliament has examined such measures in the past will understand immediately why that is unacceptable.
  In 1932, the Donoughmore committee said:
  "The use of the so-called 'Henry VIII Clause', conferring power on a Minister to modify the provisions of Acts of Parliament (hitherto limited to such amendments as may appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of bringing the statute into operation) should be abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases, and should not be permitted by Parliament except upon special grounds".
  Let us leap forward 60 years, because the House of Lords has taken an interest in the matter in recent times, to the House of Lords Scrutiny Committee, established in 1992. In its first report, it says:
  "In sum, the case for using Henry VIII clauses for updating lists, uprating for inflation and for making consequential and transitional provisions was recognised. In any event the Government should be expected to justify the use of such clauses as being necessary: they should not be used simply for convenience."

  179
  We are being offered a Bill for the convenience of Ministers, in contravention of everything that has ever been claimed about the relationship in the matter of legislation between the House of Commons and the Executive. Either the House says that that is fine, that we do not mind being rolled over like that, or we say that there is something fundamental going on here; and there is.
  Deregulation never was much of a big idea. Indeed, it is a rather little idea. But the big idea that is going on is that Ministers can decide for themselves what to do in the matter of making orders, irrespective of normal parliamentary procedures. If hon. Members are prepared—particularly Conservative Members, because it is not, or should not be, a party matter—to accept and approve the first four clauses of the Bill, they are not, as they believe, lightening the burdens on industry and small businesses, but taking a major step towards the transfer of power permanently from the House of Commons to the Executive. That is precisely the choice.
  Looking at the history of the House of Commons over the past 15 years—heaven knows, its esteem is low enough anyway—and the way in which it has consistently failed to stand up to the Executive, the promise of the scrutiny Committees as an offsetting device against the massive transfer of power looks small and pathetic here.
  In the period since 1979, the Government have been defeated only seven times in the House of Commons. On two of those occasions, Members of Parliament ganged up on their pay and conditions; at other times it was to do with dogs and Sunday trading. The idea that somehow, through party-based Committees, the House of Commons will suddenly become, as the Prime Minister might say, "muscular" in relation to the Executive is a fraud and a delusion. This is a House of Commons matter. It is a parliamentary matter. It is a constitutional matter. It is a democratic matter.
  One hundred years ago, Sir James Ferguson looked across the Chamber and said that he had heard many arguments which influenced his opinion, but never one which influenced his vote. I ask Conservative Members to reflect on that, to consider the importance of what they are being asked to approve in the Bill, and to support Parliament instead.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: My colleagues will be relieved to hear that I propose to make a particularly short speech, because I shall address myself to the shortest clause in the Bill—clause 17, which must be one of the shortest clauses of any legislation, by only one word overlapped into a two-line clause.
  The clause totally deregulates weekday shopping. As one contemplates that tiny clause, one is bound to reflect on how great a fire may be set alight by one small spark. The scale of the total deregulation for all weekday shopping can be gleaned from the fact that it will potentially and realistically add about 22 hours—or 35 per cent.—of additional shopping time to the existing Monday-toSaturday shopping week.
  Mr. Steen: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Alison: Perhaps I can illuminate my hon. Friend. There is an upside and a downside to the proposed change.
  180
  On the upside, there is no doubt—my hon. Friend will endorse this and add his weight and approval to it—that total deregulation of weekday shopping will add many more opportunities for shopping through the whole of the working day for many people.
  Women who work normal hours in employment quite different from the retail industry will find it possible to shop with their families until 10 pm, and to do the kind of shopping in which, hitherto, on Sundays only many were forced to engage. There will be many more opportunities for shopping as a result of the deregulatory change. I warmly approve of and endorse that aspect of it.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends, including the Minister, and Opposition Members will realise the downside to the change. I hope that my colleagues will use their imagination and brood a little about this.
  The unregulated or deregulated shopping hours, both on Saturdays and, largely, on Sundays, will impose a colossal strain, but particularly on small shopkeepers. If a shop is run by a husband and wife, who may face Sunday opening as well, it will be difficult for them not to enter into competitive later opening hours. The strain of additional opening hours on small shopkeepers should not be overlooked.
  I hasten to add that the potential pressure on shopworkers who are not shopowners to work long hours during the working day and perhaps at weekends should not be totally ignored as one contemplates the effect of deregulation in that area. I ask all hon. Members to reflect on the general shindy, noise and other aggravating factors of the typical working day for many homes and home owners throughout the country, where disturbance as a result of shopping already occurs during the working day, but tends to subside after normal closing hours.
  Many residents in such pleasant residential precincts where there are shops, in places such as South Hams, Rugby, Hampstead, Hallam or Wyre Forest—just to draw a bow at venture—will be disturbed unexpectedly after normal closing hours by the fact that the shops there will be open until all hours. Some may be open until midnight, others until 1 am.
  Mr. Steen: Throughout the night.
  Mr. Alison: Some shops may indeed make a profession of opening throughout the night, although I doubt whether there will be any of that sort in South Hams.
  The fact remains that many areas where the local population tolerate the coming and going, the shindy and general disturbance of shoppers in their streets during normal working hours, will find that extended indefinitely into all hours, including Sundays, if deregulation is carried in the Shops (Amendment) Bill.
  We are rapidly approaching the time when, in the light of this welcome aspect of deregulation, we should look again seriously and deeply at the Shops (Amendment) Bill. Perhaps we should have a view to modifying and changing the permitted hours of opening on Sunday in the light of the proposals on weekday shopping.
  I ask colleagues on both sides of the House to consider changing their position on Sunday trading in the light of the Bill. I am glad to have been able to make that short and simple point. I hope that I carry many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with me in urging that we consider Sunday shopping from a quite different perspective as a result of deregulation under the Bill.
  5.59 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: If the Bill were really about simple language and about bringing legislation up to date, as the President of the Board of Trade told us it was, we should all be on a one-line Whip. We would not be here debating a serious Bill, since we would all agree. In fact, the Bill is about democracy. As we are part of the democracy, we assume that Parliament drafts legislation in the public interest. The careful clause—by—clause consideration in Committee and in the other place is designed to fine-tune legislation, to protect the public, to prevent the misinterpretation of legislation and to close loopholes.
  No Government, even one as misguided and incompetent as this one, would describe their own legislative programme as "a burden". This deregulation exercise has turned the democratic process on its head. The Government have taken provisions mainly designed to be a public safeguard out of a raft of legislation and renamed them "burdens on business". The provisions have been submitted not to public scrutiny but to the scrutiny of a task force of business interests; incidentally, the gender balance is four out of 65. The Bill then empowers Ministers to remove or to alter any provisions in primary or secondary legislation simply by statutory instrument, which is the minimum scrutiny that Parliament can give. It is astonishing that this undemocratic process has been led and driven by the Prime Minister himself.
  Mr. Steen: I have been following the hon. Lady's argument. If she would not act as we suggest and if she accepts that quite a bit of repeal is needed, how would she go about it?
  Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because in one of his contributions on the issue, he made me think how the matter should be dealt with. He bemoaned the fact that village halls have to provide public toilets if they are to receive a public entertainment licence. They also have to provide public toilets that are suitable for physically disabled people. That is done by regulation. As there is no VAT on toilets for disabled people, every community hall in the country, as the hon. Gentleman mockingly said, is now building toilets that can be used only by disabled people. That is a way in which regulations can be used for the positive benefit of everyone, which is welcome. We would use regulations in a positive way. We would not rename public safeguards "burdens on business".
  There are many issues about which we should be concerned, such as lorries going through London. Restrictions were imposed to protect air quality for Londoners. Clause 24 removes the need for lorries to have exemption permits to travel at night or at weekends; instead, guidelines will be issued to lorry drivers. Can one imagine a lorry driver, driven by his time-related bonus payment, continuing the ban voluntarily? With air quality-related diseases, such as asthma, increasing rapidly, do hon. Members really think that the people of London see that safeguard as a burden?
  Let us consider school bus safety. A recent example in my constituency concerned a bus operator who carried 81 children to school on a single-decker. The public's reaction in my constituency is to protect the children and not to protect the bus operator's business. Yet the Bill removes
  182
  the requirement for public service vehicle operators to renew their licence with the traffic commissioners every five years.
  The Department of Trade and Industry document "Cutting Red Tape" promises to
  "meet the Task Force's desire"
  for the
  "lightest possible regulatory regime"
  in waste disposal. The intention is to relax conditions, even those about pre-notifying authorities of the movement of hazardous waste. That is a further move from a statutory, enforced system towards a voluntary and self-monitored system. Do the public really want to weaken safeguards in that respect?
  All the feedback that I get, especially from young people, shows that there is increasing concern about the environment and a desire to make a positive use of waste. The Select Committee on the Environment, of which I am a member, inquired into recycling and we picked up that enthusiasm. Any system of positive waste disposal, whether through heat recovery, recycling or energy recovery from landfill, requires careful management. The rubbishing of the word "regulation", which is a key element in any waste management strategy, will destroy that positive movement.
  The task force recommends reducing the planning role of local authorities and the scope for planning gain. That is an amazing recommendation. The biggest planning problems that I have encountered stem from irresponsible developers and unauthorised development. Some developers know that the enforcement powers available to planning authorities are so weak and that the financial penalties are so severe if the authorities lose on appeal that they have nothing to fear.
  A couple of cowboys in my constituency dumped a million tyres with no planning permission, just with a vague promise that they would buy a shredder when they had enough tyres. The pile of tyres caught light, resulting in a huge fire that threatened a vast area of community forest land and nearby communities. The penalty in court was a laughable £1,000 fine and 120 days of community service. Is it any wonder that the public are sceptical about the Government's "get tough" policies when public safety is treated so lightly?
  The Bill will encourage the view, whether the Government like it or not, that anything goes if it is good for business and if there is money to be made. I quote the members of the Sheffield Trades Union Council. They said that they had to emphasise to us as Members of Parliament
  "the strength of feeling amongst trade union members who feel that should deregulatory legislation be placed on the statute book, then many workplaces would no longer be safe places in which to work."
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Lady has gone through a catalogue of her favourite regulations. She has described the areas where she would not only not deregulate, but further regulate. Will she share with the nation the areas in which she would deregulate?
  Mrs. Jackson: I believe that the public should be able to expect Parliament to regulate more strictly if public safety is at risk. There are various small regulations that are outdated and I am sure that they will be debated in Committee. I should be more than happy to deregulate in some areas. There is one matter on which I am very keen to deregulate—the ability of direct works departments of

  183
  local authorities to bid for tenders and to work for other authorities or private businesses as they like. That would do a great deal of good for local authorities.
  Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Jackson: I should like to continue. One of the difficulties is that if, as a result of public consultation, a need emerges to strengthen the regulations and the regulatory regime, the Bill prevents the Minister from taking action. Clause 1 says that the Minister can set up a regulatory system only if it is less onerous than the existing regime.
  At the heart of the proposed legislation is another fundamental attack on open government and public accountability. For example, clause 9 deals with information that companies are required to give to the. Office of Fair Trading. There are already provisions which require commercially sensitive information not to be open to the public, but business wants more secrecy. Can it be in the interests of the Government, given the recent business scandals, that even more is allowed to go on behind closed doors? In the end, the cost will be greater as scandals hit the headlines and Parliament and the public demand major inquiries.
  In the past week, the Government have published "Charter News". Its lead story was, "Complaints—Why we should value them." That is a nice lead from the Government! Complaints depend on openness of operation so that people know their rights and have confidence in the regulations that protect them.
  The Bill is riddled with more suggestions of contracting out, one of which, I was disturbed to see, relates to business statistics. I was interested in a report on business attitudes to statistical inquiries, which was placed in the Library only the week before last. It showed that if the request for information came from a private consultant, only one in four businesses said that they would offer any information, whereas only 4 per cent. of businesses would decline to give the information if the request came from a Government Department. If we are aiming for positive regulation, we shall need regulators and they will need accurate information. If the Government base their policy decisions on information collected by organisations that have only three quarters of the facts, the Government will be wrong at least 50 per cent. of the time. Perhaps that has already been proved by the Government more than we care to say.
  Businesses are not always right about what is in their own interest and not always right about what is in the public interest. They look to the short term—they have to—and to the next year's profit, but it is the Government's job to see beyond, to the next century and to pass laws that will bring lasting prosperity and jobs. Regulations should be seen as a positive way in which to bring that about. Of course, we must consult businesses, but we must also consult the other organisations that represent public health, environmental protection, health and safety and local government. They also have at the root of their function the need to take a long-term view.
  We should be concerned that the deregulation outlined in the Bill endangers the very substance of democracy and accountability in the country.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate on an important Bill. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) because it would be difficult to have a greater contrast between two approaches. The hon. Lady and many of her colleagues, as somebody said about the Bourbons on the restoration of the French monarchy, have learnt nothing and have forgotten nothing. That is certainly true of the Labour party on this subject.
  The Government had promised a wide-ranging, detailed and innovative Bill and have produced just that. The Bill covers a wide area and, at a glance, it covers most areas of government and public regulation. It is even more interesting to consider some of the further improvements which will occur in due course, by regulation or otherwise. In the words of President Reagan, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
  As the Bill's title refers to regulation and contracting out, it reinforces our commitment to cornerstone policies which have guided us for many years. The Bill seeks to underpin the enterprise culture for business, based on a view of Government as a help to wealth creation and not a hindrance, which the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Hillsborough showed. The view proposes that private sector business, and not Government, creates wealth and we must create, and in some cases modify, the framework in which that business wealth creation takes place.
  Mr. Spearing: Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) are dealing with the issue seriously. But why is the limitation of creation of wealth justified if that creation of immediate wealth, especially for a short period shown in the balance sheet, means the undermining of long-term public health or of the long-term interests of the whole country? Surely that should be an area for proper regulation, even if, for the short term, productivity is thereby marginally lower.
  Mr. Waterson: At a stroke, the hon. Gentleman underlines the basic misunderstanding of Opposition Members of the point of the Bill and the regulations that will flow from it in due course. We are not proposing a completely unregulated free-for-all in British business. What we recognise, and what the hon. Gentleman will never recognise no matter how many times I tell him, is that Bitish business men and women do not need a mass of contradictory regulations, many of which do not serve the purposes which he rightly mentioned.
  Mr. Spearing: Of course I recognise them.
  Mr. Waterson: I must get on.
  I am delighted that we began with some 3,500 regulations and the task forces have published 655 proposals, 250 of which have been accepted in full and 280 of which are still under review. Much of the Bill, which underlines the point that I made to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), seeks to return common sense to some activities and to remove wholly archaic rules, some of which should have been swept away years ago. If it proposes nothing else, I would support the Bill because it seeks to remove burdens from our business and public life, which weigh down business men and administrators, increase costs for everyone, including the

  185
  consumer, and in most cases benefit nobody. Surely, it makes sense to allow shopkeepers, for example, to decide if they will close early one day a week.
  We must see the Bill in its full context. As I see it, it is a down payment, just the beginning and, perhaps the first wave. It is part of the Government's rolling programme of deregulation. The second wave is set out in the document "Cutting Red Tape", in which there are another 29 measures waiting in the wings to be tackled. It will come as an enormous relief to many hon. Members that one thing proposed in that list of secondary measures is the abolition of the so-called long pull offence—the repeal of section 165 of the Licensing Act 1964, under which, amazingly, it is a criminal offence to serve somebody with more alcohol than he or she requested.
  I am also pleased to see the foreshadowing of the introduction of double summer time, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred. That is a subject close to my heart, on which I introduced a ten-minute Bill and which I know would be welcomed by many.
  I am secretary to the Back-Bench tourism committee and I also represent an area which is perhaps the prime seaside resort in the entire nation. Along with other hon. Members, I spoke in a debate in July on tourism and deregulation. I am delighted that so many of the general principles that were set out in that debate are contained in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has been consulting other Departments as well as the Department of National Heritage, will be able to help to free one of our vital industries—tourism—from many burdensome regulations.
  Mr. Steen: I understand that there were 300 or 400 proposals for tourism deregulation—I do not have the exact figure. Is not my hon. Friend a little disappointed that only one deregulation proposal is contained in the Bill?
  Mr. Waterson: I would be disappointed if I were not utterly convinced that many of those matters will be addressed in what I call the second, third and subsequent waves.
  I refer hon. Members to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage on 27 July 1993 in which he gave an interim report on the work of his Department in examining unnecessary regulations affecting the tourism industry. At that time—presumably, things have improved even more since then—he identified more than 80 pieces of legislation and regulations affecting the industry. He covered areas such as food safety and hygiene—I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the President referred to that as a matter for continued review—fire safety, package travel regulations, the electricity at work regulations, public entertainment licensing, tourism signposting and price display regulations. Those are all matters for ongoing review not only by the Department of Trade and Industry but by the Department of National Heritage.
  I quote my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary:
  "The preliminary overall conclusion of my review is that the complex proliferation of regulations is unquestionably having a damaging effect on the tourism sector. This should now cease. I intend it to do so."—[Official Report, 27 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 770.]
  I am sure that we all support him in that endeavour.
  It is worth remembering that, just as it is possible to have poor regulation, it is equally possible to have poor deregulation. One example that comes to mind is the Use
  186
  Classes Order 1987, which the Department of the Environment is good enough to refer to as its contribution to deregulation. I cannot dwell on that issue at great length; suffice to say it has caused a phenomenon in many seaside resorts around the country with a great mushroom-like growth in Department of Social Security hostels.
  Mr. Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a report before the Department of the Environment at present on a national survey that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and I conducted on the effects of DSS hostels? We have asked the Department to look closely at changing the Use Classes Order. Apparently, ministerial advisers have said that much of our evidence is anecdotal. I can assure my hon. Friend that the evidence is not anecdotal.
  In Scarborough last year, we had three murders. We are not used to murders in Scarborough, but two of those murders related strictly to DSS hostels and the activities that take place there. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a solution to the problem in the palm of their hands by changing the Use Classes Order as soon as possible?
  Mr. Waterson: I am well aware of the vigorous campaign being led by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on this issue. Suffice to say—because it is not a central issue in this debate—it is a perfect example of how poor deregulation, without being thought through at the time, has brought about a truly disgraceful result: local authorities have no control over whether hotels and guest houses convert to DSS hostels and where they are located. I look forward to that and many other matters being addressed in the second, third and subsequent waves of deregulation.
  There is an irresistible tide at work here to increase the volume of deregulation as we go along. It is right—to that extent, I agree with Labour Members—that these matters should be examined carefully and closely and should be the subject of careful and detailed consultation with those who are affected and those who legitimately have a view.
  I welcome what is in the Bill, as well as what is not in the Bill but is yet to come. I hope that the bonfire of regulations has been well and truly lit tonight. I know that my right hon. Friend the President and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will keep the bonfire going. If they are ever in danger of running out of suggestions, we will continue to keep them supplied with kindling. I fear that, unfortunately, the Opposition parties will merely remain jeering on the sidelines of this great bonfire, praying for rain.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in a debate where the phrase used perhaps more than any other concerns the undesirability of "burdens". I must tell the House that burdens are not always undesirable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Tory Members may disagree—I do not know.
  The Bill, like so many other aspects of the Government, is not really all that it seems and is not all that it is claimed to be. Of course, it comes from the team that promised low taxes and brought us massive tax rises. It is from the team

  187
  that said that the national health service was safe in its hands, but which brought us bed closures and cancelled operations. It is from the team that said that it was the party of law and order, but which has managed to preside over a massive rise in the crime rate.
  The fact that the Bill is not all that it seems should not take us too much by surprise because we are getting used to it. When this team came to power in 1979, it promised an expansion of individual freedom. However, in the years that it has been in office, it has presided over the greatest centralisation of power in the hands of the Executive. That is precisely at the root of what the Bill is all about.
  Ministers have said that the Bill will liberate businesses from excessive regulation. Undoubtedly, that is a legitimate description of some aspects of the Bill, but many of its provisions, and some measures hidden behind its words on the paper, have a greater implication. Rather than liberating any businesses from excessive regulation, they will remove from citizens the protection of law where that protection is vital to their interests and their quality of life. Perhaps we should not be surprised that most of the danger of the Bill is lurking behind what is written on the paper.
  Ministers will say that there is nothing to worry about; they have promised us scrutiny committees. Indeed, they have established a permanent deregulation unit to examine those sectors where red tape can best be removed. Undoubtedly, they will promise that there will be a proper, independent and objective examination. I am a little sceptical about exactly how objective that permanent deregulation unit is likely to be. When we look at who heads that unit, we find the name of Mr. Francis Maude, head of the global privatisation unit of Morgan Stanley and a former Tory Minister.
  Some regulations are outdated and unnecessary. As we have heard, many of those regulations were introduced by the Government. There are pointers in the Bill to what its implementation—when we get past the Committee and Report stages and Third Reading, it is operating and the Minister has the power that he is seeking—is likely to mean for citizens and their rights in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) referred to the likely effect of the Bill on the Companies Acts. We have been told that there will no longer be a need to register the business occupation, nationality or particulars of other directorships at Companies House. We have been told that that matter is not important and it is just red tape.
  Those of us who are interested in piecing together certain matters think that they are of some importance to our citizens. Those matters include how trade deals have become mixed up with overseas aid and who is involved in those deals and how certain directors of companies that manage to get an amazing amount of the Government's overseas contracts also happen to turn up as the chairs of quangos and NHS trusts. Those are matters of legitimate public interest and they should be scrutinised. Removing the requirement for companies to be honest and open and to log such information at Companies House is important and does affect open government and democracy.
  Clause 19, which deals with the provision to repeal any local building regulation, is open ended, but contains nothing about the need to maintain standards. When the Bill was first mooted, there were reports in the press of the
  188
  great fear that there would also be a wholesale sweeping away of health and safety regulations. Ministers backed off rapidly at that point, saying that there was nothing to worry about and that there would be no reduction in standards.
  There are some dangers contained in the words in the clause, although there are not many specific references to which health and safety regulations are to be repealed, but let us be under no illusions about what the Bill means. Ministers will tell us that all kinds of outdated and unduly complicated health and safety regulations have been replaced and updated since 1975, and indeed that has happened.
  The Bill differs from previous legislation in an interesting way. All previous legislation has provided for the replacement of health and safety regulations, when replacement is deemed to be the right thing to do. Rather than replacement or reference to standards, the Bill provides only for wholesale repeal of such regulations. That is not obvious in the Bill, but it is sheltering behind the words on the page.
  The Bill contains the provision that employers will be removed from the cumbersome burden of having to agree with, or even consult, their workers on how selection for redundancy can take place. Under the present legislation, an employer can argue why there should be a departure from normal practice on selection for redundancy. If the employer has good grounds for that, he can select for redundancy away from the normal procedures.
  Mr. Sykes: As an employer, I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an example of how frustrating the process can be. I ran an oil depot in Leeds for many years, from which we delivered heating oil. Due to the rules and regulations—in other words, the last in, first out convention—I was unable to sack a driver who was probably one of the laziest men ever to draw breath. Unfortunately, the fellows who did work hard had to leave because they were last in.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps have studied industrial relations laws a little more. If it turned out that he had a lazy employee, my understanding of the law is that that is a disciplinary issue, and not a redundancy issue.
  Mr. Sykes rose—
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman can come back at me when I am finished. No law or regulation says that redundancy has to take place on the basis of last in, first out, although such a convention is often agreed between employers and employees. Any employer or any representative of the employees can suggest a different way of selecting for redundancy, but the important thing is that the process must be fair. The employee must have the right to test the process at an industrial tribunal.
  If the hon. Gentleman felt that it was fair to select for redundancy someone whom he felt was lazy, he had every right to try that. He would have to prove his case in front of an industrial tribunal. If he won it—I think that that would be unlikely in the case that he outlined—good luck to him. It is not appropriate for the law to be changed so that an employer can suggest the person he wants for redundancy, even if it is for a disciplinary matter. It is not appropriate for the employee to be denied the right even to go to an industrial tribunal to contest that decision. That would seem to be the wrong use of the law. Such a use of

  189
  law should not necessarily take us by surprise, as the Government have already been whittling away at the protections on redundancy.
  Mr. Sykes: I do not wish to labour the point, but in the 1970s employers followed the convention to which I referred. I do not know how many people the hon. Gentleman has employed in his life, but I have employed 600 in my time. I have found it extremely difficult to prove a case such as the one to which I referred.
  A driver might say that a wing-mirror had gone on the lorry that morning, or perhaps that his tyres had been let down the night before. Those little things built up gradually over time and added up to the problem. I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman, who has probably never employed people on the shop floor, why employers must be able to employ people who work hard for them rather than keeping people who do not.
  Mr. Burden: I hope that, in years to come, employees who are considering whether it is worth while joining a trade union take the time to read that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. If ever they needed an example of the kind of attitude that underlines the value of trade unions, it is that one. I hope to goodness that the hon. Gentleman will not be in any position of responsibility at the Department of Employment in the future, given his attitudes to the rights of employees.
  We should not be surprised by the Government's attempts to whittle away the rights of employees. A few weeks ago, I tabled a quite innocent question to the Department of Employment asking whether a particular employer who had announced redundancies had notified the Department, as is required by legislation. I also asked, if he had done so, on what date the employer had notified the Department. That does not seem to be too much of a big deal.
  The answer that I received was that information as to whether an employer has obeyed the provisions of the statute is confidential. That is the type of mentality which exists at the moment. It is a matter of confidentiality whether an employer abided by the basic principles of employment law. Yet, when it comes to the apparent rights of an employer to sack people for a disciplinary matter, using the basis of redundancy, the law can be changed to permit that. That seems to be quite wrong.
  The Bill has nothing to do with rights. If it had, its provisions on employment agencies would perhaps have been different. The Bill says that those agencies will be freed from the need to have a licence, but where is the acknowledgement of the rights of the employees of those agencies to decent terms and conditions? There is not a word about that.
  There is the deregulation of markets and the abolition of traditional franchise rights, but where is the recognition of the rights of consumers to be freed from being sold shoddy and, in some cases, dangerous goods? There is relaxation of waste controls. It has been said that probably, in years to come, the National Rivers Authority—itself a candidate for market testing and privatisation—will be able to relax consent on effluent discharges. Where is the right of citizens to have a wholesome supply of water and decent quality rivers? There are the proposals for the freeing-up of the controls on third-party mortgages. That is said to be lifting a burden from businesses, but if the Bill were about
  190
  red tape, it might be saying something else. The proposal on mortgages will not allow one extra home to be built. It will not house one extra homeless family.
  If the Government are interested in lifting burdens and deregulating in housing matters, I suggest that they lift the regulations on capital receipts so that local authorities can build the homes that people need instead of being hidebound by the red tape that the Government impose on them.
  Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burden: I have already given way enough and ti me is moving on. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken and I am sure that he will speak again.
  We also have the provision on the head of beer. It is proposed that breweries will be able to charge for froth. That is hardly surprising in a Bill that is itself full of froth.
  Mr. Pawsey: Like Banks's?
  Mr. Burden: I shall not mention Banks's, although the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will understand my interest in Banks's as he comes from the same region of the country as me.
  Some regulations are petty and some regulations undoubtedly need to be removed by due process, proper debate and so on, but that will not happen as a result of the Bill. If Conservative Members are interested in deregulating and lifting burdens on business, why do they say nothing about statutory sick pay? Why do not they want to lift that real burden on business that they voted in?
  Conservative Members expressed surprise when I suggested in an intervention that the absence of decent nursery provision in Britain was a burden on business. It should not take them by surprise. Do not they realise that the absence of nursery education means that working parents have to give up work when they should not have to do so and acts against the rights of women to be employed? That is a burden on business.
  Mr. Pawsey: How much would it cost?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many sedentary interventions and conversation pieces.
  Mr. Burden: That burden on business should be examined by the Government, but there is no reference whatever to it in the Bill. Conservative Members patently fail to understand that burden.
  The Bill is not about deregulation. Excessive regulation is not the main problem with the Government. It is not the main problem with Britain. One of the main problems with Britain is the lack of democracy, which the Government have furthered by centralising power in the hands of the Executive. That has undermined what democracy existed at the workplace, in the neighbourhood and at local level. The Government have systematically stripped away from elected local authorities the right to decide things locally. They have handed those powers over to Ministers or quangos. The Government should deal with that lack of democracy. They can best start doing so by examining some of their own practices.
  I do not see that it will further democracy—indeed, it will undermine democracy—to pass a Bill that strengthens the hand of Ministers not only in sweeping away petty regulations but in sweeping away, by ministerial order and with cursory consultation, any piece of primary legislation

  191
  that they care to sweep away. Anything more threatening to democracy is difficult to imagine. That is why the Bill is wrong and needs to be opposed. That is why we desperately need a Government who are interested in increasing the rights of citizens, whether employees or employers, to have a say, rather than a Government who are interested merely in the right of Ministers to create and destroy regulations in the interests of their friends.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I suspect that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) would say that any Bill introduced in the House was about democracy. The Bill is not about democracy any more than anything else. It is about reducing the amount of rules and regulations that affect our lives. If I may make a poor joke, it is to reduce the burden of laws on life in Britain.
  Life has become ever more complicated, frenetic, pressurised and stressed. More people have high blood pressure and heart attacks. Cancer is on the increase. There are more broken relationships. One in 80 marriages ended in divorce in 1961, compared with one in nine in 1991. In 1991, three in 10 children were born outside wedlock. We live in a society under pressure. The stress of modern life is intolerable. For many, it is not only inescapable but unbearable. The stress of modern life leads to social irregularities, emotional distortions and physical ilness and does nothing to enhance the quality of life.
  As if the problems of living were not enough, over-officialdom and over-bureaucracy make things 10 times worse. As a nation, we have indulged in too many rules and regulations, many of which are simply not necessary. Who is to blame for all this? The answer is that all of us here are responsible. This place right here has made those rules and regulations. We are a huge law-making machine churning out legislation in the same way as Wall's produces sausages and Mars churns out Mars bars. It is a relentless, ongoing process.
  What do we say to each other when we pass each other in the House? We say, "I have just written you a note", or "There is a letter on the board", or "Were you lucky enough in the ballot to secure a Bill?" The Bill turns into legislation. The whole building, with its thousands of support staff, is focused on thinking up ideas—good ideas—for more laws which directly result in an increase in bureaucracy and officialdom to implement them.
  In the hurly-burly of politics, we pass too many laws that are not carefully scrutinised or thought out. Worse still, they are badly implemented by insensitive and often untrained public officials. If many of our civil servants ran private businesses, they would have gone bust years ago. Like the sun trying to shine through an increasing layer of cloud, small enterprises and individual citizens simply cannot see their way through. Rather than facilitating and improving the efficiency of the country, legislation filters its strengths and reduces its efficiency.
  The Bill is so important because it is the first major attempt by the Government to slay the red tape dragon. The maxim that man learns nothing from history is often proved true, but the Bill shows the Government learning from history. Throughout the ages, Governments have
  192
  repealed legislation. There is nothing new about repealing legislation. It is repealed either because it has proved unworkable or because it has simply outlived its shelf life.
  In the new world in which we live, legislation has grown like Topsy and thus requires more drastic pruning. Those in the House who are gardeners know that shrubs grow irregularly. To keep trees and shrubs in prime condition, pruning is essential. So, too, with a mob of deers—which is a west country phrase—or a pod of seals. Culling is essential for their survival and health.
  In 1989, there were five times more pages of legislation than in 1979. Brussels churned out five volumes of legislation before we joined the European Community. It now churns out 37 volumes each year. However, the cause is not simply too many Eurocrats in Brussels. Directives from the Commission are often sensible and come to Britain suggesting a simple way of dealing with the problem. Once the directive hits Whitehall, bevies of officials are stirred into action, taking time and effort to interpret and rewrite the directive.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend to expand that argument. He said that the regulations are often helpful, but the European Community passes general regulations to member nations' Governments for them to implement in detail. While the regulations may therefore seem helpful on the surface, they are the ramp by which all such regulations flow through.
  Mr. Steen: I am not sure that that was terribly helpful, but it is useful to hear a diferent point of view. The directives come in a simple form and officialdom in Whitehall interprets and rewrites them. Those officials are rather like a horde of ants on a crumb.
  I do not like to talk theoretically and I always give the House some practical examples. My first example is the private water supply directive. There are about 650 private water supplies in South Hams. One is to an old house called Lud house in the little village of Ermington, where my constituent Gordon Johnston has lived for many years and has enjoyed rude health—as did his father and grandfather and his children. He enjoyed drinking from his private water supply, but along came an environmental health officer—doing a perfectly responsible job—who told him, after testing it, that the water was not terribly good. Mr. Johnston said that he had enjoyed it all his life—as his father and grandfather had—and asked what was wrong with it. The officer said that it had too many nasty things in it and instructed that some chemical be poured into that large source of water to clean it up. Mr Johnston has never been the same since—he was a happy and a healthy man, but now he does not like the taste of his water. He has never felt well since and nor have his family. I hope that the environmental health officer, who charges about £50 or £100 a time to do the job, will not be so enthusiastic in future.
  That illustrates part of the problem. We have created too many rules and regulations, which make people feel quite ill.
  Mr. Spearing: Can the hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, was it an indictable offence for the constituent to continue to drink his water? Secondly, was the charge for the unwanted treatment and inspection, which was perhaps statutory, the result of any legislation to

  193
  put charges on local government services which has been enacted since 1979 and voted for enthusiastically by Conservative Members?
  Mr. Steen: I cannot answer those questions without some notice, but I do not dispute that we Conservatives may be responsible. We have a lot to answer for. That is why I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is listening so conscientiously and enthusiastically. Conservative Members and my hon. Friend the Minister are concerned—as, I am glad to say, is the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). If we have made mistakes and been too free with some of the directives we should put it right.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: The key point is that all the legislation that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is so concerned about was passed before I became a Minister. Things will be very different now.
  Mr. Steen: The House will be greatly reassured by my hon. Friend's interjection. I always find it reassuring when he is sitting on the Front Bench.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Newham, South will both be concerned about the many Acts of Parliament that have created self-financing regulatory authorities, or SEFRAs. They are new animals with powers to create rules and regulations, charge for licences and fine for enforcement. Rather like a Hitchcock film, the Government have created self-perpetuating organisations which are branching out all over the place with new laws and an increasing number of officials who get in our hair and into all aspects of life.
  SEFRAs are the most dangerous of animals. They are the 1990 equivalent of the quango, but with real teeth. The Financial Services Act 1986, the Food Safety Act 1990, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the National Rivers Authority and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service are all SEFRAs. They have armies of officials, are funded by charges which have resulted from their rule-making powers and they demand compliance and threaten penalties for non-compliance. I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of SEFRAs.
  Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: No, the hon. Gentleman spoke for 18·5 minutes and that was 18·5 minutes too long.
  Changing attitudes among public officials is a crucial facet of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister must deal with the following question. I do not think that he will find it too embarrassing. His Department has 11,389 officials. What are they all doing? If it has a deregulation unit, should it not be studying those officials and asking whether there are not too many of them? We also have to change the attitude of the Opposition. I hope that all hon. Members present will help the Minister and show him where he has gone wrong and how to put things right.
  The Bill speaks of educating inspectors to make them more sensitive to business realities and to help them to apply a common sense approach in their work. That is long overdue.
  Perhaps you will allow me to tell another story, Madam Deputy Speaker, about Mr. Wheeler of Harbertonford, who is registered disabled and, I fear, hobbles with a stick. He went into Totnes—my market town, which you know well, Madam Deputy Speaker—just before Christmas to get some medicine because his wife was not well.
  194
  Unfortunately, he jumped into her car, which does not have a "disabled" badge, and parked it where he should not have done. When he came out of the shop he got a ticket. He is a registered disabled person and has a disabled badge and a clock, but he got into the wrong car. A very apologetic parking warden, who knew Mr. Wheeler, said that he was awfully sorry as he had not recognised the car or realised what he was doing. He issued the ticket, but said that he was sure that if Mr. Wheeler rang up it would be cancelled.
  The attitude of the public officials to whom Mr. Wheeler explained the situation was less understandable. They clearly had no humanity or sympathy. The official in Plymouth told him that it was his own fault for parking without a disabled badge, which he knew—although he did not expect to be told what he already knew. The official also said that
  "he seemed to be full of self pity and looking for … sympathy"
  when he asked for the fine to be cancelled. As a result of my intervention, the chief constable of Devon stepped in, but it took his intervention to get the charge cancelled. That is wrong and it should never have happened.
  Mr. Pawsey: Well done—a good Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is right.
  Over-zealous environmental health officers are causing immense and excessive costs, according to a survey published recently by the Food Hygiene Bureau and reported in January's edition of Free House, which I know that hon. Members read avidly. The survey of 300 west country business properties, where work had been carried out during the past two years as a result of action by environmental health officers, showed that there had been a 25 per cent. overspend—that is, over and above what they would have had to pay for the minimum legal requirement. The survey uncovered the fact that out of a total expenditure of £445,000—about £1,500 per property—£113,000 was for items that were not legally enforceable, such as fly screening of windows, fitting vapour-proof fluorescent lights and providing additional hand washing facilities, which might be helpful to Lady Macbeth but are not helpful to small companies.
  It is not surprising that a visit from the environmental health officer is enough to strike fear into even the best managed kitchens, which is "right" according to the chairman of the Health and Hygiene Council, who goes on to say that,
  "Heavy fines, closure or even prison can result from violation of the environmental health laws."
  That sort of bullying attitude needs to be purged from organisations that were established to serve the public, not to crucify them. Only when the zealots have been weeded out will common sense prevail.
  Quite simply, the Bill is about helping us to recover our efficiency. The principal means of doing that will be by diverting, reducing or getting rid of the quagmire of rules and regulations, and the accompanying officials, which divert our time, effort and energy—particularly in small businesses—from getting on with the job of running businesses, providing a service for the customer and creating wealth and employment for the nation.
  The Bill will ensure that the laws enhance our quality of life, making the way that we live richer, more valuable and more purposeful, with less time spent on the senseless activity of filling in forms, making phone calls to officials

  195
  who are never there, paying bills for services that we do not want, and turning up in court for failure to comply with notices that have been served.
  I should have thought that the Labour party would hail the Bill as one of the best measures that the Government have ever introduced—but not at all. The Labour party is a notoriously slow learner and has described the Bill as hopelessly out of step. I am not sure with whom it is out of step. It is probably out of step with public officialdom. It is certainly out of step with bureaucracy, but one must remember that the Labour party is the country's custodian of bureaucracy and the champion of red tape: it believes in the cause of overmanning and public officialdom as fervently as Arthur and his knights chased the holy grail.
  If the Bill achieves nothing else, it will make politicians and, I hope, officials think twice—if not thrice—before embarking on the merry-go-round of passing more laws. Less regulation does not mean that we shall live in a more dangerous, unhealthy or unsafe society. On the contrary, it will result in giving greater legitimacy to the political process if people know that the Government pass only a minimum of legislation, expecting the public to exercise common sense. We want legislation emanating from Westminster and Whitehall which the public knows will be sensitively and efficiently administered and the officials put in charge of it intelligent, experienced and flexible. We must fell the current forest of ludicrous rules and regulations in which many of us get permanently lost.
  Nothing undermines the credibility of Parliament more than the passing of too many laws. Too much law shows an indiscipline in Government and an inability to weed out what is unnecessary. Reducing the number of rules and regulations will help to put back an element of common sense into the political system. So next time any of us on either side of the House talk about changing the law or introducing a new Bill, I suggest that we should swallow our words, because more laws are the enemy of the people and of our traditional British way of life.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation until 9 o'clock.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I am pleased to follow the witty speech of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), but his speech and mine will show the contrast in approach between the two sides of the House.
  I oppose the Bill because I have grave reservations about how existing legislation will be amended. I am also fundamentally opposed to two main areas of the Bill, particularly deregulation of health and safety legislation and of market franchise rights. Deregulation in those areas will not improve the quality of life, but will be detrimental to it.
  The frightening thing about the Bill is that it is ill-conceived. It will not only be detrimental to ordinary people's quality of life but will impact on businesses in a generally detrimental way. The exercise has been presented as a way to widen business opportunity, whereas it cloaks a crude political device to justify deregulation, particularly of health and safety legislation.
  196
  The architects of the Bill say that it is essential to wipe away the archaic legislation that has built up on the statute book. In reality, however, the Minister knows that it is much more, especially concerning health and safety. I believe that there is a hidden agenda. Clause 27 will allow the Government to make way for 19th century working practices. Some companies—albeit only a small number—will be able to create the very worst of working conditions.
  The seven sectoral task groups—STGs—set up to examine the individual regulations are expected to move with extreme haste in identifying those regulations which, it is argued, impose a disproportionate cost on business. In reality, evidence points to the fact that the regulations are being subjected to a superficial examination. On 20 July last year, the Secretary of State for Employment announced that the Health and Safety Commission would examine proposals to revoke 30 sets of regulations. When the Minister winds up the debate this evening, he may be able to say how the 30 sets of regulations were identified and evaluated when, at the time of the Secretary of State's announcement, they had not even been examined by the STGs.
  The real burden of the health and safety review will be borne by the victims of occupational accidents and industrial disease. Health and Safety Executive figures estimate that, over the period of the review, 586 people will have been killed in British industry; 194,579 people will have suffered major injuries at work; and 6,355 people will have been diagnosed as suffering from industrial disease. That is the carnage taking place in British industry. The overall cost to employers of accidents and ill health is estimated to be between £4 billion and £9 billion. The cost to society is put at between £10 billion and £15 billion. The Government should ensure that firms comply with the law rather than deregulate health and safety legislation. In that way, more accidents would be prevented.
  The other major area of concern to me is the deregulation of market franchise rights under clauses 21, 22 and 23. Currently, many local authorities have market franchise rights, which means that a rival market cannot be set up within 6⅔miles of the local authority market.
  Conservative Members have said that the deregulation exercise will free up trade, but it presents a threat to market franchise rights because local authorities have provided good conditions for market traders. They are motivated primarily not by profit but by the wish to provide a service to the community. The surplus that accrues to some local authorities is used, to give financial support to the general rate fund so that the entire community benefits from the operation. The protection of markets by the franchise rights has been wisely and responsibly used, to the benefit of markets and the community. It does not restrict trade, as some Conservative Members seem to believe. The removal of that protection will effectively provide an opportunity to anyone to operate a market in direct competition with the market already established.
  Hon. Members should think about that for a moment. It will result in a proliferation of markets and car boot sales around towns. It will siphon trade away from town centres to the detriment of urban communities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I have launched a campaign to save market franchise rights. I urge Conservative Members who have

  197
  not already done so to sign early-day motion 84 to support the campaign. If they do not vote against the Bill tonight, I urge them at least to abstain.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: We have heard many constructive comments from Conservative Members. In general, they have fully supported the Bill, although they have flagged one or two matters of concern. We have also heard some charming vignettes, such as that from my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who told us about the tottering punter from Totness. With his inimitable superhuman assiduity, he solved his problem, and no doubt he will have the support of the entire village.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) told us about a lorry driver. He said how idle, indolent and lazy he was, and that he was now a Labour Member of Parliament.
  My right hon. Friends the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) also made constructive speeches.
  We have also heard a number of speeches from the Opposition, including the eloquent contribution from the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). The speeches of the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) were articulate, but they are living in the dark ages.
  The Opposition oppose every measure designed to encourage managers to manage their firms and to cut businesses loose. They are the enemies of the self-employed and small business men, and they approached the debate in a thoroughly negative manner.
  It is appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is the Minister responsible for deregulation. He has thrown himself into the task with tremendous enthusiasm. I remember him as a deregulator many years ago, when we were both at the same educational establishment in the Fens. He once deregulated a pile of crockery.
  My hon. Friend has matured since then. He deserves his post, and is moving from strength to strength. I am certain that the Bill will be a success, largely because of his determination and will power, and he has our support.
  It is fair to say that, to some extent, the Government's policy on small businesses lost its direction in the late 1980s. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said that, during a recession we over-regulate small businesses, but I consider that the reverse has occurred.
  In the mid-1980s, we had a vibrant small business policy under Sir David Trippier and Lord Young. The deregulation initiative was given a great deal of prominence, and much was achieved in terms of lifting the burden on small firms and encouraging the supply-side economy.
  When the economy picked up, unemployment fell and growth took off, we forgot about small firms and tended to give too much leeway to pressure groups that wanted more regulation on such matters as the environment, health and safety and transport. We gave in because the economy was strong, there was growth, and businesses could stand extra regulation without jeopardising jobs.
  198
  During the recession, it took the current President of the Board of Trade to redirect our small firms policy". The past two Budgets contained a number of important measures geared to help small businesses dealing with audit requirement, VAT and the business expansion scheme mark two. The Bill is in addition to those measures, and it is particularly welcome.
  We have to redirect our small firms policy. Our economy will not move forward with the rapidity it should unless small firms are in the vanguard of wealth creation, entrepreneurial initiative and, above all, job creation.
  There are a number of medium-sized businesses in my constituency, many of which are doing very well. Recently, we had the bad news that British Sugar is to close its sugar beet factory at King's Lynn. However, the new supply-side environment in the economy means that the conditions are right for small firms to get going, for start-ups and for existing small firms to take on more people. I should put on record my appreciation of the work of the West Norfolk enterprise agency, which, over the years, has helped a large number of people.
  I must mention one small element of concern. I have heard that the new business development centre, which will be part of the business link, is to receive funds from the Department of Trade and Industry.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is now in his place. The other day, I spoke to a small business man in my constituency. The manager of Sainsbury in King's Lynn was also concerned about the enterprise agency, but, as the borough council and the DTI are redirecting their support to the business development centre, there must be a question mark over its future. I hope that it will become part of the development centre, to provide advice on start-ups to people who want to know the nitty-gritty, instead of information that would be more applicable to companies that have found their feet and want to expand.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would say a few words about the future role of enterprise agencies and how they will fit into business development centres. The Bill is about deregulation and helping small firms, and one mechanism for doing that is the enterprise agency network.
  Small businesses want a strong economy and falling interest rates—I welcome today's fall of 0·25 per cent. They want corporation tax and small companies tax to remain the lowest in Europe. They want inflation kept very low. They also want a number of measures that only a Conservative Government can provide, and the Bill is one such measure.
  The Government have done a great deal to support the supply side and, if we get it right, the Bill will be the icing on the cake. However, we have to be conscious of the conditions in Britain that are attracting foreign investment.
  Why are we getting roughly 40 per cent. of all the inward investment into the EC? Out of the top 25 firms in Europe, why are a staggering 14 British? I find that quite remarkable. We have heard much about BMW taking over Rover, but out of the top 25 firms in Europe, only four are German. We should be proud of our achievements and shout them from the roof tops. The miseries among the Opposition only run the country down.
  We have an opportunity to move forward into sustained growth, but we have to be careful about our policy towards Europe. The Bill encapsulates the Government's intention to do all they can to lift the burdens, and to remove petty regulations and other burdens on business.

  199
  We must not fall for the lure of some of the federal ideas that resulted from the Maastricht treaty—parts of which I support, particularly those relating to subsidiarity. The one provision that would undo a great deal would be the move towards a single currency. That would re-erect at the centre of Europe the power to issue directives and regulations and increase the burden on business.
  Having given that warning, I urge the Government to get on with their policies and let businesses manage their own affairs. We in Britain have a tremendous amount of initiative and entrepreneurial verve and expertise and we must allow people to create jobs and wealth. The Bill will be the icing on the cake, and I support it.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: Like the President of the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) talked a great deal but said very little about deregulation. We heard about small businesses, a federal Europe and the exchange rate mechanism, but we did not hear very much about the Bill.
  I, too, have to depart from the Bill to some extent, as I am worried not so much by what it says as about what it does not say. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Government do not have any proposals for tourism, but that these will come later, and that other fields will be covered in the second, third and subsequent waves of deregulation.
  It is quite clear that we are not talking just about the 250 proposals to which the Government have already agreed—in most cases without consulting any consumer or safety groups—or about the 280 proposals still being considered, the details of some of which we do not know.
  We are not bothered about any of the 605 proposals. What bothers us is the fact that this Bill will give Ministers the right to change primary legislation without going through the current procedures. What Ministers want is a blank cheque to cash in the future as they please.
  I am not talking just about Conservative Ministers—the same thing could be done by a Labour Government. Ministers are asking Parliament for a blank cheque in all sorts of fields—fire safety; the transfer of waste, including nuclear and highly toxic waste; road safety; health and safety at work; building; the environment.
  I mean no disrespect to hon. Members on either side of the House when I say that we must not be drawn into looking simply at specific proposals. Specifics are difficult enough to debate, but how much more difficult the situation is made by the fact that this Bill is a real dog's breakfast. It deals with matters as diverse as the froth on beer, the welfare of animals in knackers' yards, market charters and unfair dismissal. These things are all chucked together in one piece of legislation.
  However, they are at least specifics, about which I could talk tonight if I had the time. In future, I shall not be able to oppose change as I can tonight; in future, because of the 40-day time limit, the press will not be able to oppose change as it can at present; in future, Parliament will not be able to oppose legislative change as it can now; in future, the people of this country will not be able to oppose legal changes in the way they currently can.
  200
  The Government have presented their proposals as merely a means of dealing with red tape. We have heard about the red tape dragon. I did not realise that the Lambeth worm is probably a tapeworm. Many of the people I talk to tell me that they want more regulation.
  Just over a week ago, I saw in my local newspaper an article about the number of children injured by fireworks during the Guy Fawkes period. In this field, our regulations are tighter than those of any other part of Europe. Germany produces bangers five or six times the capacity of ours. I do not want to see our regulations relaxed so that continental standards become our standards. The number of children in Nottingham who were injured last Guy Fawkes night was higher than in previous years, despite the fact that Nottinghamshire county council had run a big awareness campaign. Many of those children were under 13. How were they able to come by the fireworks that injured them?
  In a radio interview, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) described these legislative changes as the froth—I do not know whether he was talking just about beer. You say that there will be consultation. I wonder how many people know what is being looked at?
  Do you think that members of the public know that these task forces have been looking at the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations, which stopped manufacturers putting foam into furniture? Deaths in 1987 caused such an outcry in the country that the Government had to introduce those regulations. Then there are the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985, which were introduced for the protection of young children wearing nighties. I remember television warnings in which people were shown how to roll up in a carpet a child whose nightie had caught fire.
  Do we want to go back to that situation? I have letters showing that the Government have been looking at such legislation. A week ago, the Prime Minister echoed the words of the President of the Board of Trade in referring to this exercise as the biggest bonfire of controls in modern history. If you tamper with such regulations the Prime Minister's words may prove to be horrifically apt.
  I should like some sort of guarantee about safety, but the truth is that you are reviewing legislation on health and safety. Do the public know that you are writing to bus companies to ask whether drivers' hours of work should be relaxed, and whether the right to breaks should be removed? Do the public know that you are talking about enabling bus drivers to work as long as they like regardless of the danger to the public?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to interrupt speeches, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing the Chair, and that I am not responsible for any of these things.
  Mr. Heppell: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was a little carried away by the importance of the issues.
  When we talk about froth on beer, I can get annoyed, but when we are talking about people's lives, I can get angry. We hear constantly about things being done on a cost-benefit basis. Is it valid to ask whether the implementation of safety regulations is worth while on that basis.
  Let me give an example. I am a bad traveller—particularly bad in aircraft. I am one of those people who grip the seat as the aircraft takes off and comes down. But

  201
  I am always grateful for the statistics that show that flying is the safest form of travel. Do you realise that, under your formula—
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Under the Government's formula.
  Mr. Heppell: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Do Ministers realise that if their formula were carried through, the fact that there is less risk in air travel than in other types of travel would indicate less need for regulation? How many jumbo jets is it acceptable to write off? If one or two were written off, would the risk be seen as acceptable?
  When we try to legislate for an ideal situation, we still have accidents, deaths and disasters. If we legislate to make safety regulations less than ideal, the numbers of accidents, deaths and disasters will increase. No Government would be entitled to ask Parliament and the people to accept legislation putting profits before people's safety and lives.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Let me begin by gently reminding the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell)—whose speech was long on rhetoric, but a little short on balance—that no Conservative Member, and probably no Opposition Member, wants to dispense with regulations in a deregulation drive if either safety or consumer protection would be substantially affected. The Health and Safety Commission asked for powers to repeal unnecessary regulations not only because such regulations impose burdens on business, but because they encourage people not to take important existing regulations seriously enough—which is against the interests of health and safety in the economy a whole.
  I support the Bill for two reasons. First, I think that, in an increasingly competitive world, it will reduce the burdens on business—especially small business—thereby enabling it to create far more jobs; secondly, it accords with my vision of the relationship that should exist between Government and country.
  Let me deal with the second reason first. I have always believed that good government is primarily small government. I believe that, ironically, it was Khrushchev who said:
  "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river."
  Sadly, politicians of all hues experience that temptation. It is regrettable that, after 14 years of Conservative administration, no less than 45 per cent. of our gross national product goes through Government or their agencies; Ministers are tempted to see their ministerial macho in terms of the size of their legislative programmes.
  We need not read Osborne and Gaebler's "Reinventing Government", from the other side of the Atlantic, or "Small is Beautiful"—written by Schumacher back in 1974—to be interested in the kind of government that involves the genuine devolving of responsibilities to communities, thus energising them rather than making them feel more remote. That is my personal vision of government, which I want to be limited to activities in which a valid contribution can be made.
  The Bill has the merit of reducing companies' costs. It is significant that it was Eddie George, Governor of the Bank of England, who pointed out—in a speech in Glasgow on 17 January—that, according to research
  202
  carried out by Newcastle university, between 1982 and 1991 2·4 million jobs had been created by companies with fewer than 20 employees. Such companies are generally the owner-drivers, and tend to have more to lose in terms of heavy regulation. The larger companies—which generally have less to lose in terms of regulation, and may even have something to gain as a result of the barriers that it imposes—had lost about a quarter of a million jobs over the same period.
  The Federation of Small Businesses has said that operating a business in today's climate will cost about 3 per cent. of turnover, and the reading of about 400,000 words. Surely that does not provide an incentive for people to enter the business world and create jobs. Someone wishing to open a local supermarket will be less likely to create jobs if he is faced with the possibility of having to jump through 23 regulatory hoops in the form of licences.
  The great unsung hero of the deregulation debate is not the small business man—although he will be assisted indirectly by the Bill. Unfortunately, the only available research seems to be American; but that research suggests that the consumer will benefit most. The Brookings Institution recently completed a study of deregulation in America, where a substantial amount took place between 1987 and 1988. According to that study, the economy benefited to the tune of about 7 per cent. of gross domestic product—between $32 billion and $46 billion; the consumer secured $32 billion of that amount in the form of better services and lower prices.
  That is where I hope our deregulation initiative will show its teeth. I am glad that the DTI task force identified 3,500 regulations that it wanted to examine, although I must tell my right hon. Friend that I think it slightly sad that only 450 were specifically identified as beMg redundant. Equally important, in my view, are the continuing activities of the DTI unit chaired by Francis Maude, which will insist—through advice on future regulation, risk assessments and other such measures—that the necessary consumer safeguards remain, while unnecessary regulations are abolished.
  Let me refer briefly to an issue that has been a subject of general debate in connection with the constitutional implications of the order-making powers taken by the Government, particularly in the first part of the Bill. Along with the rest of the House, I do not underestimate the importance of the principle involved: Ministers should not be able to undo Acts passed by the House of Commons by ministerial order diktat. That is a democratic principle which we give away at our peril. It is nothing new; as long ago as 1932, the Donoughmore committee—whose findings have already been quoted—spoke of the dangers of Henry VIII clauses. Indeed, the committee wanted to set up a Select Committee on delegated powers, which the House of Lords established in 1992.
  I think that the Government have gone some way towards the desired position in recommending a 40-day consultation period—although I agree with the Council of Civil Service Unions and the Confederation of British Industry that it should be an open period, and that those consulted should be identified so that the range of consultation is made clear.
  I also believe that the Government are right to establish two separate Select Committees to examine specific legislation, and I am glad that the House will be enabled to debate the matter by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. I think, however, that the scrutiny procedure

  203
  could be improved further: some people, including me, want the bonfire of controls that are unnecessary for consumer protection, but also want to ensure that changes are debated adequately. That is an honest feeling which I hope hon. Members will respect.
  I do not think that the powers conferred on the Government should be open-ended. It was, I believe, the Donoughmore committee that said that order-making powers must meet two tests. First, they should be essential to the passage of the legislation involved; secondly, so fundamental was the constitutional precedent that they were setting that they should be time-limited. The committee mentioned one year.
  In 1991, the Lord Chancellor said:
  "Obviously this is a power which has to be given with discretion."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 1991; Vol. 527, c. 519.]
  So say all of us.
  I suggest that these proposals—which are far reaching, and could affect not only past but future legislation—should be time limited in the first instance, and that the House should then be invited to debate them again, precisely because of their constitutional significance. We cannot overlook that with impunity. Moreover, I think that Select Committees should be given powers not only to consider the specific legislation, but to examine all delegated legislation, as now happens in the House of Lords. Order-making powers in existing legislation should be inspected. I also think that there is a case for the extension of these powers to clause 57, but we shall need to discuss that in Committee.
  I welcome the Bill, which will increase competitiveness and reduce the size of Government; but I have the reservations that I have mentioned.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has made constructive comments on the Bill and if his suggestions were carried out, it would be less bad than it is. I hope that by saying that I will not put him at a disadvantage among Conservative Members. I particularly agree with his comments on the Select Committee. Consideration of the role of the Minister would be best done—and seen to be done by the public—by a Select Committee rather than by the normal Standing Committee procedure.
  The use of the word "burden" in the Bill is a mistake. One assumes that a burden is something which one has not taken on willingly and about which one cannot do anything—an illness or something that should not happen. Regulations do not fit that sort of definition—they are the way in which we in society reach a mutual agreement on the obligations of corporate or private organisations, balanced against the importance and sanctity of individuals' interests.
  Primary legislation gives Ministers power to make what were originally administrative adjustments—but the Bill assumes them to be otherwise. Many hon. Members believe that they are inherently wrong, but any state that claims to be democratic must have such structure and must ensure that the protection of interests and the ability to be free and to innovate are properly balanced. There will be more regulations as life becomes more complicated, with
  204
  more scientific devices, and faster travel and communication. People are subject to more disadvantages; so there have to be some forms of protection.
  The fact that this is a Government Bill reminds me of satan protesting about sins. None of the arguments of Conservative Members has been convincing because the Conservative party has been in power for 13 years. If the Government wanted to abolish statutory instruments, they could follow normal procedure. Such measures need not be renewed or could be revoked. The phrase used in most Acts is "the Minister may", not "the Minister shall"—although some Acts do use that wording.
  I want to concentrate on the part of the Bill that has not received much attention and which, in effect, gives greater opportunity for more quangos and for more public services to be contracted out. Although the first half of the Bill is important, the final part will be its trademark or, one hopes, its epitaph. By definition, quangos are unaccountable, often unknown and, for practical reasons, often consist of unidentified people.
  Returning from a welcome visit to Scotland last weekend, I read in Scotland on Sunday that a conference of Scots in the west of Scotland had, by a narrow majority, agreed
  "quangos are a gravy train for Tory supporters".
  A full majority of the members said:
  "there were too many quangos in Scotland."
  Those were the decisions of the conference of west of Scotland Conservatives. But the Bill will create more quangos; it will create more contractors.
  The public service ethic was born in the early years of this century and was perhaps at its best during the period of great administration from 1906 to 1914. It was reactivated between 1945 and 1951, but it has now virtually disappeared. It was often not party political; people of all parties believed in public service and admired public service administrators, particularly those in local government. Now they are being undermined by the rat race that has been hotted up by Conservative Members in the past few years.
  Of course, regulations were not always perfect. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was right—it is up to hon. Members to criticise officials, and badly drafted and unnecessary regulations. That is part of our job; that is what Parliament is about. But we are discussing a Bill not for business but for undermining Parliament. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who is no longer present, said that the Opposition run down the country. We do not. Some of us are proud of it, especially its parliamentary democracy, or what is left of it. Time and again, Conservative Members undermine not only parliamentary democracy, but local government democracy where it counts most and where people are being ground down by lack of facilities and accountability. That will also be one effect of the Bill.
  One of the most trenchant clauses in the Bill is described in the explanatory memorandum. Despite the time limit, that description deserves to be read out. It states:
  "Clause 60 provides that for all purposes, except those relating to criminal proceedings or contractual relations between the Minister, office-holder or local authority and the contractor, the acts of the contractor shall be regarded as the acts of the Minister, office-holder or local authority when the contractor carries out the functions for which he is authorised."
  Of course, the contractor is authorised by Acts and, probably, by the very statutory instruments and regulations

  205
  of which Conservative Members complain, and which will create more contracting out, more compulsory competitive tendering and more quangos. The explanatory memorandum explains that contracting out will extend to the functions of the traffic commissioners, the Registrar General for England and Wales, the public trustee, the Comptroller-General of Patents and the courts service.
  The measure is an extension of an unwelcome development in British society. Other than those who benefit from it, I do not know of anyone who supports or wants it. Whether knowingly or not, Conservative Members have created a cascade of patronage and sub-despots. They took their cue from a super-despot who is no longer in this place. Her rather nice successor and some other Conservative Members cannot tackle the problem because it is not in their nature to do so. The Government are beginning to fall apart because they are split on the issue of public service. The Bill further undermines service to the public and the social contract that the representatives of the people have a right to determine. It puts more power into the hands of Ministers who may be rivals in the creation of small pyramids of sub-patronage. Authority is being taken from the House and transferred to a Cabinet of sub-despots—there could even be another super-despot.
  Some people would judge that the developments show that we are moving towards what might be called a quasi-fascist authoritarian state. I have heard no argument that convinces me that we are not.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I noted the declaratory and rather frightening ending of the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I want to concentrate on some of his remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).
  It is my recollection that, since 1979, my party and I have gone around proclaiming the fact that we overregulate. I know that the Opposition Front-Bench team is much attached to election addresses. I sometimes complained in my election addresses about the overregulation in our country. Of course, during general elections in 1983, 1987 and 1992 the same rubric was cited. It is not a rubric any more, but a rhetorical argument—we were never able to grasp the nettle. The problem was how to deregulate a range of Bills passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We could not pass such powers into the hands of an Executive. We are now having a bonfire of the vanities of previous Executives. It is the constant search for more legislation with attendant statutory instruments that causes us problems. For many years, I have campaigned to change the procedures of the House as they are affected by the use of the guillotine. Our bonfire of the vanities is a response to our legislation in haste and our repentance at leisure.
  Before Christmas, during a debate on yet another guillotine motion, I said that I could not contemplate handing to the Executive the right to do away with legislation completely, not through debate or scrutiny and the testing of propositions but in an hour and a half's debate after which we have unamendable legislation. We do not know, however, whether that will be the procedure recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure. We are, in effect, buying a pig in a poke—[Interruption.] I
  206
  understand the Bill, but, at the end of the day, it is the House that in theory makes the regulations and the Standing Orders. It is up to us—[Interruption.] I do not intend to engage in bickering across the Floor of the House.
  The substance of my argument is that clauses 1 to 4, and possibly clause 6, give the Executive powers that we should be cautious about giving away. We all want to do away with regulation, but it is a slow process. The reasoning behind my argument is our regard for the rule of law. This is the most remarkable country in the European Community—or the European Union, as I should call it now—because we expect obedience to the law and we do so because we can change the law.
  Looking over the history of our party back to Burke, we have required that the rule of law should be not merely the stroke of a Minister's pen or the wish of the Executive but due process. That process confers on the law the solemnity and regard that we expect every citizen to have for it. To provide a bonfire of the vanities by sweeping away all that for which we so cautiously and carefully legislated—and, in recent years, so carelessly and incautiously legislated—means a constitutional crisis for the working of the Chamber.
  There has been no reflection on what the Bill means to the balance between Opposition and Government. I am mindful of the fact that one day we may be in opposition and all the powers that we take unto ourselves or confer on colleagues in the Executive whom we trust will be available to any Executive. There are moments when, of course, our own Executive is unsuccessful and not to be regarded. Why should I give to those whom I do not necessarily trust powers to wipe away laws that have been crafted by the processes of Parliament? That is my question to the Government. I know why wiser and previous Governments have held back from taking unto themselves such powers—caution.
  The Chamber has lasted for centuries and has been able to change from autocratic and oligarchical forms of government to a democratic government. I should like to have thought that that was the last development in our constitutional process, but, as I see the constant nibbling away by the impatience, or other means, of Europe or Executive design, I want to hold on to the integrity of the House of Commons to ensure the liberties and freedom of our people. That is why I urge the Government to undertake a cautious rethink of the Bill because, without regard to the process of legislation or to the ability of the House to examine, amend or reject measures and to consider the balance of the arguments, we do not have a proper function.
  The making of law is our most solemn first responsibility. The attestation that that law can be borne or can at least be acquiesced in by our constituents is our very solemn duty. Clauses 1 to 4 are, in a sense, a repudiation of the history of a democratic House of Commons.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: It is a privilege to follow such a speech, especially as it came from a Conservative Member. It was a powerful denunciation of the Government's attitude and of their claims about what the Bill will do.
  The Bill has major constitutional implications, but that fact does not appear to worry the Government who, in recent years, have become cavalier about observing the

  207
  constitutional proprieties. We have heard about the so-called Henry VIII clauses which give Ministers the power to repeal and amend primary legislation with the stroke of a pen. The civil service unions, local authorities associations and others are wary of the new and highly centralised powers and the ineffective parliamentary scrutiny that goes with them.
  Among the trade unionists and others outside the House who are worried is the former Employment Minister and Defence Minister, Alan Clark, who told The Mail on Sunday:
  "I find it incredible that any Conservative, unless suffering from megalomania to an extent that is medically significant, could put his name to such an authoritarian provision."

  I can think of one such Conservative, and he opened the debate for the Government this afternoon.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, the second part of the Bill gives Ministers the same sweeping powers as the first part. It removes the statutory obstacles to the contracting out of functions that are currently within the civil service and local government. However, as I understand it, there is no provision for additional scrutiny by the special Committees of both Houses, which Ministers have mentioned.
  Like me, many people fear the privatisation by stealth, and without proper debate in the House, of major public services. Several of those were mentioned in the short list read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, and they include the Forestry Commission, the Patent Office, the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, which is so important to my constituents, and the administration of the courts service. Others fear that the Benefits Agency, medical services and local authority revenue collection services could be privatised, a point raised yesterday by Conservative Members. They fear that even the functions of the official receiver could be privatised.
  The local authority associations that have scrutinised the Bill carefully have asked some pertinent questions. They want to know whether the Bill will allow the contracting out of sensitive functions such as the determination of planning applications. It is not inconceivable. What about the contracting out of licensing functions or even of decisions on school admissions? Such ideas may appear to be fanciful, but they are not. I look to the Minister for assurances on those points.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned the bonfire of the vanities. I shall say a few words about the President of the Board of Trade, whose speech tonight I have heard a thousand times before. It is now very well worn. He talked about rolling back the frontiers of the state as long ago as 1980 and here he is again, still rolling back those frontiers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that the task force had considered 3,500 regulations of which 71 per cent. have been introduced since 1979. No fewer than 21 per cent.—just over one fifth—have been introduced since 1990 when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister. It is ludicrous for the Government to suggest that regulations are a burden or a spillover from a socialist past and that we need the Conservatives to wipe clean the legislative slate and get back to some super-competitive nirvana. There is so much hypocrisy in what the Government are doing.
  208
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned double standards. The Government have double standards, as was graphically demonstrated at Prime Minister's Question Time today. When the Prime Minister was asked to comment on the £10 million pay-off to the chairman of British Aerospace plc, John Cahill, after the Rover-BMW deal, he said that it was not a matter for him. However, the scrapping by the privatised British Telecommunications plc of its peak rate for weekday calls was apparently a matter for him and he said much about it.
  The President of the Board of Trade has the same double standards. He says that the regulation of the private sector and quangos, which spend millions of pounds of public money, is not a matter for him, but the regulation of the public sector is a matter for him. One regulates some things but not others. When he was Secretary of State for the Environment 15 years ago—it seems much longer ago than 15 years—he promised the Association of Metropolitan Authorities Review a "bonfire of controls". He spoke about freedoms, but we know what Conservative freedoms amount to. He spoke about freedom from detailed controls in housing; we have more controls in housing than ever before. He spoke about freedom from circulars; we have more circulars than ever before. He spoke about freedom from 300 controls, but we know from what Conservative Members said that most of the regulations have been introduced since he made that statement 15 years ago.
  The President of the Board of Trade said that local authorities had the freedom to use 50 per cent. capital receipts for housing and we know that that means nothing. He said:
  "Central controls are so detailed and stringent that we are drawing back from this web of detail."
  Exactly the opposite applies. He said that every local authority should be able to raise as much money as it wanted from the rates. That has been changed. There is central control. He said that block grant—now replaced by the revenue support grant—would not prevent an authority from determining how much it wished to spend. That is not true. New central controls are pinning down local authorities.
  The President of the Board of Trade told the "AMA Review" in September 1979:
  "I believe in giving greater discretion to local government." Fifteen years later, local government has never been more constrained.
  The President of the Board of Trade says that he wants local authorities to have discretion. The fact is that we live in the most centralised state in the western world, where opportunities for free democratic expression are being curtailed by Conservative Members and where the market is being deregulated even when it can be shown that that is against the national and the public interest.
  The Government are creating freedom to exploit—as in the abolition of wages councils—freedom for people to say what they want to say, as long as the Conservatives determine that what they say is okay, and freedom to do what the Government allow them to do. The Conservative party has a corrosive antipathy to the public sector and public provision. The Conservatives abolished elected local authorities—the Greater London council, ILEA and the metropolitan counties—and they abolished elections in 1985, before those authorities had been statutorily wound up. They imposed, as I have explained, myriad central controls, removing discretion from local authorities, and

  209
  they transferred en bloc many functions that used to be held by democratic councils to unaccountable, unelected quangos stuffed full of Tory placemen and placewomen.
  The Conservatives have created in Britain a new magistracy, and that is not in the public interest. Parliament is told that it must protect the public interest. I will conclude at this point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I call Mr. Peter Ainsworth.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Listening to the hyperbole of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I cannot help but feel that he could have done with a little self-regulation in his remarks to the House.
  It has long been accepted that one of the prime responsibilities of Government is to encourage enterprise. and to foster prosperity, because from them come not only jobs, not only the personal satisfaction that millions of people get by going to work to improve the quality of their lives and to provide for their children, but the funds to furnish a flourishing public sector and to provide standards of health care and education that the country rightly demands.
  The Government's direct ability to generate prosperity is heavily circumscribed. It is not Governments, after all, who create wealth, so it is not easy to legislate for prosperity. Obviously, low interest rates, low inflation and low taxation can help. It is simpler, however, to legislate for poverty and for decline, with excessive taxation, excessive and self-defeating social protection, excessive restrictive practices in the workplace and excessive interference in free markets.
  Labour Governments have proved how easy it is to legislate for decline. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, Opposition Members would prove that they have failed to learn from their mistakes. We need to look no further than to adherence to the social chapter, the minimum wage, the European workers councils and so on, to realise that.
  Excessive regulation is one of the most insiduous and widespread impediments to prosperity and enterprise. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was brave enough to admit, that tendency has by no means been confined to Opposition parties. Over the years, it has woven its way into the very fabric of Government culture. It is easy to see why. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned a few reasons.
  Not all regulation is bad. Much of it is necessary; much is desirable. None of it is ill-intentioned. Invariably, regulations are introduced for what seem to be worthy reasons at the time, but times change, and the regulations do not. A willingness by Government to listen, to be responsive, is generally a good thing, but inevitably, on almost any issue, among those people clamouring the loudest in the Government's ear—often supported by Opposition Members—are the "something must be done" brigade.
  Equally, it is perfectly natural for members of the Government and their civil servants, and indeed the enforcement agencies, to want to be seen to do something about the something that must be done, so the regulation grows and multiplies.
  210
  It is because the Bill confronts that issue that it is so important. I will return to that later. Before I do so, I shall comment on some of the specific measures. They are welcome in their own right. The Bill makes a useful start. I especially welcome—in this respect, I differ from the hon. Member for Pendle—the enabling provisions that remove statutory obstacles to contracting out in central and local government. Conservative Members know very well the benefits, in terms of value for money and quality of services, that have accrued from the process of contracting out.
  The hon. Member for Pendle makes several mistakes. First, he seems to assume that public ownership is somehow better than private ownership, and then he confuses public ownership with public services. That is a serious error. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) implied the same, when he said that when something stops being in the public sector, it stops being a public service and becomes somehow part of a rat race.
  All hon. Members have their own favoured candidates for further deregulation. I am a consultant to S. G. Warburg Group, an investment bank in the City, and I, wearing that hat, very much hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will re-examine the recommendations of the deregulation task force in relation to financial services.
  The Financial Services Act 1986 has imposed on one of our leading international industries substantial additional costs, and it has to be said that the benefits are far from clear. I especially commend to my hon. Friend's attention page 55 of the excellent book by the deregulation task force, which deals with client money regulations. Those are extremely onerous, costly to operate, and are wholly inappropriate for the vast majority of transactions, which take place between professional investors. Will my hon. Friend reconsider that?
  Just as Rome was not built in a day, so the process of demolishing the labyrinth of needless regulations will not be completed overnight. The Institute of Directors has written about clauses 1 to 4, which I have no doubt form one of the key parts of the Bill:
  "The order-making power contained in the Bill allows Parliament to repeal or reduce legislation through a procedure which has previously been reserved solely for increasing it".
  That is the key point. I know that it has caused considerable consternation. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is exercised by it, and spoke eloquently about it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). However, the obstructive attitude of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and other Opposition Members towards deregulation is eloquent testimony to the need for those clauses.
  It is ironic that procedures used so regularly to increase the burden on business through regulation run into such difficulty when it is suggested that they be used, for the first time, to reduce the burden. That is especially strange given the additional safeguards that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has wisely incorporated into the legislation.
  I fear that the Opposition's bogus constitutional arguments about clauses 1 to 4 are simply a cynical attempt to hide their rooted objection to the principle of deregulation. We have heard that objection voiced clearly by Opposition Members today. If there is a constitutional issue at stake, it centres on the fact that the Bill, for the first

  211
  time, makes it almost as easy to reduce regulation as it already is to impose it. Conservative Members will certainly support that.
  The Bill is important because it marks a psychological sea change in the Governments's attitude towards business. It is only a first step, and it must be vigorously pursued if our business community is to operate efficiently in highly competitive international markets. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it is on smaller businesses that the burdens of regulation bear down hardest. Therefore, as the process of deregulation continues, it is they who will benefit most.
  The Bill offers hope to millions of people running smaller businesses men such as Mr. Stanley Gibson, proprietor of the Oxted gallery in my constituency, who for 20 years has run an excellent establishment making and selling oven gloves to eager customers. Mr. Gibson had not had one complaint in all that time, until the other day, when some bossy people from local government informed him that his gloves failed to meet the approved standard.
  If Mr. Gibson takes that criticism seriously, the results will be obvious. His costs will rise substantially, and so will the price of his oven gloves, so he will suffer lower sales. That is the dilemma which many small businesses face when they are hit by such needlessly interfering regulations.
  The Bill will be widely welcomed for what is on the face of it, but its real strength will be seen as what it promises is fulfilled.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) should consider carefully what he has said because, having praised the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), he went on to describe criticism of clauses 1 to 4 as bogus. That is a fundamental contradiction—
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Miller: No, because I have only just finished my first sentence.
  Several hon. Members have asked whose regulations we are talking about and have pointed out that they were imposed by the current Administration. In view of the classic quote that I heard earlier during Prime Minister's questions, I guess that today will go on record as the day when Ministers' cry was, "Nothing has anything to do with me. "
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: "It wasn't me guy."
  Mr. Miller: That is right: "It wasn't me guy."
  Regulations do become out of date, and everyone knows that there must be proper mechanisms by which they can be adjusted and corrected. Several Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, all with far more experience than I have of the way in which this place works, have described the effective ways that already exist to ensure that regulations are kept up to date.
  Hon. Members will be aware that a serious chemical fire occurred in my constituency last Tuesday. I have lost count of the number of regulations that govern the running of the
  212
  plant concerned, but I know that the Minister is familiar with the site—indeed, he opened one of the plants—so I ask him to tell me in his winding-up speech how many of the current regulations governing that site he envisages wiping out. I hope that he will say none.
  The President of the Board of Trade said earlier that the safety of workers and customers in the environment was an important issue. In that case, I hope that the Minister will clarify the curious anomaly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and specifically set out in the research paper published by the Library:
  "Clause 27(i) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill allows for the revocation or repeal of the above mentioned existing enactments without direct replacement. This includes regulations made under those Acts as well as subsequent (post 1974) regulations introduced to replace the earlier ones. In other words, recent provisions could be repealed, but only if they had been introduced to replace pre-1974 legislation identified in Schedule 1 of the Health and Safety at Work Act."
  That needs clarification, to say the least, by the Government.
  In inviting the Minister to comment on the incident in my constituency, I hope that he will agree wholeheartedly with a paragraph from the Chemical Industries Association brief sent to hon. Members yesterday:
  "The chemical industry believes that much of the framework of existing Regulations specifically affecting the chemical industry—e.g. the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, the Environment Protection Act 1990 and the COSHH Regulations—is fundamentally sound; in many cases however there is a need for greater clarity and consistency in interpretation and implementation."
  The chemical industry does not want the regulations to be wiped away. The Chemical Industries Association, in its wisdom, says that what it wants is clarity and consistency of interpretation. In other words, there is nothing wrong with regulation. What this country needs is better regulation.
  The President of the Board of Trade mentioned some of the rather silly regulations now on the statute book, but he had to acknowledge that the examples that he cited were regulations established by the Conservative Administration. It seems a bit odd that we should entrust that same group of people with the power of wiping legislation out left, right and centre. If they cannot be trusted to set up regulations properly, how can they be trusted to wipe legislation out unilaterally?
  The most effective mechanism for dealing with the Government's lack of competence concerning regulations is for them to resign and let someone with a clearer head have a go—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, we shall see in a year or two. The Government should let someone with a clearer head have a fresh crack of the whip.
  The regulations' impact on redundancies is bizarre. Again, I refer the House to the CIA, which says:
  "In principle we consider that the part of the Section in question that deals with collective agreements ought to be retained because we believe that companies should honour such agreements, although it would be helpful if tribunals here could be encouraged to take a more flexible approach interpreting `special reasons justifying a departure' from the agreed procedure."
  In a recent meeting with the CIA, I pointed out that its member companies were partly responsible for the situation that needs that caveat. Those companies, along with many others in Britain, made the tribunal system more and more legalistic.
  It was clear from the exchange involving my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield that the hon. Member for

  213
  Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) had little understanding of the operations of the industrial tribunal system. That is not surprising, because it was the Conservatives who made the system so incredibly legalistic and a paradise for rich lawyers, and who undermined the general principle that was established in the tribunal system in the first place—that the merits of an individual case should be taken into account. Against that background, the CIA's advice should be heeded by the Government, and the reference to clause 26 dropped forthwith.
  I hope that the Government will realise the error of their ways and withdraw many of their clauses in Committee, if the Bill gets that far. Hon. Members have referred to local authorities that are concerned about markets. Those are valid arguments, I have received letters from one of the two councils in my constituency. I have also received representations on how the protection of the historic cities of this nation will be maintained if wholesale deregulation is allowed to go ahead. Do the Government really intend to allow Ministers to have powers to wipe away such regulations, which protect our ancient heritage? If so, it is a bad Bill.
  Clause 20 refers to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and an additional clause being inserted. The Government have been hoist by their own petard. In their attempt to sweep away regulation, they have drafted a clause which will require more regulation to enable it to work. I shall give a simple example. The clause refers to
  "a series of transfers between the same parties of waste of the same description".
  If acid is the waste product from an industrial plant, is it really the intention that another carrier shifting the same acid, but in a more concentrated form, should be allowed the same single licence? If the House means that, it should say so, but I am sure that it does not, and to enforce the clause in the way that the Government seem to intend will require more regulation. That is another example of the inadequacies of the Government's approach.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am delighted that the Government have at last decided to take their part in reducing regulations. I am also pleased that they have consulted business and intend to consult business before regulations are published in future. As part of that process, as perhaps the House will know, eight task forces from the business and voluntary sector were formed to examine any of the 3,500 regulations affecting their own sectors. Seven of those task forces have reported to the Government. Their 605 proposals were published in January.
  The task forces have suggested three principles which, it is argued, should guide Government Departments in reviewing existing regulations for the future. First,
  "Make sure you start by measuring the impact on small firms of new regulations."
  That is fine and fair enough. Secondly,
  "Avoid regulations that are out of proportion to benefits to be obtained."
  Again, that is fine and fair enough. Thirdly,
  "Make regulations goal-based rather than over-prescriptive."
  That may be a wonderful aim, but it is disgustingly phrased. If regulations are to be dealt with, I trust that they will be dealt with in better English than that.
  That infelicity of language seems to have flowed over into the Bill. Clause 5 deals with amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1973. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) one will see references to something called a monopoly situation.
  214
  To my mind, we are talking about a monopoly, not a monopoly situation. I hope that that sort of language can be done away with. I hope equally that, in the spirit of plain English, we can do away with the sort of provision that we find in Clause 21(1)(b), which says:
  "The appropriate authority may by regulations repeal, or as the case may be, revoke …
  (b) any provision of regulations under section 15 of the 1974 Act (health and safety regulations) which has effect in relation to a matter in relation to which a provision which was an existing statutory provision for the purposes of the Part had effect."
  I am sure that that is well intentioned, but it is not well expressed and I trust that in Committee something will be done about such language.
  I shall now deal with some of the effects of the Bill that affect small business. The task forces were quite clear that regulators should think small and frame new regulations with the interests of small businesses in mind. Small businesses are most vulnerable to over-regulation and have to struggle hard against red tape. They cannot spread the costs of complying with regulations as easily as larger firms. We as a country cannot afford to stifle the spirit of one of the most important areas of our economy. I say that as a Member whose constituency is largely populated by people working in small businesses. To ease the burdens on small business is a fine thing to want to do.
  We can be proud of the way the Government have tackled the regulations that have emerged from the European Commission and European institutions. We can also be proud of their attitude towards the approach by local government and Departments to over-regulation. I trust that under the Bill and future deregulating measures we shall ensure that European over-regulation is well filtered before it hits those whom we wish to elect us.
  I shall now deal with some of the measures in the Bill, some of which I am happy to commend and some of which cause me concern. I shall not repeat the intelligent remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Clauses 1 to 4 contain, in spirit, some welcome material, but the means by which we go about seeking to produce deregulation causes me some constitutional concern. I shall not repeat their submission, but I would add the following. Those clauses, especially clause 2, seem to provide Ministers with the ability to amend the criminal law. I suggest that it is not safe to allow Ministers to change the criminal law—albeit they may, by doing so, reduce penalties or make less burdensome some of the consequential effects of any breach of an existing regulation or Act. I merely put that down as a marker so that my hon. Friends do not dismiss—as I did, I regret to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth)—as bogus any constitutional objections. They are not bogus; they are well meant and sincere, and they deserve to be listened to.
  I am happy to give a fair wind to clauses 21, 22 and 23, which do away with so-called ancient market rights. My constituency contains two local authorities—Harborough district council and Oadby and Wigston borough council. Oadby and Wigston council is adversely affected by the socialist city council in Leicester. Leicester city council attempts to exert market rights over the entire territory of Oadby and Wigston borough council which, sadly for that council, lies within six and two thirds miles of the centre of Leicester. People who have not been elected by the citizens of Oadby and Wigston are telling them what they can and cannot do within their own local authority

  215
  boundaries. The sooner that position is done away with the better. I say that despite the fact that I have nothing particularly kind to say about the Liberal Democrat majority on Oadby and Wigston borough council. However, I suggest that the Liberal Democrats' giving support for this provision is about the best thing that they have done since being elected and I wish them success in that.
  The other provision that I especially welcome is the amendment of the law relating to children's access to public houses. It is ludicrous that in this day and age—I am sorry to use a cliché, although it is not the first time that I have done so—parents should not be permitted to take children into public houses where a special room is set aside to allow them to enjoy lunch or supper, as a family, in proper surroundings. I am glad to see that amendment. introduced.
  I also draw the attention of the House to clause 18 which deals with the enforcement of functions relating to slaughterhouses and knackers' yards. At the other end of my constituency—that is, outside Oadby and Wigston—my constituents are very much involved in farming. As my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate, the grass in Harborough is second to none for the fattening of cattle. The EC regulations concerning slaughterhouses have not been greeted with much enthusiasm. I trust that clause 18, which affects the functions relating to the welfare of animals at slaughter and which amends the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967, the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980, will allow better and more sympathetic governing of the way in which slaughterhouses run themselves, to the benefit of those who make use of them, including the farmers and butchers in my constituency.
  I welcome the Bill in principle, subject to the warning points to which I adverted at the beginning of my remarks. I trust that in Committee the Bill will receive the welcome attention that it deserves and requires so that at the end of the day it will be but the first of the many deregulating measures for which our constituents—certainly my constituents—have been crying out for many years.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Let me make my position clear. I am opposed to unnecessary red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. Ther can be nothing worse than coming across a person who wears a Jobsworth hat, and who has the rules and regulations in front of him. Such people will implement them, stupid though they may be. There is unnecessary red tape, there are unnecessary regulations, and there are people who are only too willing to exploit that position.
  However, the Bill is fraught with danger to consumers and workers who rely on appropriate regulations to protect them from unsavoury practices and exploitation. There is also a clear constitutional danger with the catch-all, so called Henry VIII clauses which the Government are trying to foist on the House. They are flying in the face of constitutional precedent and advice. They are laying themselves open to more charges of arrogance, despotism and worse—words that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might rule out of order, so I shall not use them.
  216
  Government motives for pushing through these dangerous and widely criticised proposals are clear. They are concerned about their business friends and their financial backers who want to reduce standards in health and safety at work, and reduced control over business practices to the detriment of the consumer and the worker. The Government must not be allowed to use the Bill to lower standards or to enable more and more standards to be attacked.
  The Government's plan to increase their power in relation to the power of Parliament must be a cause for concern. It is a constitutional concern, because it is a move which will undermine Parliament, and because of the potential use and effect of measures that the Government may introduce in future on important aspects of health and safety legislation, among other legislation.
  That power should be used only in exceptional circumstances, yet the Government have made increased use of that method, most notably in the various Education Acts. The fundamental point is that if a Minister wants to change legislation passed by Parliament as a whole, he should come back to Parliament and go through the normal procedures. No proper case has yet been made for the Government having such power. Until such reasons are given, the House should not approve the Bill.
  If the Government really see deregulation proposals as such an important plank of their programme, Ministers should not be frightened of bringing those proposals to the House and having them subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. There are understandable concerns that, once the power to make deregulation orders has been passed, a whole range of legislation will come under fire.
  With Departments and agencies reviewing regulations at the moment, we are being asked to pass a carte blanche measure which could allow all kinds of regulations to be repealed and weakened. There is no mention in the Bill of what the changes will be.
  The Government claim that the Bill will reduce the burdens on business, but they choose to forget that what is a so-called "burden" to business is a safeguard to consumers and workers. The Government have made it clear that the views of their pals in business should come first, second and third.
  There is widespread concern that the so-called Henry VIII clauses will be used at a later date to attack health and safety legislation in detail. Although no major changes are proposed in the Bill, we have only to look at the Government's attitude to health and safety to know that those clauses pose a threat to health and safety and to consumer protection legislation.
  The Government have cut the funding for the Health and Safety Executive for the next two years. In 1993–94, the HSE has lost £13 million. It expects to have to cut 230 jobs just to cope with the shortfall in its budget. Nothing shows more clearly the Government's lack of commitment to health and safety.
  The Government have also been busy weakening safety controls in other areas, the most notable example being coal mining. We had a system that was second to none. It was torn apart and replaced by codes of practice. The role of pit deputies has been abolished, and the safety regulations have been weakened. Those codes of practice are designed to make life easier for a privatised coal industry. Lives will be put at risk, and few in the coal mining industry doubt it.

  217
  While the Bill is supposed to be about getting rid of unnecessary red tape, it also represents a further centralisation of power, because of the power to make deregulation orders and the decision to change the common law relating to market franchise rights. It will take more power from local authorities, to the detriment of local people and local business.
  The policy will have a massive impact on the economic and social well-being of people in Doncaster, and will threaten many jobs. The proposals will undermine the viability of existing markets. The loss of rental income and the likely decline in the number of traders operating in market halls and open markets will transform the character of towns such as Doncaster, which has one of the best and largest markets in the north of England.
  Hundreds of families depend on that market for their livelihood. Why is the Secretary of State determined to bring more misery to Doncaster families? Is he not satisfied with the misery already caused by his pit closure programme? Markets have always been an important part of community life in Doncaster, and it seems that nobody outside Whitehall wants that to change. The Government are once again trying to impose their political dogma where it is not needed or wanted.
  If, as I suspect, the abolition of market franchises has been included in the Bill in response to special pleading from one small part of the retailing sector, the Government ought to say so. The electorate will quickly realise that it is yet another part of the continuing strategy to strip valued traditional powers from local authorities.
  Where is the evidence that the existing system is frustrating additional traders or consumer choice? The Secretary of State is attacking the life blood of Doncaster, the small towns of Thorne and Stainforth in my constituency, and many other towns and cities. I ask him to drop this ill-founded proposal, and save the Doncaster people from yet another vindictive policy of his failed Government. The Bill is possibly the most dangerous that the Government have introduced, and it should be resoundingly defeated.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I unreservedly welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who I know is pushing ahead of all of us in considering all the regulations, and may be relied on to support the full initiative of deregulation.
  We have heard a couple of especially perceptive speeches on the constitutional changes proposed in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) have dealt with the main concerns of clauses 1 to 4, which contain most of the main constitutional issues. I find it difficult, as ever, to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, since he talks so movingly and directly to the issues, but the problem goes back to the 1980s.
  The House has fallen down over scrutinising the European legislation. The fact that we must bring in such measures now is an example of how little serious scrutiny has been carried out on so much legislation which has poured through on the back of the Single European Act, especially.
  218
  It is that failure to consider the detail of what was coming across the Europe which has led to the amount of abuse from which many small businesses are suffering. Therefore, it is important to understand why the Conservative party, especially, is the party of deregulation, as we wish to be known, and are known. After recent years, we are tackling deregulation specifically.
  The constitutional concerns over the Bill are relevant and, in Committee, we need to consider some of the constitutional points made, especially in view of the time-limiting devices, so that we can return to the House some element of debate and scrutiny, which has already gone. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept that those possibilities need to be considered.
  Having said all that, I welcome the Bill, because if it encompasses the ideals and ideas of one person, they are those of Chris Booker. I wish that we could rename it the Chris Booker Bill, because he has been so determined in his efforts to force the Government and all the parties to recognise what has happened in the process of excessive regulation which has not been properly scrutinised.
  Although I realise that Mr. Booker would riot necessarily want to be associated directly with the Government, it is important that his part in such a move is recognised and that he continues to push us further into greater and wider areas of deregulation. The effects of the single market are the aspects which Mr. Booker has been most successful in identifying, and I hope that we take those elements on board.
  About the initiative to deregulate, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "The Government's aim is to remove unnecessary regulations which waste time, add to business costs and threaten competitiveness and jobs while protecting vital interests".
  Notwithstanding any possibilities of excess, that encapsulates our drive and they should be our watchwords.
  It is also important to consider the comments of the Director-General of the CBI:
  "This is the start of what must become a continuing process. Deregulation must not be a nine day wonder."
  Stan Mendham, chief executive of the Forum for Private Business said:
  "Sadly, we have seen too many false starts on regulation. To understand the law, business owners need to read over 400,000 words and complying with red tape costs 3 per cent. of turnover."
  It is important to understand the problems that have existed for business men over the years that we have been pouring regulations on their heads; perhaps now we can start to row back and reconsider the whole role of Government. Essentially, we accept that there is a need to protect the weak and vulnerable. That goes without saying, but I am sure that it will be restated continuously in Committee.
  The problem is that, through a process of events, Ministers have found themselves under pressure from pressure groups, lobby groups, colleagues and almost anybody else who has seen something wrong and has wanted to ban it, regulate it or stop it. We have all been guilty of putting that pressure on our hon. Friends.
  Blaming the civil service is madness, as it is not civil servants' fault that we have passed to them stupid regulations which fail. In its excellence, the civil service has gone about making such regulations exactly what they purport to be. The trouble was that the regulations were everything to every man and woman, which resulted in a flow of regulations.

  219
  The questions we must therefore address are, why do we in the first place make such absurd Bills and, as a result, why do we need to employ so many people to ensure that every regulation is imposed? Deregulation is important because we must be aware that, while some regulations work well, events are always changing. Often, regulations give rise to a whole number of unforeseen problems. I shall not go into detail, because we see it about us all the time.
  Review is constantly required, because regulations have gone too far. The crucial elements are to assess how far we meant to go and why have we extended regulations into areas in which we never intended to go. Essentially, this Bill must be about redressing the balance and pulling us back from areas in which we never intended to be, as people like Mr. Booker have pointed out time and again.
  Small businesses suffer the most from regulations. I know that, at times, people say that they stand for small and medium businesses. Frankly, someone must stand for them, because they are the most crucial element of growth in the economy. Sometimes, it is most important for us to understand that the strength of an economy is measured by the number of small and medium businesses.
  As has been proven time and again, and as my hon. Friends have pointed out, the response of small businesses to growth and changing circumstances is always much faster than that of bigger companies, because they have lower overheads and fewer problems with their work force. That is the most important point. In over-regulating, we have ensured that the life of small businesses has become more difficult over the same period. It is important to see whether that was unnecessary and change it.
  When we examine this whole area, we must consider the position of the purpose versus the cost, leading us to the ultimate effect of what we do. One could argue that the problem is always understanding the point at which possibility for a small minority of the population becomes probability for the vast majority of the population. In other words, the likelihood of harm is now a probability, and we must regulate that.
  Before we reach that point, regulation should be about information—telling people about the possibilities and allowing them to make value judgments and choices. After all, when people go to cross the road, we do not put barriers on streets across the whole of the country saying that they cannot cross here—they can cross only where we put crossings. We say that there are crossings there—if people cross there, they judge the excessive danger; if they want to, they can cross at the crossing point. That is the principle of regulation, and deregulation should get us back to that.
  I welcome the Bill. While I have some concerns—as I said earlier when I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—about some of the powers that we are taking, on which I wish we would think again, the Government's powers should be taken in the context of the way in which we have moved over the whole draft of European legislation. It is time to think again, and this Bill provides the right opportunity to do that. I welcome it unreservedly.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill is not really about deregulation. Indeed, it provides the Minister with a great many more order-making powers, apart from the
  220
  clause 1, which provides him with special powers to remove primary legislation. That is not unprecedented: in the past, many statutory instruments have provided for powers to repeal bits of primary legislation. They are known as Henry VIII clauses because they cut off primary legislation, often at the head.
  When the President of the Board of Trade introduced the Bill, he made a number of jokes about obscure language. It must be pointed out that, for the most part, statutory instruments are signed by Ministers. That gives them authority. If they want to make jokes about statutory instruments, let them do so at their own peril. They will look foolish, having quoted from instruments that they simply signed, or signed without bothering to read them, and took on trust the word of a civil servant. That is not a courageous attitude to take, especially when the self-same Ministers are claiming that they are improving the position by simplifying language—language that they did not simplify when they signed the instruments.
  Time and again, the Government, through the Leader of the House, have refused to provide a Standing Order so that the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which may report on ambiguities, the unusual and unexpected use of Ministers' powers and, especially in the context of the President's speech, badly drafted instruments, could be in front of us before we debate either a prayer or an affirmative motion. What sort of attitude is that for a Government who mock statutory instruments and say that they want to make them clearer? The machinery that the House establishes ostensibly to clarify procedures often withholds that opportunity.
  I shall give the House an example. It is not simply a trivial instance. The health and safety in mines instrument was laid on 6 August 1993 when the House was not sitting. it came into operation before the House returned after the summer recess, and the debate was held before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments made its report. The Government dare to come to the House and say that they are concerned about clarity in statutory instruments and the excessive powers of Ministers, when they deliberately brought an instrument before the House without any opportunity for debate before the powers came into operation.
  It is worth examining the way in which the Government have used their powers. On average, about 2,000 statutory instruments are produced each year. No one denies that some regulation is required. because we must protect people from danger. We must improve health and safety at work, because work accidents cause changes in production and losses of production. They are costly; they produce ill feeling; there is a loss of time; and they may cause an injury or possibly a loss of life to those involved. Therefore, some regulation is accepted as necessary.
  We have about 2,000 statutory instruments a year. In 1948, there were 2,858. That figure was topped by the Tories in 1962, who passed 2,877 statutory instruments. In the years of the last Labour Government, there were 2,224 in 1974, 2,251 in 1975, 2,248 in 1976, 2,202 in 1977 and 1,977 in 1978. In 1979—the year of the election—there were 1,770. According to this Government, those were the years of regulation when the Labour Government were pressing down on people's backs.
  What have we had since this Minister took office? In 1991, there were 2,952 statutory instruments. In 1992, there was the all-time record in the history of Government and in the history of Parliament. No other Government

  221
  have produced the number of statutory instruments that this Government produced in 1992–3,359. That is nearly 1,500 more than the last year of the Labour Government.
  Incidentally, if the Government now say that it is the problem of the Common Market—which they support—I would point out that only about 20 per cent. of the regulations come from the Common Market. The bulk of the regulations derive from the Government's tentacles, which are reaching into every aspect of life. The Government are not decentralising but imposing highly centralised bureaucracy. In 1993, the Government must have made an effort, because the number was down to 3,279.
  I say to the Minister that he does not need this deregulation Bill, with its excessive powers for Ministers. All he need do is go round Departments and tell them to reduce the number of statutory instruments they produce, and they can do it. For example, if a national health service trust transfers its property, that is an instrument. When the Government go through all the NHS trusts, which have been created by statutory instruments, another 50, 100 or 150 statutory instruments have been produced.
  The Government are pouring out statutory instruments like confetti, and the Bill is an excuse to try to cut the number. They could at least try to approach the number there was at the time of the Labour Government. How could the Labour Government manage with just over 2,000 statutory instruments a year, when they were supposed to be oppressing the nation? Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to tell their Departments to have as their target the number of statutory instruments in 1978 or 1979. The number would be reduced by 1,500 a year.
  Some Government Members are like renegade Trotskyists, in constant revolution with every institution of our society. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talks about cynicism affecting our national institutions, but the Government are up-ending every national institution we have.
  The Bill deals with markets, for example—a subject raised by other hon. Members. Ordinary and decent markets provide a service, and they are run by small businesses, but some of them have empty stalls. Rawson and Kirkgate are two examples—excellent markets which my wife and I frequently patronise. The markets have some empty stalls, and the people in charge say that they do not want car boot sales and suchlike, which will knock out their livelihoods and put them on the dole. Some of the people involved say that they were traditional Tory voters but, like a lot of other people, are no longer. Why should the Government hammer on their backs by creating problems?
  The Government have an obsession with the free market. The Minister has it more than most, although they are all tainted with the same madness. The Government will find that there are more problems and more people on the dole, not fewer. The situation will not be improved.
  I turn now to the Government's attack on health and safety. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as everyone who has read it knows, had its own system for overhauling old regulations. The Secretary of State for Employment had the power to tell the Health and Safety Executive to overhaul its regulations. The executive would then submit its reports to the Minister, who would put them before Parliament. Has the Minister done that? Of course
  222
  not. It has never been done. The Health and Safety Executive has been required to produce more regulations, with no consolidation.
  There are at least 350 statutory instruments that apply to health and safety at work. They should be consolidated, and the Minister has not done so. The Bill does not simplify health and safety at work, which, goodness knows, everybody needs. Why could we not have the health and safety legislation in one document? That would help workers, employers and people who are affected by the legislation. Why do we not go down that path?
  Under the current system, the Minister can repeal health and safety legislation. Will the system take into account the section of the 1974 Act which requires that all delegated powers should be used to maintain and improve existing standards of health and safety at work? That was an important component of the legislation, and I look forward to the Minister saying that it is guaranteed in the Bill.
  I want to make one last point—at least one other hon. Member wants to speak—about contracting out. Clause 57 is quite extraordinary. It is an order-making power which is separate from the order-making power at the beginning of the Bill, which provides an extra Committee to see whether the Minister is doing the decent thing. That Committee will be stuffed to the gills with Tories, so it will always say yes. In any case, the Committee will be organised by the Whips. We know what happens in this place.
  The clause will take away the powers of Ministers and give them to outside contractors. I ask Conservative Members—do they want another Child Support Agency? Do they want more chief executives? When an hon. Member puts down a question, the Minister says it is not for him, and adds that he has sent the letter on to Ros Hepplewhite. She is on £50,000 a year for a 36-hour week, and she is always out of the office. The hon. Member then gets a letter back from the business manager of the CSA.
  There is no ministerial accountability or, at best, there is diminished ministerial accountability. Clause 57 gives powers for affirmative orders. No affirmative orders are okay, although they are better than negative procedure. The debate will usually be one and a half hours after 10 o'clock, and no changes can be made.
  Only about two Acts have ever been passed winch allowed statutory instruments to be amended. The vast bulk—this Bill is no exception—do not allow amendment, so hon. Members must take it or leave it. That is difficult for the House to accept. An hon. Member might like some part of the Bill, and dislike another part—even a single clause—but one has to take it all.
  That is simply not good enough when we are being asked to transfer powers out of the House, out of the ministerial box and out of Whitehall. The powers will be transferred somewhere else, which affects accountability. No Minister said during the election, "I am going to shift my job outside. I do not really want a Ministry with such a range of powers. I am going to reduce them." Of course they did not. So what they are doing is outside their brief. It is against democracy. That is why we should oppose the legislation.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Just as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has great passion about what he believes in, Conservative Members have

  223
  great passion about removing the red tape which has tied down our businesses for far too long. If I have any reservation about the Bill, it is that it has taken so long to reach the Chamber.
  I am the vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau. There are 3·5 million small businesses in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said how important small businesses were to the economy. They employ the vast bulk of the employed population. Small business men are the sort of people who work all hours. I should know, because I was a small business man once. They are the people who invest their life savings in their business. They risk everything to make sure that their business succeeds. They are the bedrock of Britain. If they fail, Britain fails. We must also pay heed to the many millions of people who are self-employed in Britain. If the self-employed are successful, they become employers.
  It is the role of the Government to encourage small businesses. How can they encourage small businesses? By getting out of the hair of those small businesses. The Government create the conditions in which small businesses can grow. Today's interest rate cut will go some way to help them. The banks must pass on the interest rate cut to their businesses.
  Many measures in the Bill will receive wide applause from our wealth creators. Another such measure is the rolling programme of deregulation. The Bill is a bonfire of regulations, but it is only one small bonfire. I sincerely hope that after this first bonfire many others will follow. The new rolling programme and the new task force led by Francis Maude will have plenty of work ahead of them in the years to come.
  No regulation must be left unturned. If it is unnecessary, it should be scrapped. If it is complicated, it should be simplified. If it is not working, we should either repeal it or reform it. Labour Members have made accusations that we do not care about public service. That is patently not true. But we also care that our businesses should not face public strangulation.
  The guidelines that are given to local authorities need to be made absolutely clear, to ensure that they are used in a way that is fair to all our business people and implemented uniformly. The same rules and regulations should be interpreted in exactly the same way throughout the country. I have heard all sorts of stories from my constituents about rules and regulations being interpreted in one way in one area of the constituency and in another way by someone else in another part of the constituency. All rules and guidelines should be cleared up.
  We also need to ensure that our town hall bureaucrats are more helpful to small businesses to ensure that they can become far more profitable. I ran a small convenience store in Swansea. The environmental health officer visited me one day. He looked at the sink at the back of the shop, and said, "You wash your utensils here. Where do your staff wash their hands?" I said that they washed their hands either in the sink or in the toilet and cloakroom upstairs.
  The environmental health officer said that that was not good enough and that I must tear out the sink and replace it with two sinks—one for washing the utensils and one for staff to wash their hands. I asked him to show a little common sense because we had carried on the business for many years and had never had a problem. I asked him to
  224
  show just a smidgen of common sense, but he refused. In the end, the heavy hand of the town hall came down and we had to tear out the sink and put in a new one at a cost of more then £250. The staff still washed the utensils in one side and went upstairs to the cloakroom to wash their hands, as they had always done. That is an example of where I hope that the deregulation Bill will prove effective.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned recent abattoir legislation. There are many abattoirs in my constituency, some of which are very small, and I have received many letters from their owners, who are burdened by the extra cost of the new European Community regulation. It is costing one abattoir an extra £20,000 a year with no perceptible benefit to the consumer. We need to clear up that problem—I hope that the Bill will do so—so that one person can inspect abattoirs and do the work of both the meat inspector and the veterinary surgeon.
  I know that I do not have time to mention all the measures contained in the Bill as another hon. Member wishes to speak, but many of them will be welcomed by businesses, both small and large. We must constantly study the rules and regulations. One criticism is that we have been in power 14 years, so why have we only just started to consider them.
  Mr. Illsley: Tell us about it.
  Mr. Evans: As we have heard today, the Labour party loves regulations and treats them in the same way as it treats taxation and spending. Rules and regulations are the very creed and heart of the Labour party. Labour Members think that they must keep on spending, taxing and regulating and that is the difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. It is one reason why, come the next general election, people will remember what we have done about rules and regulations, how we have freed businesses from unnecessary burdens and helped small businesses to flourish and earn more profits so that they can reinvest in their businesses and grow. Profit is not a dirty word, although we might think otherwise to hear Opposition Members talk.
  The Government need to consult business more widely, especially small businesses. We need a litmus test whereby we consider how beneficial a rule or regulation will be to the consumer and how much it will cost industry. If it does not measure up, will be expensive, or if the consumer will hardly notice any benefit, that rule or regulation should not be introduced. We must stop rules and regulations before the Government introduce them, and that is one of the main reasons why I welcome the Bill and will back it.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: In the few minutes left, I shall confine my remarks to that section of the Bill that relates to markets. It is clear that the deregulation task forces were made up from the private sector. There was no local authority involvement, which is probably why the Bill will not legislate for the private market sector and private markets will not be deregulated.
  The Bill simply attacks local authorities that provide markets. It is also an attack on the National Association of British Market Authorities; its members have opposed, to an authority, its provisions. I took up the issue with members of the association, but, in all the replies I received, not one local authority that was a member of the association supported the Government viewpoint. Nor

  225
  does the National Market Traders Federation, which views the deregulation of markets as a threat to the livelihoods of its members.
  In view of their responses, it is surprising that the Government decided to press on with those clauses. The Minister is aware that many of the local authorities wrote to him to complain about them and have raised petitions, which will be presented to the House or to the Prime Minister. Those authorities are campaigning against the provisions in the Bill.
  It is said that the deregulation of markets will increase competition, but it is likely to be unfair competition from private markets set up on a temporary basis, operating for a few days a year in a certain area. There will be no consumer protection, continuity or permanence as private markets spring up all over the country.
  I refer the House to a letter from the Department of the Environment on the idea that the regulation of markets will frustrate commercial initiatives. I cannot read the whole text, so I shall read just the salient points:
  "It was also made clear to the Commission that we had received very few complaints about market rights and that in 1987–88 the Government had reviewed the system. It concluded that legislation would be needed to abolish all market rights and that franchise rights, which are treated as property in English law, could not be compulsorily appropriated without compensation. Expropriation without compensation would also seem to infringe the European Convention on Human Rights which requires compensation for expropriation of a person's 'possessions'. In view of the requirements to pay compensation, the scarcity of complaints, the minimal part that markets play in U.K. trading activity and the possible damage to centuries of tradition and heritage that abolition would cause, the Government decided not to pursue the question of abolition any further. That remains the current position."
  That letter was written in March 1991. What has changed in the past couple of years to encourage the Department of Trade and Industry to deregulate market rights? In that time, there have been very few, if any, complaints about the operation of local authority markets.
  As some of my hon. Friends have said, many markets are in town centres and have a tradition that goes back for years. Many are historical or even tourist attractions. Many towns receive a lot of income from the establishment of their markets. My town is no different. Barnsley market was established under a royal charter in the 13th century. By the mid-1960s, Barnsley was known as a market town and its market was well known throughout the north of England. That tradition is likely to be lost through deregulation as a result of the Bill.
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Barnsley is also a former mining area. The Government are to close down all the collieries, so I use the word "former" advisedly. As a consequence, the local authority has introduced a number of initiatives to try to regenerate the town centre and replace the trade lost as a result of the income reduction in the area. Those include the business partnership scheme, about which the Minister knows because he came to my constituency to launch it, and the local authority's partnership with Costain. The local authority is also spending city challenge money to regenerate the town centre. By the same token, the deregulation of markets will jeopardise the local economy.
  At present, any organisation affected by proposals concerning market rights has the opportunity of judicial review and, more recently, of complaining to the ombudsman. Local authorities therefore have a duty to act reasonably, so there is no need for regulation.
  226
  We heard earlier about the proliferation of car boot sales dealing in stolen or counterfeit goods. A car boot sale in Barnsley took place at junction 36 of the motorway every Sunday morning. The police were out at 6 am every Sunday morning because people parked not only on the slip road and hard shoulder but sometimes on the inside lane of the M1. That is the type of hazard caused by unregulated car boot markets throughout the country.
  Who will compensate market traders for their losses? According to the letter to which I referred, the Government decided that they could not proceed in 1991 because of compensation. As sole traders, market traders invest a lot of money in their businesses and will be affected by private, unregulated markets springing up in competition with them.
  Many market traders go from market to market within a particular area. There are not so many market traders that we can service unregulated markets the length and breadth of the country. Market traders pay substantial rents for their market facility. Those markets will be undercut by private, unregulated markets with cheaper rents.
  Markets also provide a direct income to the local authority which compensates for the loss of revenue support grant over the past few years through charge capping. Many local authorities will be looking to the Government for compensation in future revenue support grant because of the loss of income that they will suffer as a result of deregulation.
  Finally, we have seen report after report about the amount of money that goes into the black economy. That money is lost in taxation revenues. Unregulated markets will contain more stolen and counterfeit goods. The markets accept that they do not need deregulation. They need, if anything, further regulation against the cowboys.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: As was almost inevitable with a Bill such as this, we have had a wide-ranging debate. My hon. Friends and Conservative Members have touched on such issues as markets, hearth and safety and consumer protection. At one point, we almost drifted into discussing European monetary union.
  Three of the points that were raised may have shown some common ground between the two sides of the House. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that there were 1,500 more regulations in 1992 than there were in the last year of the Labour Government. The figure decreased slightly in 1993, but remained well above 1,300. As my hon. Friend said, it is not a one-sided business, and those Conservative Members who try to pretend that it is should know that the figures simply do riot add up, as 71 per cent. of current regulations were introduced by the present Government. It would have been helpful had a few Conservative Members recognised that and occasionally said that they were sorry if they believed that they had made mistakes. However, that word does not easily cross the lips of Conservative Members.
  The second point of agreement is that virtually all hon. Members, except those who stuck slavishly to the Conservative Central Office brief, recognised that some regulation is necessary for good business standards, good consumer protection, good health and safety at work and good employee relations. Good regulation is an essential part of business. The difference is where we draw the line.

  227
  It is foolish and naive to suggest that those on one side of the argument believe that there should be no regulation and those on the other side are in favour of all regulation. There is a genuine recognition, except on the part of those too ideologically blind to see it, that some regulation is necessary to maintain good business standards.
  Thirdly, it is readily recognised that regulation can be outdated. The President of the Board of Trade in introducing the Bill, gave us examples of those outdated regulations, as I am sure the Under-Secretary will when he replies to the debate. They are often amusing and there is no doubt that such regulations should and can be removed from the statute book. The difficulty is drawing the line, in terms not of outdated regulation but of regulation that is relevant, up to date and may be designed legitimately to protect certain interests.
  My hon. Friends' speeches spotlighted a number of issues where the line between regulation and deregulation is not easy to draw. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) spoke of consumer protection, fire regulation and fire safety. In all those sectors it is difficult to draw the line, but I argue that the House of Commons should err on the side of safety and of the consumer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) talked about environmental protection and environmental standards. It is interesting that Conservative Members who, less than a year ago, were talking about the Government's success in terms of green policies and about the importance of such policies are now taking every opportunity to argue that environmental protection standards are a burden on business.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) raised a number of important points about health and safety and the public interest. My hon. Friend is well versed in those issues as he represents the constituency in which last week's fire took place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will know, those of us who live in areas that have experienced substantial chemical fires realise how important it is that the House of Commons should have no intention of relaxing health and safety standards. The public interest must be paramount.
  Finally in terms of the divide, I should like to draw attention to the fact that several of my hon. Friends talked about health and safety at work. We heard about what accidents cost individuals—loss of life or serious injury—and what they cost firms and society. All those bills are substantial. I should like to ask the Conservative ideologues why any reduction in standards is even being contemplated. Speech after speech showed that the new Conservative approach is to lower consumer standards, lessen environmental protection, disregard the public interest and reduce health and safety standards at work.
  Let me give an example of the Government's intentions. In other parts of the Bill they say, in effect, "Believe us, trust us. We will do the right thing." Anyone who wants to examine as nasty a provision as the Bill contains should look at clause 26, which deals with redundancy. That provision breaks all traditional agreements and custom and practice in industry, yet there was no great pressure from employers for it, and there was no consultation whatsoever with employees or their organisations.
  228
  There may be an explanation. We are told regularly that good practice in industrial relations means honouring agreements, that it commits people on both sides of industry to keeping their word. I understand why the Government bob and weave, why they do not worry unduly about keeping their word. After all, it is they who said that there would be no tax increases, that there would be no increase in VAT. We have here the Government who have reneged on every promise made to the electorate in 1992. Now they are trying to inject into industrial relations the practices that have so devalued our political system. In that sense, let us keep them clear of industrial relations. We have agreed on some points, but their line on regulation and deregulation is one of contention, not of objectivity.
  The key issue in the debate has been the constitutional implications of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the real issues—issues which should unite the House, not divide it. I wish that more Members had been present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—as I say regularly when I have the opportunity of winding up a debate in which the hon. Gentleman has taken part. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's speech should have come from the Government. His was the kind of speech that every hon. Member should make and to which we should all listen. It was echoed partly by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). Both hon. Gentlemen were concerned about the great new powers that can be assumed under clauses 1 to 4—the further centralisation of ministerial power, the further erosion of the power of the House of Commons.
  I hope that I do not do the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) an injustice in saying that he let the cat out of the bag and provided grounds for people's worries when, referring to the deregulation initiative, he quoted ex-President Reagan saying:
  "You ain't seen nothing yet."
  Later, he said that the Bill is just "a down payment". Is not that what concerns us—the fact that this Trojan horse of a Bill contains miscellaneous measures, deliberately designed not to generate much public opposition while creating a general power that will enable Ministers to get rid of provisions protecting the environment, health and safety and the consumer?
  Ministers are empowering themselves to repeal and amend primary and secondary legislation. In practice, the House is being offered a debate lasting an hour and a half, after 10 pm, and no ability to amend the orders that we debate. Any hon. Member who has been in the House for some years understands the way in which such procedures work: we know how much interest will be taken in those debates. That is self-criticism, in that it is criticism of the House, but it is also an argument against giving Ministers more power without adequate safeguards.
  The Government say, "Do not worry. Believe us: we will provide new safeguards. The new mechanism will not be autocratic or authoritarian." Let us examine those safeguards, and the way in which they will work. There will be a new scrutiny Committee, but at this stage, we know very little about it, because we await the findings of the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). However, I suspect that we already know two things.
  First, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, the scrutiny Committee will have a Government majority: its members will be selected by Government Whips to ensure that. I can confidently say

  229
  that all hon. Members who have expressed doubts about the mechanism will not find a way on to that Committee under the patronage of the Whips. Secondly, Ministers have said in the Bill that they will not be bound by the advice and recommendations of the Committee. Given a Government majority and recommendations without force, what faith can the House put in that Committee?
  The Government will tell us that they will adopt a new approach—that they will consult outside interests. I simply do not believe that, after 15 years, the Government have discovered the meaning of the word "consultation". Go and ask nurses and doctors in the national health service whether they believe in consultation with the Government; go and ask teachers about education changes; go and ask the police and the Lord Chief Justice about criminal justice legislation. Every interest group feels that the Government simply do not care about consultation: the mechanism will not work in that respect.
  The power taken by the Government, however, does not relate merely to this deregulation initiative; it is an indefinite power, enabling the Government—by means of the mechanism in clauses 1 to 4—to repeal tomorrow's mistakes. It is not time limited: mistakes in future legislation, primary and secondary—legislation approved by the House of Commons—can be repealed under those clauses. The definition of what constitutes a burden will be left to a junior Minister.
  I read with interest the Under-Secretary's speech to the Tory party conference.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Good speech.
  Mr. Fatchett: I note that it won approval. Its timing and content struck me as apposite, given the overall theme of the conference. This is the Minister who will take all the various interests into account, in a sensitive manner. He said:
  "In fact, the Prime Minister urged me to behave like an absolute bastard."
  That Minister was the first member of the B team to acknowledge that openly, and that is the first occasion on which the Prime Minister has no need to urge a Minister in that regard—for he is one; he needs no urging. That Minister is responsible for the judgments on deregulation.
  Constitutional issues are raised, not only clauses 1 to 4, but in part II. They will set up the Government's new world and establish the way in which they have operated for a number of years. It is a world of new quangos, new agencies and new private contracts. It would be churlish of us to suggest that there will be no beneficiaries from that process. There will, of course, be beneficiaries because there are jobs to be had on the quangos.
  We know to whom those jobs go—Tory party members and supporters. One of the key criteria for selection is whether a person has paid his or her party membership. We know that sometimes, particularly in the health service, jobs go to those who have just finished their service in the House of Commons or who happen to be married to a member of the Conservative party. Those appointees include, as a director of the King's Lynn and Wisbech trust, Thomas Shephard, the husband of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, as a director of the Addenbrooke's trust, Mary Archer, wife of Tory peer Lord Archer.
  The Bill is part of the Government's sleaze philosophy. They produce jobs for themselves. The wheel turns full circle because, as part of the process, there will be contracts
  230
  to be won in the private sector. Who will the Bill help but directors and consultants, including Conservative Members, whose earnings outside the House will be boosted? About 600 directorships are disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests and many of them have a direct interest in privatisation.
  The Government may argue that the Bill will improve efficiency and standards in public life. Before the President of the Board of Trade advances that argument, he should consider the Child Support Agency and the way in which Group 4 has operated in our prisons. Before the Government talk about new standards in public life, they should consider Westminster city council, the Welsh Development Agency and the national health service trusts up and down the country, and then take note of the comment by the Public Accounts Committee that there has been a substantial decline in the standards of public life.
  Before Conservative Members vote for the Bill, I remind them that the parts of it that deal with contracting out will further reduce the accountability of Ministers. Surely it is a basic principle of our democracy that those who spend public money should be accountable for it.
  There cannot be a Member of Parliament who has not been irritated because he has tabled a parliamentary question or written a letter to a Minister, only to be told that the reply will come from the chief executive of an agency. We want proper democratic constitutional accountability. The Bill will take the process of undermining that accountability a stage further because it will mean that, in some cases, the body that will be held accountable will be not even the agency, but a private sector organisation or contractor.
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an important point when he rightly argued that the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, could be subject to privatisation. Does not that show the nature of the Government's proposals? We want assurances on that matter and I hope that the Minister will provide them.
  The sections on contracting out are part of what Professor Peter Hennessy has called the "alibi society". When challenged about British Aerospace this afternoon, the Prime Minister said that it was not his responsibility. All the clauses in the Bill are designed to underpin the alibis. The Government are saying, "We are just the Government, we do not know what is happening in society and we do not know what is happening with public money."
  One thing has been clear in much of the rhetoric of Conservative Members' speeches. While the Government have no vision of an industrial strategy for Britain, they have a view that Britain can survive and compete with a low-wage, low-security, low-skills economy. That is simply not the case in the 1990s.
  The Bill is a missed opportunity. The Government should have produced an industrial strategy that allows Britain to compete in the 1990s and beyond, a strategy that invests in research and development, in skills and in the industries that will make Britain successful. Instead, we have heard a great deal of 19th century rhetoric coupled with a Bill designed to give more power to the centre. It has authoritarian and draconian implications, which is why it is a bad Bill.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Bill. I hope that, even at this late stage, some Tory Members will

  231
  have that courage to stop this centralising measure and the creeping undermining of the power of the House and join us in trying to protect our democracy.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs(Mr. Neil Hamilton): A moment ago, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that the order-making powers in the Bill could be used to repeal parts of future legislation. That is not so. Evidently, he did not get very far in his reading because clause 1(5)(c) states that the Bill will apply only to Acts passed
  "before or in the same Session"
  as the Bill. That appears at the bottom of page 2, so I hope that he will get a little further into the Bill before the Committee stage begins.
  A wise man once said—I am not going to quote from my speech at Blackpool—[Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for the advertisement. Perhaps I should take a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and sell the video. A wise man once said:
  "Trade and commerce, if they were not made of rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way."
  I have always believed that government had a limited capacity to do good and a virtually infinite capacity to do harm, but the Opposition have a touching faith in government and legislation as a universal cure-all and restorative. Of course, experience teaches us—I hope that I shall now carry Labour Members with me—that government is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
  There is in this country today a widespread demand for deregulation. It is expressed in the columns of newspapers by luminaries such as Mr. Christopher Booker, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). Every Member of Parliament's postbag has been groaning with complaints about excessive regulation. Small and large businesses—[Interruption.] Perhaps constituents do not consider it worth while to write to Labour Members, but mine certainly write to me.
  Small and large businesses, charities and the voluntary sector are prone to complain. They say that regulation is intrusive, time-consuming, irritating and, more to the point, they say that it reduces our competitiveness as a nation, which was the mainspring of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's opening speech.
  Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Christopher Booker, who writes for The Sunday Telegraph and who made some disparaging remarks about this excellent Bill in the most recent edition of that newspaper. I am the secretary of the Back-Bench deregulation committee and I twice invited Mr. Booker to address our committee. I did not receive a reply to either invitation which must mean that Mr. Booker has been drowned under a welter of paperwork.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am not prepared to criticise Christopher Booker in this instance because he has done a good job in drawing to our attention many of the absurdities of regulation. I shall, however, consider cancelling my subscription to The Sunday Telegraph and taking up Viz.
  232
  The Government resolved to do something about the burden of regulation. We put together a programme to attack the regulatory overload at every level. It has not been over-hasty or ill thought out. Indeed, we have devoted a great deal of time not only to the Bill but to all the other deregulatory measures referred to in the explanatory documents that were published at the same time as the Bill.
  I warned my colleagues at the beginning of the exercise that we were in danger of producing a policy that would be popular in the country. Undeterred by this departure from normal practice, we plunged ahead with what I believe is the most comprehensive initiative the country has ever seen. The Bill deals with just one aspect of that, but a very important one—the problem of over-regulation in Acts of Parliament.
  I have been subjected to much criticism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) mentioned a moment ago. On the one hand, I have been criticised by Christopher Booker, who recently described the Bill as
  "a mouse from a mountain of bureaucracy".
  On the other hand, I have been described in different language by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). In some respects he is a natural deregulator—I have always been impressed by his deregulated approach to English syntax—and he is, as we know, a master of understatement. He described our proposals for deregulation as
  "unleashing the killing fields of industry."
  The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union produced a very nice photograph of me in a magazine that it published recently, under the headline:
  "Deregulation Minister Neil Hamilton: Stop this man"—
  with an article that, as usual, was full of unfounded alarmist scaremongering. The union does not even seem to recognise the benefits that its members could derive from a substantial programme of deregulation.
  We do not have to take risks with health and safety, or any other measures involving the protection of the community at large, to make huge deregulatory gains. I am sorry that the hon. Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) failed to recognise that and launched into hyperboles accusing us of despotism and goodness knows what else.
  Mr. Heppell: I spoke about the subjects that I did only because I have written evidence. I have received a letter from Lord Strathclyde about the legislation about foam in furniture and the legislation about children's nightwear, which were investigated by the task force. I have received letters from the Department of Transport about the review of bus drivers' hours. I spoke only about things that were documented by Government Departments.
  Mr. Hamilton: Every regulation in existence is under review and will be measured against the test of cost and benefit. Where the costs are justified by the benefits, nothing will happen to the regulations. For the hon. Gentleman to take the view, however, that we should never reconsider any legislation in sectors where there is significant emotional appeal, smacks of the attitude that the Roman Catholic Church had to Galileo in the 14th or 15th century. We must ensure that all the legislation currently in force in this country is proportionate and that it does not go further than is necessary. That is not to say that we must

  233
  throw the baby out with the bathwater. The trouble with people like the hon. Gentleman is that they want to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.
  I take as an example health and safety—a subject: which tugs at the heart-strings. Opposition Members have placed great emphasis on that during the debate, especially on clause 27, which the hon. Member for Leeds, Central mentioned. What that clause permits us to do is what we can do in respect of legislation that has been passed since 1974 under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The problem with legislation that was on the statute book before 1974 is that even when it is utterly redundant we cannot remove it because of a provision in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 that compels us to keep it on the statute book.
  I can give the hon. Gentleman several examples. I do not think that I have much time in which to do so, but let us take as an example the Agricultural Ladders Regulations, which go into great detail about the joints to be used in ladders, the distance between the rungs and the number of nails that have to be used in their construction. Today, there are British standards covering all those artefacts and a modern set of regulations is in the process of being introduced. There must, therefore, be a case for removing from the statute book useless legislation that does not contribute to people's safety. We are clearing away a clutter of redundancy.
  During the investigation that was performed by the Department of Employment in respect of health and safety measures, we discovered about 30 statutory instruments, the primary legislation governing which was repealed long ago but which were still on the database and presumably still being observed by many businesses long after the statutory provisions had been repealed. We have, therefore, got rid of those—for example, the Florists Overtime Regulations 1938; the Bread, Flour, Confectionery and Sausage Manufacture (Commencement of Employment) Regulations 1939; the Glass Bottles and Jars (Overtime) Regulations 1938. All that garbage has been cleared away from the statute book. In no way does that prejudice the health and safety of people working in those industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is a joke."] I leave the jokes to sit on the Opposition Benches.
  I am concerned to rebut the criticisms of the Bill. While Christopher Booker has accused us of unleashing a farrago of trivia, the accusations of the Opposition would give anybody cause to believe that we were indulging in the legislative equivalent of the slaughter of the first-born. There are two extremes—first Mr. Booker saying that we are not going far enough, and then the Opposition saying that we are going too far. I find myself cast in an unfamiliar role as a middle-of-the-road moderate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) urged us not to be too cautious, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has done sterling service in the cause of deregulation. Although the Bill, and the measures that will be introduced if the order-making power is granted to us, may constitute small and modest changes in themselves, when they are taken together in sum there is a great gain in prospect. Of course, there are complaints that the Bill does not go far enough, but the Bill is only one part of a wider package of deregulation.
  For example, enforcement officers' decisions can cause inconsistency of interpretation in different parts of the country. The ability of environmental health officers to
  234
  classify Tipp-Ex correction fluid and Brillo pads as substances hazardous to health under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 must be examined. The European Community's generation of regulations must also be examined, as must delegated legislation currently in force, to ensure that we do:not impose unnecessary costs on businesses—that does not need the powers in the Bill. Finally, primary legislation must be examined, and that is the purpose of the Bill.
  As hon. Members know, the contents of the Bill come in two forms. First, there are items of deregulation that will not be the subject of the order-making power, but stand on the face of the Bill. There are a couple of dozen such measures, including market charters and other provisions that have been mentioned during the debate. Secondly, there is a list of about 55 items illustrating how the order-making power could be applied. If hon. Members considered the way in which those two sets of proposals are put together they would discover that the order-making power is designed to be used almost entirely in wholly uncontroversial areas, where I hope that we shall have no difficulty in securing a consensus across the Floor of the House.
  I do not believe that the contents of the Bill are trivial. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce do not think that they are trivial either. Even the Consumers Association has said some nice things about the Bill, saying that the so-called King Henry VIII provisions represent
  "a partial improvement on the current procedures for parliamentary scrutiny and secondary legislation. They could help avoid the kind of low-profile law-changing that takes place when statutory instruments are debated in the middle of the night in an empty House of Commons."
  That goes to the very essence of the difficulty that we are here to discuss.
  Even under the much-vaunted procedures for primary legislation, legislation is often passed by the House with inadequate scrutiny. I am as committed as any Member of the House to a proper measure of scrutiny for legislation. I yield to no one, not even to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in my attachment to parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, but I have only seven minutes. There will be plenty of time for me to debate with the hon. Gentleman in Committee.
  Judging by the criticisms levelled against us in the debate, anyone might think that the present procedures of the House were exhaustive. They are often exhausting, but the scrutiny that we apply to legislation is still not exhaustive. I have often sat in the Chamber or in Committee when pages and pages of Government or other amendments have been introduced in the last stages of the discussion of a Bill, and the Whips are scurrying about across the Floor trying to get people to stop talking and sit down, so that we can all get home early. Vast tranches of legislation go through without any discussion. The difference between the failings of the legislative procedures that we have had hitherto and what we are proposing in the Bill is this. Whereas those failings are in respect of burdens that are imposed on the country, if there

  235
  are procedural failures in respect of our proposals at least they are in areas where we are reducing the burdens that are imposed on the people.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) complained that these powers were introduced for the convenience of Ministers. They are being introduced for the convenience of the country and for the convenience of the businesses that generate the wealth and the jobs that Opposition Members profess to support. A large number of proposals in the Bill will protect parliamentarians against the charge that despotism is being imposed on businesses.
  I believe that our proposals will receive significant scrutiny. That scrutiny will be much greater in practice than that received by the measures that we propose to repeal. We have, of course, been subjected to the usual criticisms from Opposition Members—that this is all a put-up job to line the pockets of our friends in the City, and so on—but nothing could be further from the truth. The idea that reducing costs on businesses is only of benefit to businesses is extraordinary, because those costs feed through into the wider community in the form of higher prices in the shops and, in particular, unemployment.
  Opposition Members are not concerned about unemployment or they would saddle this country with the greatest single package of regulatory measures and business burdens that this country has ever seen by signing up to the social chapter and the whole package of socialist garbage that they have in their knapsacks and which they are afraid to bring out at the moment. No doubt they will be revealed towards the next general election.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was right when in the debate on the Queen's Speech he said
  "I welcome the legislation in that context, and I shall not be offended if its basis is the use of statutory instruments. Indeed, I find it difficult to conceive how it could be done otherwise".—[Official Report, 24 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 484.]
  I agree.
  Deregulation is not entirely a new issue, because another Conservative Government, in 1896—nearly 100 years ago—produced a very important deregulation measure. In the Locomotives on Highways Act 1896, which hon. Members will no doubt remember, the provisions of the Locomotives Act 1865 were repealed. In particular, it said that any locomotive in motion must be preceded by not less than 60 yards by a man carrying a red flag, constantly displayed. When we repealed the "red flag" Act, we enabled the British motor industry to be set up—[Interruption.] Times have certainly changed since the Labour party was in Government, when the British motor industry was flat on its back. Today it is up and running and we will again be the biggest exporter of cars in Europe.
  Opposition Members would have been opposed to getting rid of the Locomotives on Highways Act, because no doubt they would have accused us of unleashing the killing fields on the roads of this country. The environmental extremists would have opposed any change on environmental grounds, no doubt supported by the latter-day political gerbils in the Liberal party. Without that change, a modern economy could never have developed. Labour's policies would put a man with a red flag in front
  236
  of British industry once again. Of course, Labour is not so keen on the red flag these days. By its opposition to the Bill, it proves that it is still the party of red tape.
  The Bill will slice through red tape. It will free the businesses of this country, which generate the wealth and the jobs, from the bonds of useless and excessive regulation. That will be an extremely popular policy. Just as the Opposition, as Johnny-Come-Latelies, have had to adopt our policies in so many areas of national life, whether on taxation, ownership in industry or whatever, they will come to see the wisdom of adopting a policy of deregulation. The country knows that that is what it wants. We know what it wants. That is why we shall use this policy to get elected once again in however many years' time it is.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 320.

  Division No. 110]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Alton, David

  Cox, Tom

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Denham, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dewar, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dobson, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Betts, Clive

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blair, Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Enright, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Byers, Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gapes, Mike

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, John

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gould, Bryan

  Coffey, Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  237

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gunnell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hain, Peter

  Moriey, Elliot

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Harvey, Nick

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Doug

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Home Robertson, John

  Olner, William

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Parry, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Illsley, Eric

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prescott, John

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jowell, Tessa

  Redmond, Martin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Reid, Dr John

  Keen, Alan

  Rendel, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rogers, Allan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooney, Terry

  Leighton, Ron

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Salmond, Alex

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macdonald, Calum

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

  McFall, John

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

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Soley, Clive

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spellar, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McWilliam, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Madden, Max

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Stevenson, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Stott, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Maxton, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wallace, James

  Milburn, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wareing, Robert N

  238

  Watson, Mike

  Wray, Jimmy

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilson, Brian

  Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Nigel Jones.

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Audrey

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alexander, Richard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Devlin, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Ancram, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashby, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkins, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Faber, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Booth, Hartley

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Gallie, Phil

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garnier, Edward

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Giilan, Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butcher, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butler, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Cash, William

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Churchill, Mr

  Hague, William

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cos, Sebastian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Colvin, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Congdon, David

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Couchman, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

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

  Hendry, Charles

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  239

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Horam, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rathbone, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Richards, Rod

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Knox, Sir David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maginnis, Ken

  Stern, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Sumberg, David

  Marland, Paul

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marlow, Tony

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thomason, Roy

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Trimble, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  240

  Walden, George

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wilkinson, John

  Waller, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Ward, John

  Wilshire, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waterson, Nigel

  Wood, Timothy

  Watts, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided:Ayes 319, Noes 282.

  Division No.111]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Congdon, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

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

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Dicks, Terry

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bates, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Bob

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Eggar, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Elletson, Harold

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evennett, David

  Bowis, John

  Faber, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brazier, Julian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bright, Graham

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forman, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Forth, Eric

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Butcher, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butler, Peter

  French, Douglas

  Butterfill, John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gallie, Phil

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carttiss, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Cash, William

  Garnier, Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Churchill, Mr

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clappison, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  241

  Gorst, John

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague, William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mills, Iain

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Harris, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Horam, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rathbone, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Richards, Rod

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Knox, Sir David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maginnis, Ken

  Stern, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  242

  Sumberg, David

  Walden, George

  Sweeney, Walter

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sykes, John

  Waller, Gary

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Ward, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Watts, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Thomason, Roy

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thumham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Willetts, David

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

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tredinnick, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trimble, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Viggers, Peter

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Alton, David

  Cox, Tom

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Barnes, Harry

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Barron, Kevin

  Darling, Alistair

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

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

  Bell, Stuart

  Denham, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dixon, Don

  Benton, Joe

  Dobson, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dowd, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Blair, Tony

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blunkett, David

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Boateng, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Enright, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Etherington, Bill

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

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

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Caborn, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galloway, George

  Cann, Jamie

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Garrett, John

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Coffey, Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Connarty, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  243

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Grocott, Bruce

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Gunnell, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Hain, Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Hail, Mike

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Hanson, David

  McAllion, John

  Hardy, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  McCartney, Ian

  Harvey, Nick

  Macdonald, Calum

  Henderson, Doug

  McFall, John

  Heppell, John

  McKelvey, William

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  McLeish, Henry

  Hoey, Kate

  Maclennan, Robert

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hood, Jimmy

  McWilliam, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Madden, Max

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Mahon, Alice

  Hoyle, Doug

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Hutton, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Illsley, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Meacher, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Meale, Alan

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Michael, Alun

  Jamieson, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys M ôn)

  Milburn, Alan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jowell, Tessa

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Morley, Elliot

  Keen, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Mudie, George

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mullin, Chris

  Leighton, Ron

  Murphy, Paul

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Lewis, Terry

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Litherland, Robert

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  244

  O'Hara, Edward

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

  Olner, William

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Snape, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Patchett, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pendry, Tom

  Spellar, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pope, Greg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prescott, John

  Straw, Jack

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Radice, Giles

  Tipping, Paddy

  Randall, Stuart

  Turner, Dennis

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Redmond, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Reid, Dr John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rendel, David

  Wallace, James

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walley, Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rogers, Allan

  Watson, Mike

  Rooker, Jeff

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wilson, Brian

  Salmond, Alex

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Short, Clare

  Simpson, Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Deregulation and Contracting out Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown, an office-holder, the Forestry Commissioners or the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce for making payments under contracts entered into under or by virtue of the Act;

  (b) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or office-holder in consequence of the provisions of the Act; and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund under any other Act.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Cryer: The resolution is extremely unusual because it not only authorises
  "the payment out of money provided by Parliament of…any sums required by a Minister of the Crown",
  but requires exactly the same authority to be given to "an office-holder". That provision relates to clause 57, which provides that a Minister's powers can be transferred to a person designated by the Minister as an office-holder. It has to be done through an affirmative order, but it is an extraordinary power as people who are not elected to this place or appointed by the Prime Minister can, in essence, carry out all the duties of a Minister of the Crown. There are three relatively minor exceptions to that rule. For example, such people cannot produce delegated legislation.
  The House should not approve the motion, which gives a person designated as an office-holder the power to demand money given to him by the measure. We are talking not about authorising a Minister to obtain money from Parliament but about giving money to someone outside Parliament and Government who is appointed by the Minister. [Interruption.] People who are outside Parliament can be authorised to spend money—a serious erosion of Parliament's authority to spend money. From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked whether people like him and me would be those designated persons—termed "office-holder" in the motion. The answer to that question is no, because the Minister would not appoint us. He would appoint people whom he considered to be suitable to carry out the deregulation of the legislation.
  Experience shows that giving such powers to office-holders outside Parliament has proved less than satisfactory. There have been occasions when giving Ministers the authority to spend money has been less than satisfactory. To take the process one stage further to give authority to the person termed an "office-holder", as the motion provides, seems to be much less satisfactory. That is why we should vote against the motion.
  In its eighth report, on the proper conduct of public business, the Public Accounts Committee has guided the attention of the House to the very measures that the Minister asks us to approve in the motion. The office-holders would be akin to the services of PSA
  246
  Services that were required to operate on a fully commercial basis from 1 April 1990. On page 9, paragraph 3 explains what happened. It states that the
  "PSA Services' financial system broke down to the extent that they had to charge £65·6 million to their own Vote instead of being able to recover it from their customers."
  The motion asks us to give authority to one of the office-holders, if he makes a mess of things, to demand money to spend on whatever service—deregulation or anything within the terms of the legislation, which is widely drafted. We would be giving carte blanche to the office-holder, whose expenditure would be authorised by the motion.
  The PSA service is perhaps not the best example. Paragraph 12 on page 11 of the Public Accounts Committee report refers to the Welsh Development Agency, which parallels the office-holder mentioned in the motion. The agency was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, which at paragraph 14 stated:
  "We remind the Welsh Office of their obligations for effective oversight of non-departmental public bodies."
  That is severe criticism of a Government body and Minister of the Crown. I shall not go into the details of why they were criticised, but it was for careless and irresponsible control of taxpayers' money in the Welsh Development Agency, which was not controlled by the Welsh Office.
  A Minister now asks us to support a money resolution, despite the fact that the improper control of lavish expenditure has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, which had to remind the Department of its obligations to contol money. In that context, we should hardly support a money resolution that authorises
  "the payment out of money provided by Parliament of…any sums required by a Minister of the Crown, an office-holder"
  and two other bodies.
  Incredibly, the resolution also authorises the expenditure of any sums required by
  "the registrar of approved driving instructors".
  For a Minister who is trying to simplify matters to ask the House to approve a money resolution that gives carte blanche to the registrar of approved driving instructors as well as those peculiar "office-holders" who, under the terms of the resolution, include
  "the holder of an office the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament"
  is a dangerous precedent to set.
  I opened my speech by saying that this was an unusual money resolution. From time to time, I comment on money resolutions, the majority of which do not extend to this degree. Parliament's powers, which are supposed to be safeguarded carefully, are twofold: first, the right to control revenue from taxation; and, secondly, the right to control expenditure. Those rights will be taken out of Parliament's hands.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am worried. My hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the interesting clause 57 and how it would apply in this case. Will the traditional role of the accounting officer change if the money resolution operates as my hon. Friend suggests? Will the accounting officer, who would normally be the permanent secretary, have to give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee?
  Mr. Cryer: The clause would not allow an accounting officer to hold his usual powers. As my hon. Friend said, the accounting officer is normally a permanent secretary. Under the Exchequer and Audit Control Departments Act

  247
  1886, the accounting officer has the duty, obligation and power to draw the Comptroller and Auditor General's attention to expenditure with which he disagrees.
  An "office-holder" could be a contractor—let us say, Seedy Services Ltd., set up by half a dozen Conservative Members—
  Mr. Fatchett: Ex-Conservatives.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. Four or five Conservative Back-Benchers with an inside knowledge may set up Seedy Services Ltd. and put forward their case to the Minister in order to undertake the services listed in the Bill. The accounting officer has a duty to report to the Comptroller and Auditor General and allow the Public Accounts Committee to examine expenditure which the Comptroller and Auditor General recommends to the Property Services Agency.
  Money resolutions such as this are the defining characteristic that allows an accounting officer to go to the Secretary of State and say that he does not agree with the expenditure. That is a powerful check within a Department.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether Ministers have it in mind that office-holders would give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee.
  Mr. Cryer: There is no doubt that office-holders would fall under the general powers of the Select Committee to require persons to give evidence before it and papers to be presented. If the PAC required an office-holder to attend, presumably that office-holder would be required to do so under the general powers of the Select Committee system.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I served on the Public Accounts Committee for 12 years and I do not recall one occasion when we took evidence from anyone other than a civil servant. If a change is to be introduced, Ministers should make it clear at the Dispatch Box today.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend will recall that the Child Support Agency, which is a good illustration of the powers contained in the money resolution, referred to an office-holder—a person appointed to carry out the duties of a Minister. Ministers who introduce an ineffective Act which produces great bitterness and anger among ordinary decent people who are meeting their responsibilities should be accountable.
  The equivalent of an office-holder in the Bill and money resolution has been appointed—Ros Hepplewhite. If we write to a Minister or table questions in the House about office-holders and accountability in respect of the money resolution, will we get a reply from a Minister?
  When we write to the Child Support Agency we are told by a Minister that the chief executive has been asked to reply. We then get a letter from an assistant to the office-holder because she is out of the office. I do not know whether that is the characteristic experience of my hon. Friends, but I do not get letters from Ros Hepplewhite. She is paid £50,000 and attends the office for 36 hours a week. That seems to be a generous payment.
  If that is the position that the office-holder will occupy, my hon. Friend has lighted on another reason why we should vote against the money resolution because it stands for the diminution of day-to-day parliamentary accountability.
  248
  Parliamentary questions by Back Benchers are universally accepted as an important method of accountability. There has been a long argument lasting two of three years about placing the letters from the executives of the variouis agencies—the equivalent of office-holders under the money resolution—on the record. At first, they were put in the Library; now, some are incorporated in Hansard. It was a long struggle and we do not want more diminutions.
  It is unsatisfactory to receive letters from office-holders or directors of executive agencies instead of directly from Ministers. Ministers are elected and reply at the Dispatch Box to debates on Second Reading. Secretaries of State start the legislation. Ministers should answer any charges through questions and cross-examination in the House.
  There is little point in electing people to the House of Commons unless we maintain the scrutiny and examination that we were elected to carry out. The money resolution provides an evasion of that responsibility. It is alarming that authority is being given to bodies, persons and individuals outside the House to spend money raised by taxpayers.
  I recall suggestions during the 1970s and early 1980s that we should nationalise on a large scale through delegated powers and enabling legislation. The press were up in arms; they said that we would be turning the country into a Marxist state overnight. That was simply untrue, but there is no balancing criticism from the newspapers today at the erosion of parliamentary democracy that the Opposition consider important. We want to enable the scrutiny to continue.
  I should like to refer to another case on which the Public Accounts Committee commented. It is the case of Wessex regional health authority—an outside body provided by a Minister with money voted by Parliament. We are told:
  "The authority acknowleded that a fundamental conflict between their interests and those of Wessex Regional Integrated Systems Ltd arose when the authority appointed a director of the company with whom the regional health authority had a contract to supply computer services to act as regional information systems manager. The authority also allowed a secondee from IBM to advise them on the purchase, without competition, of an IBM computer for £3·3 million at a time when it could have been purchased for £500,000 to £1 million less."
  If this money resolution is approved, will that sort of scandal occur again and again and again? How will the Minister hold such people to account?
  It is quite true that the office-holders will be appointed, under clause 57, by order. That clause says:
  (1) this section applies to any function of a Minister or office-holder—

  (a) which is conferred by or under any enactment; and

  (b) which, by virtue of any enactment or rule of law, may be exercised by an officer of his".

  Under the existing system, where a Minister of the Crown delegates power to a senior civil servant the Minister continues to be responsible. We all know the tried and tested formula whereby, if we claim that civil servants are becoming too powerful, the Minister says, "Civil servants should not be attacked as they cannot answer back. I am the Minister responsible." The Minister allocates duties to civil servants but is himself accountable to the House of Commons.
  When a duty goes outside, to an office holder, direct responsibility is diminished. The Minister is shaking his head. I hope that he will say that the office-holder will be just like a civil servant, in which case all the questions tabled by Members will be answered by the Minister, and

  249
  the method of expenditure will be the same as previously. Why, therefore, should the money resolution contain a reference to
  "any sums required by a Minister of the Crown, an office-holder"?
  Thus a person in addition to the Minister will have authority to receive payment out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  This is a matter of considerable concern. The Public Accounts Committee has produced a quite damning report entitled "The Proper Conduct of Public Business". My hon. Friends will have read that report, and I shall not go through all the cases with which it deals. I have already mentioned one or two of them. The Committee mentions cases in which there has been a less than adequate standard in the expenditure of taxpayers' money. In the case of IBM, it is clear that there was a degree of favouritism, if not downright corruption, when a person from IBM recommended a computer that would cost the taxpayer more than £500,000, and possibly as much as £1 million, extra.
  We want some autonomy, subject to tight ministerial control. But a move right out to private contractors acting as Ministers means that the only accountability that we have disappears. As has been said, we have a system whereby the accounting officer can report to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is a very powerful weapon in the hands of the accounting officer, who is normally the permanent secretary. It is a threat intended to guide expenditure—a threat that the Labour Government had to withstand several times between 1974 and 1979. When the Department of Industry financed Concorde, there was no minute from the accounting officer about the expenditure—research and development costs were £1 billion. The only three minutes ever recorded concerned the workers' co-operatives in Liverpool—at KME—at Meriden and in Scotland, at the Daily News.
  We are talking about a powerful check on expenditure. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I believe that that check should be retained, so that it can be carried through in the Public Accounts Committee. That is a reaction, however. The money has already gone. In the case of Wessex health authority, the computer has been installed, and is probably barely working; it will probably be discarded and sold to a technical college for about £10. The money has gone, and a report has been produced saying that it should not happen again.
  The motion produces a basis for repeating the errors of the past. We do not want the PAC to examine things and report to the House that they are wrong. We want a secure system to be installed beforehand. The Government claim to care a great deal about taxpayers' money, although they do not seem to mind handing over large chunks of it to their friends through private companies. This may well be such an occasion—which is why it is so important for checks to be made on motions such as this. The Minister did not give a very good response in his winding-up speech; I hope that he will give a comprehensive account now.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Under the training programmes of the old Department of Employment, the Comptroller and Auditor General could, in effect, follow public money all the way to the trainee. All along the line—particularly when the skill centres existed—there was an
  250
  element of accountability for public moneys, right down to the last instructor, who was basically paid by the state for the skills agency.
  Today, that arrangement does not exist. Accountability for public moneys extends only as far as the last civil servant in situ. The moment that the money is transmitted from the training and enterprise council to the training contractor, the National Audit Office can go no further. Interestingly, the NAO visits TECs but seems to go no further than that point. Is that not an example of what happens when functions previously performed by civil servants are privatised? Is not an element of accountability lost?
  Mr. Cryer: I shall be interested to learn from the Minister how the NAO will examine office-holders. He mentioned the Department of Employment; the PAC refers to that Department, and to monitoring expenditure on the technical and vocational education initiative. The Department accepted that there was not adequate scrutiny. If there is not adequate scrutiny within government, what will it be like outside government, at one stage removed? It will be even worse.
  We know the proclivity of certain private enterprise organisations and their members to line their pockets. It appears that, without adequate control, the bent and corrupt will have a field day. I hope that that will not happen, but it is a possibility.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cryer: I must demur. Debates on money motions are becoming increasingly popular.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Illsley: I want to raise the question of compensation for market authorities. I mentioned it earlier, but I would like to hear a more detailed explanation from the Minister. Will compensation be available to authorities that will lose their market franchise rights as a result of the Bill, and have the Government made allowance for that compensation?
  Let me quote from a letter written by the Department of the Environment to the National Association of British Market Authorities in March 1991. The letter deals specifically with compensation and states:
  "It was also made clear to the Commission that we had received very few complaints about market rights and that in 1987–88 the Government had reviewed the system."
  In a written reply to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 31 March 1993, a Minister said that the Department of the Environment had received 15 complaints about local authority markets in the two years since January 1991. I am sure hon. Members will agree that that is a very small number. It therefore seems that we are to spend a great deal of money on deregulating local authority market rights although there have been very few complaints about the markets. It appears that much of that money could be spent on compensation claims made against the Department. The Minister shakes his head, but I shall read on.
  The letter from the Department of the Environment stated that it had been concluded that
  "legislation would be needed to abolish all market rights and that franchise rights, which are treated as property in English law, could not be compulsorily appropriated without compensation."

  251
  Under English law, market rights are treated as property. That was the Government's advice to the association when it was decided in 1991 not to go ahead with deregulation. At that time, the Government concluded that compensation would be payable in respect of the rights that were being appropriated. What has changed since then and, in view of the likely cliams, why is there no reference to compensation in the Bill or the motion?
  The Department's letter to the National Association of British Market Authorities continued:
  "Expropriation without compensation would also seem to infringe the European Convention on Human rights which requires compensation for expropriation of a person's `possessions'. In view of the requirements to pay compensation, the scarcity of complaints, the minimal part that markets play in United Kingdom trading activity and the possible damage to centuries of tradition and heritage that abolition would cause, the Government decided not to pursue the question of abolition any further."
  That was the position in 1991 and, as far as I am aware, nothing much has changed since then. The question of compensation is still open.
  NABMA has already told the Minister that it is likely strenuously to oppose any deregulation of market franchise rights which does not include the payment of compensation. In its submission to the Government, it stated:
  "While the Government may decide to legislate to deny local authorities compensation the Association wish to make it clear at this stage that such a proposal would be strenuously opposed."
  I take that to mean that there will be a legal challenge to the Government on the basis of the position outlined by the Department of the Environment in 1991, which was that compensation should be payable.
  The Government have argued that there is no case for compensating local authorities because there is an idea that, as public bodies, local authorities should not receive compensation for any deregulation of their rights. However, NABMA has challenged that notion and I agree with that challenge. The Government have changed their mind since 1991. The property rights of local authorities are the same as those of private individuals. I believe that compensation claims will be laid at the Government's door. Indeed, the association mentions taking the matter to the European courts. In its submission to the Government, it stated that the Government had ignored the principles set out in the Department of the Environment's letter of 1991. It continued:
  "It appears to the Association that if such a proposal is pursued then there is an opportunity for making an application to the European Courts."
  In other words, the Government will be challenged in the courts in this country and in Europe. If those compensation claims are successful, it could lay a substantial bill at the Government's door.
  It is useful to consider the most recent Bills about market rights—the Bexley London Borough Council Bill in 1986 and the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill in 1991. I recall them well; I spoke in one of the debates. A private Bill came before the House to establish a market in the Redbridge area. At the time, both private Bills—one relating to Bexley, the other to Redbridge—made allowance for compensation before they left the House. The authorities that were affected by those Bills received compensation.
  252
  The House of Commons has, therefore, acknowledged recently that compensation shall be payable to a local authority in respect of the loss of market rights. That is a very recent precedent and I think that the Government will be required to follow it.
  As I said earlier, many local authorities are members of the National Association of British Market Authorities. I said earlier that I wrote to all 133 of them. Of all the replies that I received, not one agreed with the Government's proposals. Every one of the local authorities disagreed, partly because those local authorities were denied any form of consultation by the deregulation task forces.
  One of the authorities informed me that the direct income that it received each year from its market was £750,000. If one multiplies that by the number of market authorities in the country and by the number of years' trading that authorities will lose, the compensation bills start to add up.
  The motion ought to take account of that compensation, which the Government are likely to have to pay.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has mentioned the serious compensation problems that arise from the Bill and some of the shortcomings in the motion. He has spoken eloquently about the difficulties that it will cause market traders and the apparent lack of compensation from Government. My hon. Friend could have gone a stage further because, as a result of the Bill, there will be a number of potential losers who could rightly demand a compensation package from Ministers, yet there is nothing to that effect in the motion.
  First, market traders are potential losers—for example, the traders at the Darlington market. I met local market traders earlier this week and was informed that there were about 140 full-time employees and 200 part-time employees. Darlington's indoor market, which has been well-established for many years, is professionally managed and provides high standards of consumer care. Similarly, there are 200 stalls in the outdoor market. Each of those small businesses is potentially implicated by this deregulation measure. I ask the Minister, on behalf of those traders, what compensation will be available to each of those small businesses in the event of the door being opened to cowboy operators, operating on the outskirts of town, artificially undercutting the legitimate business work of the established market traders in the Darlington market?
  The Bill, and the motion, will not only affect the traders. As in other market towns, Darlington's market acts as a magnet for shoppers into the town centre in general, and I know that there are some worries among town centre traders about the potential loss of income that will arise from the measure. Yet I see nothing in the way of a compensation package for large or small companies operating in Darlington town centre.
  The third set of potential losers are the people about whom I am sure that all hon. Members are concerned—the ordinary consumers. They now have certain guarantees, because the traders who operate in Darlington market are legitimate. People know that those traders are not fly-by-night merchants, here today and gone tomorrow. They are there permanently, because they have an investment in the town centre market. The same cannot be

  253
  said for car boot sale operators, or some of the unscrupulous private market operators. They really are here today and gone tomorrow, and when they disappear consumer rights disappear with them.
  When things go wrong, consumers will start to bang on the Minister's door seeking compensation. At the moment, in the unlikely event of anything going wrong they can call on any of the stall holders in Darlington market and seek compensation face to face. That will no longer be true if the measure is passed and the more unscrupulous cowboy operators start doing business in towns such as Darlington.
  The fourth set of potential losers should concern the Minister even more. He will know that many of the unscrupulous cowboy operators do not bother to declare their earnings to the Inland Revenue or to register for VAT. With the public sector debt so high and taxes rising, I should have thought that the Minister would be concerned to ensure that the maximum sums flow into the Treasury's coffers. Yet the Bill gives the potential for precisely the reverse to happen. That should be a source of concern to the hon. Gentleman.
  The fifth set of losers are the general public. The Minister knows that when the markets are opened to unscrupulous traders—especially some of the car boot sale operators whom we all know about, because our constituents have lobbied us and the police have warned us about them—a market in stolen goods will be opened up. Will there be an increase in crime, in house and car burglaries, as a result of the Bill and will there be consequential additional demands for financial compensation from the Government?
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that many prosecutions have taken place in the areas where the car boot markets operate? In Liverpool there has been an unending series of prosecutions, which confirms my hon. Friend's argument about the downward trend in the regulation of that aspect of markets.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right, and it should worry us that there is no mention of that in the money resolution. Nor is there any mention of the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central—the idea of a compensation package for local authorities. In Darlington, for example, the markets generate revenue surpluses of about £300,000 per annum. All that could disappear overnight when the undercutting and the sale of cheap goods that the Bill promises starts. The money resolution is inadequate because the Bill itself is inadequate.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) talked about the ways in which the House could make various office-holders and Ministers accountable, the potential waste of public money, and the need for scrutiny by the House. He mentioned various mechanisms, but another mechanism available to an aggrieved member of the public is to go to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  Hon. Members who were present for the earlier debate will have heard the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ask whether the Minister would exclude the Parliamentary Commissioner from the definition of
  254
  "office-holder" under clause 57(2) and 57(3). In other words, the Parliamentary Commissioner thinks that the current definition would allow the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner to be privatised and given to independent contractors. The House will have noticed that in his wind-up speech the Minister failed to deal with the point. It may be that he was short of time or that he failed to remember that point. In the eight minutes still available—[HON. MEMBERS: "Six minutes."]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We have roughly three and half minutes.
  Mr. Fatchett: In the three and a half minutes available, will the Minister answer the specific point about the Parliamentary Commissioner?
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I will answer the point put by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) first. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave a clear statement of our intentions in respect of statutory office-holders and I do not intend to repeat what he said except to make clear—I think that he referred only to the Comptroller and Auditor General—that we shall ensure that office-holders, including the ombudsman, cannot be compelled to contract out by the making of an order as it will be for them and them alone to give authority to any contractor appointed to carry out their functions, and that they could refuse to do.
  I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that there has never been any intention or desire on our part to compromise the independence of these constitutionally important office-holders. Our legal advice was that the position was perfectly secure in any event. If any of the office-holders did not wish to avail himself of the opportunity provided by the enabling power in the Bill to contract out certain of his functions, those functions would not be contracted out. I hope that those assurances will be helpful and that discussions may conclude the matter to the satisfaction of all concerned if the hon. Gentleman is still not satisfied.
  On the points raised by the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), compensation does not arise in the case of markets where the privilege is owned by the local authorities because the European convention on human rights does not apply to public rights. Compensation is not intended because there is no justification for buying out undesirable monopoly rights owned by local authorities. I do not accept for one moment all the prophecies of doom and gloom that the hon. Members gave us this evening. They talked about cowboy operators. When I was a boy and used to go to Saturday morning cinema, the cowboys were the good guys. I suppose that it is not politically correct to refer to Indians in that respect today. I can assure the hon. Members that their fears are entirely illusory. I cannot believe for a minute that local authorities will have justifiable claims for compensation, even if such compensation were available. I have no doubt that we shall debate those matters at inordinate length in Committee. That is an encounter to which I greatly look forward. I hope that the hon. Member for Darlington will be there with me in the long watches of the night.

  255
  I am not one of those who thinks that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is a prolix, pedantic old bore—
  It being three quarters of an hour after the commence-ment of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14(Exempted business).
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 115.

  Division No. 112]

  [11.13 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baldry, Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Eggar, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bates, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Bowis, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bright, Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gallie, Phil

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burns, Simon

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butcher, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Butler, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Cash, William

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hague, William

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Congdon, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Conway, Derek

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Harris, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Couchman, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  256

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hendry, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stephen, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maginnis, Ken

  Sumberg, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sweeney, Walter

  Malone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mariand, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mariow, Tony

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Merchant, Piers

  Thumham, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trimble, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Moss, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Needham, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Ward, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  257

  Waterson, Nigel

  Wilshire, David

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. David Lightbown.

  Willetts, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Enright, Derek

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Etherington, Bill

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Barnes, Harry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foulkes, George

  Byers, Stephen

  Fraser, John

  Caborn, Richard

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cann, Jamie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gunnell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Ingram, Adam

  Denham, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  258

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rendel, David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McAllion, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McLeish, Henry

  Salmond, Alex

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Clare

  McMaster, Gordon

  Simpson, Alan

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Alice

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Stott, Roger

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wallace, James

  Milburn, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Watson, Mike

  Morley, Elliot

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mudie, George

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wray, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown, an office-holder, the Forestry Commissioners or the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce for making payments under contracts entered into under or by virtue of the Act;

  (b) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or office holder in consequence of the provisions of the Act; and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund under any other Act.

  Timeshare (Council Tax)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Would that you and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, could be spirited away to some distant enchanted timeshare accommodation. If I pursued that line, I fear that you would rapidly rule me out of order.
  I turn to the subject of the debate, which relates to timeshare and the council tax. The heart of the matter and the real issue at stake is a simple question—is timeshare ownership a continuing commercial activity and therefore rightly subject to business rates, or is it a non-commercial, non-business activity and therefore rightly subject to non-business taxation? Historically, the first non-business taxation was domestic rating, followed by the community charge and now by the council tax.
  The true nature of timeshare ownership is the heart of the matter, and that is for the Government to answer. The answer to that question alone should determine whether timeshare owners should pay business or non-business taxation. If timeshare ownership is a commercial activity, it should be subject to commercial taxation. If timeshare ownership is not a commercial activity, it should be subject to "domestic" taxation—currently the council tax.
  The immediate background to the debate is known to my hon. Friend. Before the introduction of the community charge in Scotland in 1989, and in England and Wales in 1990—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could clarify a matter. I distinctly heard motion No. 3 being moved by the Government and folding on the Opposition's objection. Could you confirm whether that is the position?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Whip on duty for the Government said "Not moved" to each of the motions.
  Mr. Hunter: I wrongly anticipated an intervention from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I now make the point that I do have an interest in the timeshare industry, which is unrelated to the subject of the debate. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to draw the House's attention to an oversight on my part. I do declare that interest and, of course, in applying for the debate to Madam Speaker, I also mentioned that I am involved in the timeshare industry. Having wrongly anticipated the point of order, I shall proceed.
  I was making the point that the introduction of the community charge in Scotland in 1989 provided the first evidence that the Government had changed their mind, and henceforth intended to treat timeshare ownership as a commerical activity subject to business rates. Scottish timeshare interests took action and challenged the Government. The issue at stake was simple: had the Government properly given themselves all full, appropriate and necessary powers to make the change, or had they made a drafting cock-up? The latter was the case.
  In August 1991, the Scottish Lands Valuation Appeal Court found against the Government and ruled that, under existing legislation, timeshare ownership in Scotland should carry a community charge, not a business rates liability. That decision was retrospectively effected to the
  260
  date of the introduction of the community charge, and remained in force until the abolition of the community charge in April last year.
  During the community charge era in England and Wales—April 1990 to March 1993–the Government set about treating timeshare ownership in England and Wales in exactly the same way as they had demonstrated that they wished timeshare ownership in Scotland to be treated. The Government thus performed a U-turn in their treatment of timeshare ownership in England and Wales, as they had sought to do in Scotland. They deemed timeshare ownership a commercial activity and accordingly subject to business rates.
  Following the success of timeshare interests in the Scottish Lands Valuation Court in August 1990, timeshare interests in England and Wales prepared to seek a similar ruling to restore the previous taxation regime in England and Wales. Very favourable counsel's opinion was obtained, but, as I understand the situation, no final decision has yet been made whether to proceed against the Government.
  In April 1993, under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, timeshare ownership was well and truly encompassed within the business rates regime. The legality of that transition and the post-April 1993 ruling is not disputed. What is disputed, however, is the principle and correctness of the assessment and treatment of timeshare.
  Through their taxation policy, the Government demonstrate their belief that timeshare ownership is different from other forms of home ownership. Timeshare ownership alone among second home ownership is categorised per se as a commercial activity for taxation purposes. No other form of second home ownership is automatically so categorised.
  That view stems from a fundamental misunderstanding by the Government of the true nature of timeshare ownership. I believe that the wrong advice that my hon. Friend the Minister continues to be given about timeshare ownership has its origins in two paragraphs of a flawed departmental practice note entitled "The boundary between the community charge and non-domestic rates: definition of domestic property: practice note No. 4, May 1990."
  The most relevant paragraph—paragraph 5·2–reads:
  "The Valuation Office takes the view, however, that the timeshare company will be subject to business rates, provided that the accommodation is available for letting commercially for 140 days or more in a year (as is likely to be the case in most if not all instances)."
  The disturbing reality is that the author of that paragraph, the purveyor of advice to Ministers, simply did not understand the subject matter with which he was dealing. He did not know what he was writing about. The direction of taxation that he advocated was wrong. He was thinking in terms of taxable income when no income existed.
  I will explain to my hon. Friend the Minister as slowly and carefully as I can, lest he hears only what his officials tell him. In timeshare operations, neither the leasehold nor the freehold titles to timeshare dwellings are kept by the timeshare company. They are made across by the developer to a trustee, who then holds the title for the benefit of the timesharer. It is hard to conceive how a more fundamental mistake could have been made by my hon. Friend's Department.

  261
  The commercial element and dimension of timeshare comes to an end when the timeshare is purchased. The timeshare owner—he or she whom the Government view for taxation purposes as a commercial activist—is not remotely or by any conceivable criterion of judgment involved in on-going commercial activity. There is therefore no justification for treating him or her in that way. The Government have got it wrong—they should listen to what their friends are telling them.
  In May 1990, the Government acted on advice that was fundamentally flawed. Inevitably, key aspects of related and subsequent policy on timeshare have reflected and perpetuated that monumental error. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—then the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities—wrote in his "Dear Member of Parliament" letter on 31 March 1993:
  "Timeshare units in England have been assessed for business rates under the Community Charge and will continue on the same basis with the Council Tax. People will not therefore face big changes in their bills for their properties…Some people think it would be advantageous to switch timeshare properties to a Council Tax levy, although this would entail more sizeable changes both up and down depending on the nature and location of the property. For any individual timesharer their portion of the difference would usually be very small. On balance we feel it is better not to change the basis of taxation for these properties, which do have similarities to hotels and self-catering holiday accommodation in terms of holiday use, although ownership is different."
  My right hon. Friend thus expressed the Government's opinion that timeshare ownership henceforth was to be regarded as a commercial enterprise, and would therefore be subject to business rates. He further expressed the Government's opinion that the imposition of business rates did not, or would not, disadvantage timeshare owners.
  My right hon. Friend spoke in good faith. We were right to accept his judgment, pending evidence to persuade us otherwise. We were justified in giving him the benefit of our doubts—at least for the time being. I regret that we now know that he was mistaken. The judgment of those of us who warned him that he was miscalculating has been proved to be right. He wrote:
  "For any individual timesharer their portion of the difference"—
  between council tax and business rates—
  "would usually be very small."
  Few statements could be further from the truth.
  Lochanhilly in Speyside has the smallest difference that my researchers unearthed. Even there, the increase is 94 per cent.—from £9·40 to £18·64 per week. Few people would regard that as "a very small" increase. Delfaber in Speyside has witnessed a 152 per cent. increase from community charge to business rate—from £9·60 to £24·20 per week.
  At Forest Hills in Stirling, the increase was from £13·80 to £36·64 per week, which was 164 per cent. Loch Rannoch in Perthshire witnessed an increase of 332 per cent.—from £5·06 to £21·86. The increase at Kilconquhar, Fife was £10·92 to £39·16 per week, which is a staggering 358 per cent. Pride of place in the catalogue goes to Kenmore in Perthshire, where the weekly increase is a towering 703 per cent.—a jump from £5·06 a week under the community charge to £40·64 under the business rate.
  Mr. Eric Sheehy wrote to me from Solihull a few days ago:
  "I have just paid my management fee invoice for the three weeks I have at Craigendarroch, Royal Deeside. There is an item
  262
  'Dwelling tax: £40·50' for each week, a total of £130·50. On an annual basis the tax is £2,262 which compares with the £701·83 band H property tax I pay to Solihull."
  I calculate that Mr. Sheehy pays £13·83 per week in council tax to Solihull, compared with £40·50 per week in business rates for his timeshare ownership.
  It is easier to find the evidence in Scotland, where the transition from community charge to business rates has been made, but it can also be found in England. I learned yesterday of a timeshare site in Kent, where, even with the benefit of transitional relief, the annual business rate for an average unit is £743. Without transition relief, it would be £,760. The annual council tax on property of the same market value is only £450. The difference between business rates and council tax is 165 per cent. per week with transitional relief, and 391 per cent. without relief.
  I have focused attention on one small sector of national economic activity—the purchase of timeshare. I do not regard tonight's debate as an exercise in confrontation. I suspect that most United Kingdom timeshare owners have a greater affinity with the political philosophy of the Conservative party than with that of other political parties. Therefore, I whisper to my hon. Friend the Minister that I believe that the Government have got it wrong, and should reconsider.
  11.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has built up considerable expertise over the years in making clear the concerns of the timeshare industry. I have careful regard for what he has to say, because my hon. Friend has regular and detailed contact with all the important figures in the timeshare industry. As his comments this evening have shown, he has made a careful study of the subject and has sought to put all the facts before the House.
  However, having listened carefully to everything said by my hon. Friend tonight and in the meetings that we have had with him, my ministerial colleagues and I still remain firmly of the view that timeshare accommodation is essentially a commercial activity. It is a business activity, and should clearly be regarded as non-domestic for local tax purposes.
  My hon. Friend questioned whether timeshare should be considered as a business or non-business activity. That is the wrong test. The test is whether it should be considered a domestic or a non-domestic activity. My hon. Friend also fairly acknowledged that the Government's approach is entirely consistent in the way in which they tax timeshare ownership. As my hon. Friend said, alone among second home ownership, time ownership is categorised, per se, as a commercial activity for taxation purposes.
  Officials in my Department and the Scottish Office met the timeshare industry three times between 1991 and 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who was then a Minister in the Department of the Environment, met the industry on three further occasions, including one meeting when my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke was present. It may help to finalise the matter if I explain in some detail why we have taken, and continue firmly to hold, our view.
  It is fair to say that, under general rates, the specific treatment of timeshare accommodation was not important—there was only the element of domestic rate relief at stake. It was with the advent of separate local taxation

  263
  systems for domestic and non-domestic property that the boundary between the regimes, particularly the treatment of holiday accommodation, became more significant. The test of whether a property was domestic or non-domestic became important.
  In settling a number of broadly similar boundary issues, the status of timeshare accommodation was approached from basic principles. We decided to treat such property as non-domestic because its use was more like that of self-catering and other short-stay accommodation—which is rateable and is treated as non-domestic—than the use of second homes. A variety of different people use timeshare property throughout the year for short periods, and can swap their access to it for "time" elsewhere.
  Despite consulting widely in 1988 before the decision was made, we did not receive any representations from the timeshare industry. It was not until 1991 that the newly established Timeshare Council began to lobby that timeshare properties should be considered as domestic. As I said, officials met the council a number of times to talk about their argument for a change in Government policy.
  Throughout that period, Ministers have been of the view first taken in Scotland in the 1985 revaluation, that such property was clearly non-domestic. We remained of that view during consultation with the industry in late 1992 and early 1993, leading to the making of the orders in England and Wales and in Scotland to define the property as non-domestic. Those orders have been before the House.
  I shall explain later the significance of an appeal case that led to the temporary difference in the Scottish treatment to which my hon. Friend referred. As I explained earlier, in the period running up to and just after making the orders, Ministers had a number of meetings with the timeshare industry, including one with my hon. Friend. I therefore hope that the House will be in no doubt that Ministers have considered this issue very carefully on a number of occasions, and have considered all the arguments that might be and have been put to us.
  Nothing said then or tonight has persuaded me that it is wrong to consider timeshare units as non-domestic. We are concerned not with what a property looks like but with how it is used. Timeshares are used like holiday cottages, but occupied all year round by different people. Some of those people are not the owners, because it is common practice for owners to swap their access to a timeshare property with others. Moreover, the use of timeshare units as permanent residences is prohibited by the terms of their occupation, so they are not like other domestic property, and they are clearly not holiday homes.
  Because timeshare properties are likely to be occupied all year round, they place on local authorities demands for services that differ from those of second homes. We therefore have no plans whatever to revoke the orders made to define timeshare units as non-domestic property. That is how we view the question of principle, which follows the facts in a straigthtforward way.
  I am well aware that many timeshare owners regard the size of the rates bills as the most important consideration. Notwithstanding the arguments about principle, may I turn to the analysis that we have done of the claimed differences in bills under rates and the community charge or council
  264
  tax? The position in England and Wales is different from that in Scotland, so it may be helpful if I deal with the countries separately.
  Since the introduction of the community charge, and subsequently the council tax in England and Wales, timeshares have been treated as non-domestic. Timeshare complexes have been entered in rating lists and, although the assessments have been challenged, the courts have not ruled against our view that such property should be treated as non-domestic.
  Last year, I understand, the Timeshare Council compiled evidence which it claimed showed that timeshare owners would be considerably better off if their property in England and Wales became liable to the council tax. It said that, on average, the difference was a factor of five or six times.
  Reforms of local taxation always have redistributive effects. It is inevitable that a Government who want to change a tax do so because they think that burdens are not falling in the right places at appropriate levels. When moving from rates to a community charge, or from a community charge to a council tax, changes in the disposition of that tax would inevitably occur.
  However, such a Government reach conclusions about who should pay and the amount of their bills on grounds of principle, not simply according to the size of bills. In England and Wales, timeshare accommodation has been taxed as non-domestic property throughout the period since 1990, and the introduction of the council tax has not led to increased bills. So this was a question of the gain that might have been achieved for timeshare owners.
  I acknowledge the Timeshare Council sample was representative and the council's assumptions about the relative rateable values and council tax bandings were correct; but in practice, we believe that a number of factors would reduce the difference shown by the council between the rates and council tax bills.
  First, the Timeshare Council automatically assumed that a 50 per cent. council tax discount would apply, thus doubling the difference between rates and the council tax. We would want to consider whether such a difference was appropriate, given that such property would be almost continuously occupied throughout the year.
  Secondly, the Timeshare Council disregarded the effects of business rate transitional relief, which most English and Welsh timeshare complexes currently enjoy, and of last year's Budget measures incorporated in the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1993, which held the timeshare complexes bills constant in real terms. All that was therefore approximately equivalent to a further doubling of the difference between the burden of the taxes.
  Thirdly, the Timeshare Council did not take into account the fact that most, if not all, timeshare complexes would be composite hereditaments with a continuing rates liability, even if the units of accommodation were domestic. There would be rates payable on the extensive and often well-appointed communal facilities, which would have to be met by timeshare owners.
  Taken together, those factors reduce quite substantially the difference claimed by the timeshare industry. Instead of the eight or ninefold difference that the council claimed for its examples, even allowing for the 50 per cent. council tax discount, we consider the factor to be no more than about three. The actual figure would vary in each case, and from place to place, as facilities and transitional relief differ.

  265
  It is important to remember that each timeshare owner faces only a week or fortnight's share of the annual bill, so the actual cost to any particular timeshare owner is not particularly large.
  In Scotland, while timeshare units were originally treated as non-domestic following the 1985 revaluation, as we have already acknowledged in the debate, a court case found that the law north of the border should have been interpreted in such a way that they were domestic.
  Until the introduction of the council tax, timeshare properties in Scotland were subject to the standard community charge. Notwithstanding the court's interpretation of the meaning of the law, the Government remained of the view that such property should in principle be non-domestic.
  Although we did not consider it necessary to legislate to reverse the court's decision at the time, we took the early opportunity, with the introduction of the council tax, to remove the ambiguity and restore consistency of treatment throughout Great Britain. The treatment of timeshare properties has been exactly the same in Scotland as it is in England and Wales since the introduction of the council tax.
  While there may be arguments which suggest that the bill that timeshare owners face would be lower if their property were subject to the council tax, the margin of the reduction would be smaller than is claimed. Notwithstanding that, we remain of the view that, as a matter of principle, timeshare units are more properly treated as non-domestic and thus subject to rates.
  266
  I know that this matter has caused my hon. Friend concern. This evening, he gave a number of examples where he feels that people have been treated harshly. Without looking at the exact facts—for example, in some of the instances he gave in Scotland—it is difficult to calculate how much of the increase that people may be asked to pay relates to communal facilities. Those communal facilities are often well appointed, including swimming pools and other recreational facilities, and clearly must be treated as business and non-domestic usage.
  I acknowledge that my hon. Friend will not necessarily be satisfied with my response, and I have no doubt that the timeshare industry will consider my comments disappointing. However, he will no doubt acknowledge that successive Ministers have considered this issue very carefully several times. Having given it the deepest thought, we have come to the clear conclusion that, on the basis of any common-sense and objective approach, timeshare properties are commercial properties in which business activities are conducted and should be treated, for local tax purposes, as non-domestic.
  I hope that this valuable debate has enabled us to clarify the matter once and for all.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff in his Department are covered by statutory sick pay.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The majority of staff employed by the Department are eligible for statutory sick pay under the relevant provisions. There are certain employees, for example those over minimum state pension age or those employed for a period of less than three months, who are not covered. It has not proved possible to obtain detailed figures in the time available. I will, however, write to the hon. Member as soon as I can with the relevant figures.

  Divorce
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 719, under what statutory authority the arrangement regarding the passage of information on divorce cases was established.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As I stated in my answer of 20 January, an arrangement was made last November between officials from my Department and from the Home Office immigration and nationality department to provide the information specified in my earlier answer.

  This was an informal arrangement arrived at between officials. No legal advice was sought at the time. When the matter subsequently became known to senior officials, legal advice was sought which showed that the informal arrangement was entered into without statutory authority, and it was therefore terminated immediately.

  As I stated previously, no information supplied to the Home Office has in fact been used by it. The Home Office has destroyed all notifications in its possession and has confirmed that it has neither made nor retained any separate record of the information from the courts.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Financial Services Regulations
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to monitor the effects of the new regulations governing the financial services industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury's responsibilities for making rules and regulations under the Financial Services Act have been transferred to the Securities and Investments Board. It is primarily for the Securities and Investments Board to monitor the effect of its rules. The Diretor General of Fair Trading is responsible for reporting to the Treasury any significant anti-competitive effects.
  120

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have been(a) abolished or (b) created since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 1 February 1994,Official Report, column 611.

  Launderettes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to a lower rate of VAT for launderettes; and when he expects to reach a conclusion.

  Sir John Cope
  None. All member states within the EC have agreed that reduced rates of VAT may be applied only to the specific list of goods and services in the EC VAT rates directive. Launderette services do not appear in this list. Furthermore, the directive does not allow for the introduction of any new zero rates.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the fiscal return to the Exchequer during 1994–95 of the extension of VAT to domestic fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  The extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power is estimated to raise £950 million in 1994–95. The effect on the public sector borrowing requirement will be offset in part by increases in Government spending, announced in the last Budget, which are designed to provide help for pensioners and low income households in meeting increased fuel bills.

  Departmental Head of Information
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the Treasury of having a facsimile machine installed at the home of his Department's head of information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury keeps one spare portable fax machine for contingencies such as senior officials having to work from home because of illness. This machine was temporarily installed in the home of the head of information.

  Department of Telecommunications
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons for differences in the way DTELS staff have been treated in respect of redundancy protection from the way PSA and Forward Catering staff were treated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's policy is that there should be a clean break between the public and private sectors when civil service activities are privatised. There is therefore a general presumption against offering Government guarantees of redundancy entitlements to staff transferred to the private sector. In certain circumstances, however, where because of market testing or because of the climate in the relevant sector of the economy the prospects for the business were uncertain, guarantees in the event of bankruptcy have been given. Each case has been considered on its merits in consultation with the representatives of the staff concerned.
  121

  Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage the development of retail, wholesale and manufacturing co-operatives.

  Mr. Portillo
  Many Government policies are directed towards encouraging the development of new businesses.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the Inland Revenue's published standards for replying to taxpayers' letters in 1992–93; and to what extent those standards were met.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1992–93 the Inland Revenue standard was to reply to all letters within 28 days and to deal substantively with correspondence in at least 90 per cent. of cases. In the remaining cases the response tells the taxpayer when the letter will be dealt with. In fact, the network of tax and collection offices recorded that 99 per cent. of correspondence has been dealt with substantively within 28 days.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to his recent question on 4 February 1994 at column 988.

  Tax Concessions (Shipping)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he will take to assist the competitive position of the British shipping industry following the German Government's decisions to extend tax concessions for investors in shipping companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget that shipping companies will benefit from a special higher limit of £5 million for the amount which they can raise annually from investors under the new enterprise investment scheme. Other measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 15 December 1993 include an extension of the Government's existing support for training to cover junior officers.

  Intrastat System
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken in response to the recommendation by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that the Central Statistical Office conducts a special review of the Intrastat system covering visible trade with other EC countries.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have informed the chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee about the work already in hand to review the operation of the Intrastat system.
  122
  In view of the importance of statistics on international trade, Customs and Excise and the Central Statistical Office have been monitoring carefully the operation of the Intrastat system since its introduction in January 1993. In the light of the results of this monitoring considerable efforts have been made, successfully, to improve the accuracy and speed of response.

  Following a slow start in the early part of 1993 response rates for the first nine months, to September 1993, are now in excess of 95 per cent. by value for both arrivals and dispatches. There has also been a substantial improvement in the speed on response with 90 per cent. of the trade by value being submitted within seven weeks of the due date, an improvement of 20 weeks over the early months. Customs are working strenuously to obtain further improvements.

  Discussions have also been held with Customs authorities and statistical offices in other EC countries to identify and investigate changes in the pattern of recording following the introduction of Intrastat.

  Further investigations are being carried out to validate the register of traders which is being used, to make checks against data reported on the VAT forms and elsewhere, and to examine the recording of trade where the movement of goods involves intermediaries or transit through other member states.

  The procedures used for deflation to constant prices and conversion to the balance of payments basis are also being checked.

  A report on these investigations will be published as soon as they are complete. The statistics which have been released remain the best available estimates. If however the investigations point to revisions, these will be made at the earliest opportunity.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) of 14 January,Official Report, column 305, if he will set out the reasons why a ban on arms sales to Indonesia would not be appropriate.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our policy on arms sales to Indonesia is based on the principle that all sovereign states enjoy the right, under article 51 of the United Nations charter, to defend themselves. This is a right we claim for ourselves and it would be inconsistent and discriminatory to deny it to others.

  The export of defence equipment is controlled through our domestic export licence system.

  A ban on arms sales to Indonesia would not in our view bring about a change in the circumstances of East Timor.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 3 February 1994,Official Report, column 858.
  123

  Iran
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to raise the persecution of the Iranian Church with the Iranian Government; what information he has on the closing of churches and intimidation of Christians; and if he will urge the Iranian Government to allow people from the United Nations Human Rights Commission into Iran to investigate the situation of the Church;

  (2) what action Her Majesty's Government will be taking to urge the Government of Iran to conduct a full and impartial investigation into the murder of Bishop Haik Hovsepian Mehr and to allow observers from the United Nations Human Rights Commission to take part in such investigations.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We and our European partners repeatedly underline to the Iranian Government the importance we attach to their human rights record, including on religious minorities.

  The European Union, with our full support, expressed concern to the Iranian authorities at the reported death sentence on Reverend Mehdi Dibaj. We understand that Reverend Dibaj was subsequently released pending further investigation by the court.

  We and our European partners have also told the Iranian authorities that we were disturbed at the circumstances surrounding Rev. Hovsepian's recent death. The Iranians have said that Rev. Hovsepian's death is still being investigated.

  We have received several reports about the position of Christians in Iran from Christian groups in the United Kingdom and the United Nations special representative. Our embassy in Tehran also monitors the situation. We are concerned at recent reports of persecution, especially of members of "The Assemblies of God".

  We have co-sponsored resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights reflecting the reports of the United Nations special representative on human rights in Iran, Mr. Galindo-Pohl. We have urged the Iranian authorities to co-operate with him fully.

  Paedophiles
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to persuade the Governments of(a) Sri Lanka, (b) Thailand and (c) the Philippines to charge and prosecute British paedophiles who commit offences in those countries.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We abhor the abuse of children wherever it occurs and take every suitable opportunity to encourage the authorities in Sri Lanka, Thailand and the Philippines in their efforts to address this problem.

  EC Documents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the European Council code of conduct on public access to Council and Commission documents.
  124
  Mr. Goodlad
  We support greater openness in the Community and welcome the Council's agreement on the code of conduct, which fulfils a commitment entered into at Maastricht in 1991.

  Rhinoceros Horn
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by the Governor of Hong Kong to ensure that legislation prohibiting trade in rhinoceros horn is effectively enforced, and to ensure that any existing stockpiles of horn are immediately destroyed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are no known stockpiles of rhino horn in Hong Kong.

  Existing endangered species legislation in Hong Kong is as tight as it can be as regards rhino horn.

  The Hong Kong Government have set up an endangered species liaison group to co-ordinate local enforcement operations and to liaise with international agencies concerned with environmental issues, including nongovernmental organisations.

  At the end of 1993, in response to a report by the Environmental Investigation Agency—EIA—the Agriculture and Fisheries Department of the Hong Kong Government carried out a series of searches of 58 shops. Suspected rhino hide was seized from two shops, together with a number of packets of medicine claiming to contain rhino ingredients. This enforcement activity will continue.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the protocol agreed in March 1988 between the then Secretary of State for Defence and the Government of Malaysia contained figures relating amounts or percentages of civil aid to amounts of arms purchases.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Yes. But as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear in his reply to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 25 January, at column 145–46, the Secretary of State for Defence, after consultation with ministerial colleagues in London, wrote to the Malaysian Minister of Finance in June 1988 to say that aid could not be linked to defence sales. As a result, the issue was not taken up in the memorandum of understanding on defence procurement signed in September that year.

  Jordan
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much debt relief was granted to Jordan over the last five years; and under what scheme this was granted.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over the past five years, debts due from Jordan have been rescheduled twice. A total of £190 million has been rescheduled including debt owing to both ECGD and ODA. The reschedulings were concluded as part of general agreements between Jordan and its Paris club creditors. Some of these debts were rescheduled over an extended period under Paris club terms available for lower-middle

  125
  income countries. Interest is charged at market rates on ECGD-insured debts but no interest is charged on rescheduled ODA debts.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England).

  Mr. Brooke
  The members currently appointed to the Royal Commission for the Historical Monuments of England are:

  Baroness Park of Monmouth CMG (Chairman)

  Professor Richard Bradley

  Dr. Derek Keene

  Professor Geoffrey Martin CBE

  Bridget Cherry

  Dr. Richard Gem

  Professor Martin Biddle

  Trevor Longman

  Anne Riches

  Robert Yorke

  Professor Charles Thomas CBE

  Professor Gwyn Meirion-Jones

  Dr. Malcolm Airs

  Professor Michael Fulford

  Dr. Marilyn Palmer

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the British Film Institute.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current governors of the British Film Institute are:

  Mr. Jeremy Thomas (Chairman)

  Ms Jan Ashdown

  Dame Jocelyn Barrow OBE

  Lord Brabourne CBE

  Mr. Kenneth Branagh

  Mr. Bob Cryer MP

  Mr. Charles Denton

  Sir Anthony Durant MP

  Mr. Matthew Evans

  Ms Brenda Ferris

  Ms Premila Hoon

  Ms Linda James

  Mr. Steve Morrison

  Ms Lynda Myles

  Mr. Simon Relph

  Mr. Allan Shiach

  Mr. Anthony Sloman

  Mr. Brian Tesler CBE

  Mr. Alexander Walker

  Ms Andrea Wonfor

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites.

  Mr. Brooke
  The members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites are:

  Dr. Basil Greenhill, CMG CB (Chairman)

  Fergus Bateson

  Dr. Margaret Rule, CBE

  Alex Flinder

  Andrew Saunders

  Lt. Cmdr. John Pugh, MBE, RN

  Tim Schadla-Hall

  Professor Sean McGrail

  Guy Wilson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Football Licensing Authority.
  126
  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of the Football Licensing Authority are:

  Mr. Norman Jacobs, OBE (Chairman)

  Mr. Albert Brannon, CBE, FIFireE

  Mr. Keith Bridge, MA, IPFA, CBIM

  Mr. Ronald Broome, OBE, QPM

  Mr. Trevor Brooking, MBE

  Dr. Judith Fisher, MB, BS, FRCGP

  Mr. Simon Inglis

  Mr. Christopher Lewis, BSc Econ, MSc, C Psychol, AFBPs

  Professor Sam Thorburn, OBE, FEng FICE FlStructE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  War Crimes Act 1991
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest position regarding action under the War Crimes Act 1991; and whether any charges are likely to be brought during 1994.

  The Attorney-General
  The Metropolitan police war crimes unit is still actively pursuing its inquiries under the War Crimes Act 1991. Those inquiries are not yet complete and the question of a possible prosecution cannot be considered until they are concluded.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Deregulation
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations were consulted by her Department, on each of the recommendations of the business deregulation task forces before they were agreed and action proposed in the DTI document, "Deregulation: Cutting the Red Tape".

  Mr. Jack
  Each of the task force recommendations agreed or agreed in principle by the Government has been or will be the subject of appropriate consultation with interested parties.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the United Kingdom Government require a tenant farmer to obtain the consent of the landlord in order to dispose of the milk quota allocated to him.

  Mr. Jack
  The EC regulations establish a link between quota and land. Landlords therefore have a clear interest in any quota apportionment—and its potential disposal—and are required to give their consent. A refusal to give this consent will necessitate the appointment of an arbitrator to decide the apportionment for the parties concerned.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account she has taken of the Advocate General's view expressed during the Herbert Wachauf case on milk quota 5/88 (1989) concerning the effect of article 40(3) of the EC treaty on the requirement for a tenant farmer to obtain the consent of his landlord, if the imposition of that requirement having regard to the particular situation of the tenant farmer, would result in discrimination between producers.

  Mr. Jack
  We have taken note of the judgment of the European Court in case 5/88-Herbert Wachauf. In our
  127
  opinion this case does not give rise to any suggestion of discrimination in our implementation of the EC milk quotas regulations.

  Foresty
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will list all land currently owned by the Forestry Commission in(a) Humberside, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) South Yorkshire and (d) West Yorkshire;

  (2) which of the Forestry Commission's holdings in (a) Humberside, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) South Yorkshire and (d) West Yorkshire are currently earmarked for sale.

  Mr. Jack
  The Foresty Commission is preparing a list of all its woodlands in Humberside, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, and this will identify those which the Commission is currently selling or planning to sell. I shall send a copy to the hon. Member and I shall also arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the subjects on which her Department formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by her to an executive agency.

  Mr. Jack
  Next steps agency chief executives are usually asked to reply to questions on day-to-day operational matters and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in the agencies' framework documents.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements she is making in existing English ESAs to facilitate new public access to the countryside.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As part of our programme to implement the EC's agri-environment regulation—Reg. 2078/92 EEC—I have laid before Parliament today regulations to amend section 18 of the Agriculture Act 1986 to enable me—and, as appropriate, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland—to introduce arrangements to encourage farmers to provide new public access opportunities in ESAs.

  I shall be laying before Parliament tomorrow orders introducing a new voluntary access tier into each of the first round ESA schemes—the Broads, Somerset levels and moors, Pennine Dales, West Penwith and South downs. In addition, I shall shortly be laying orders introducing parallel arrangements into the other existing English ESA schemes—Breckland, Clun, North Peak, Suffolk River valleys, Test valley, South West peak, Exmoor, Lake district, South Wessex downs, North Kent marshes, Avon valley. Information about the new access tier will be made available to farmers in all existing English ESAs from tomorrow and farmers will be able to enter into access agreements with the Minister after the orders come into force.
  128

  Arable Areas Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many landowners in England are receiving annual payments under the arable area payments scheme in the latest financial year of(a) up to £100,000, (b) between £100,000 and £500,000, (c) between £500,000 and £1,000,000 and (d) over £1,000,000; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11 January 1994,Official Report, column 55.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many cases payments to farmers and landowners under the arable area payments scheme have been withheld or recovered in England; what is the amount of money withheld or recovered in each case; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Every case in which payments may be withheld or recovered is examined very carefully and applicants have an opportunity to comment before a final decision is taken. This means that it is only possible to provide very provisional figures at this stage. Over 100 payments have so far been reduced or withheld entirely, but there are further cases still under consideration. These figures exclude penalties for late applications and adjustments made following corrections notified by the applicant under the special arrangements which applied in 1993 for dealing with genuine errors. It is not yet possible to give a precise figure for amounts of money withheld because individual cases vary considerably.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The Ministry has internal disciplinary procedures which provide a range of penalties applicable in cases of misconduct. These are subject to regular review. Dismissal would normally apply where the case amounts to gross misconduct. An officer found guilty of fraud could expect to be dealt with accordingly.

  Identification of Animals
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the Government intend to implement EC directive 92/102 on the registration of holdings and the identification of animals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Proper identification of animals and proper record keeping by farmers is essential if we are to protect our high animal health status and I am pleased to announce that I have decided on the best way forward on the identification and registration of cattle, pigs, sheep and goats.

  The United Kingdom fought successfully in negotiations in Brussels for a commonsense approach to animal identification. We pressed hard for a system that would be the most efficient and at the same time the least burdensome to farmers and we achieved the best possible result.
  129
  The EC directive requires brief details of all cattle, pig, sheep and goat holdings to be held on a central register. This has been completed for cattle, is under way for pigs and will be completed by the 1 January 1995 deadline for sheep and goats.

  Each calf born on or after 1 July 1994 will have to have one ear tag inserted bearing that animal's unique number. The current requirement for inserting the tag in non-dairy calves within seven days of birth will be relaxed to the 30 days set in the directive. Officials are discussing, with the ear tag manufacturers, how to control the issue of tags to ensure there is no duplication of numbers and the least disruption to the way farmers buy their tags.

  The directive also allows each member state to devise its own arrangements for the movement of pigs within their own country. We have told the Commission that we shall base ours on the Movement and Sale of Pigs Order 1975. Pigs going for export will have to be ear tagged or tattooed to show the country and herd of origin.

  The arrangements for sheep and goats are not due to be implemented until 1 January 1995. However, the sheep industry representatives have already said they would like to see similar requirements introduced as for pigs. Agriculture Department officials will be consulting them shortly about the details.

  The more detailed record-keeping requirements for cattle were implemented by the Bovine Animals (Identification, Marking and Breeding Records) (Amendment) Order 1993. The minor changes required will be introduced shortly and those for sheep and goats on 1 January 1995.

  Agriculture Department officials will be writing to all those who took part in the consultation exercise setting out the new arrangements in more detail. Copies of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government have reviewed the operations of the Movement and Sale of Pigs Order 1975; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have been conducting a deregulatory review of the Movement and Sale of Pigs Order 1975. It is clear that the industry accepts the need for this order to protect the high health status of the national herd. However, we have decided to streamline its operation to reduce the burden on farmers.

  We will be allowing farmers to issue their own documents, currently issued by local authorities, for the movement of pigs off their own farms. The self-issued documents, which will replace the existing licences, will also act as the movement document required under the Animal Identification and Registration Directive, so that farmers will not have to fill in two pieces of paper to move one pig.

  We will also be scrapping the requirement to mark pigs going to slaughter, other than swill-fed pigs, where we will be simplifying the mark to a single red line to allow for easier marking on the farm.

  I believe that these changes will enable the order to operate more efficiently while at the same time maintaining the high level of protection for the health status of our pig industry.

  Agriculture Department officials will be writing shortly to all those who took part in the consultation exercise setting out the new arrangements in more detail. Copies of this letter will be placed in the Library.
  130

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figures for the percentage of young people aged 16 to 19 years who are(a) in full-time education, (b) in training schemes, (c) employed and (d) unemployed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Latest estimates from the summer 1993 labour force survey for Great Britain show that of all 16 to 19-year-olds 50 per cent. were in full-time education; 7 per cent. were employed in Government employment and training programmes; 26 per cent. were otherwise employed and not in full-time education; and 11 per cent. were ILO unemployed and not in full-time education.

  Dock and Port Areas (Deaths)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths in dock or port areas in each of the last five years have led to ongoing or completed prosceutions by the Health and Safety Executive; what have been the outcomes of the completed prosecutions; who were the named defendants in the cases; and what were the penalties imposed in those cases where the defendants were convicted.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Fatal injuries occuring within the docks and harbours industry reported under the reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurences regulations 1985 (RIDDOR), between I April 1988 and 31 March 1993

  Year

  Number of deaths

  Of which leading to prosecution

  Total informations laid

  Convictions

  1988–89

  10

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  11

  3

  6

  5

  1990–91

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  7

  —

  —

  —

  11992–93

  8

  4

  5

  5

  Details of prosceutions

  (a) 1989–90

  1. One information laid against Michael Anthony Johnson—fine of £600 on conviction.

  2. One information laid against Watcher Marine Ltd.—fine of £1,000 on conviction.

  3. Two informations laid against Transit (Boston) Ltd.—total fines of £15,000 on conviction.
  Two informations laid against Port of Boston Ltd.—fine of £10,000 on one conviction; one case dismissed.

  (b) 1992–93

  4. One information laid against Northern Cargo Services Ltd.—fine of £1,500 on conviction.

  5. One information laid against Northern Cargo Services Ltd.—fine of £3,000 on conviction.
  One information laid against Robert Hodgins—fine of £520 on conviction.

  6. One information laid against Associated British Ports—fine of £3,500 on conviction.

  7. One information laid against Ardrossan Harbour Co. Ltd.—fine of £7,500 on conviction.

  Accident Figures
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest annual figures for accidents in the building and manufacturing industries.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provisional figures for the year commencing 1 April 1992 are provided in the following table:
  131

  Table 1: Occupational injuries (a) in the Construction industry (b) 1992–93p, as reported to all enforcement authorities

  Severity of injury

  Employment status

  Fatal

  Major (c)

  over 3 Day (d)

  Total

  Employee (including trainee)

  63

  2,062

  11,675

  13,800

  Self-employed people

  24

  678

  1,278

  1,980

  Member of Public (f)

  5

  100

  (e)

  105

  All people

  92

  2,840

  12,953

  15,885

  Table 2: Occupational injuries (a) in the Manufacturing industry (g) 1992–93p, as reported to all enforcement authorities

  Severity of injury

  Employment status

  Fatal

  Major (c)

  over 3 Day (d)

  Total

  Employee (including trainee)

  58

  5,283

  47,309

  52,650

  Self-employed people

  2

  127

  173

  302

  Member of Public (f)

  0

  49

  (e)

  49

  All people

  60

  5,459

  47,482

  53,001

  Footnotes (Tables 1 and 2)

  (a) Based on injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR).

  (b) As defined by Standard Industrial Classification 1980 Division 5.

  (c) As defined under RIDDOR, but chiefly amputations, serious fractures, and any other injury requiring hospitalisation for more than 24 hours.

  (d) Injuries causing incapacity from normal work for more than three days.

  (e) Not reportable.

  (f) Injured as a result of someone else's work activity.

  (g) As defined by Standard Industrial Classification 1980 Divisions 2, 3 and 4.

  p=provisional.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest annual accident figures for(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands.

  Table 1: Occupational injuries (a) in Coventry, 1992–93p as reported to HSE's Field Operations Division Inspectorates and Local Authorities (f).

  Severity of injury

  Employment status

  Fatal

  Major (b)

  over 3 Day (c)

  Total

  Employee (including trainees)

  0

  65

  824

  889

  Self-employed people

  0

  4

  5

  9

  Member of Public (e)

  0

  70

  (d)

  70

  All people

  0

  139

  829

  968

  Table 2: Occupational injuries (a) in the County of West Midlands, 1992–93p, as reported to HSE's Field Operations Division Inspectorates and Local Authorities (f).

  Severity of injury

  Employment status

  Fatal

  Major (b)

  over 3 Day (c)

  Total

  Employee (including trainees)

  9

  712

  6,892

  7,550

  Self-employed people

  1

  47

  150

  198

  Member of Public (e)

  2

  440

  (d)

  442

  All people

  12

  1,199

  6,979

  8,190

  Footnotes (Tables 1 and 2)

  (a) Based on injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR).

  (b) As defined under RIDDOR, but chiefly amputations, serious fractures, and any other injury requiring hospitalisation for more than 24 hours.

  (c) Injuries causing incapacity from normal work for more than three days.

  (d) Not reportable.

  (e) Injured as a result of someone else's work activity.

  (f) Table does not include injuries reported to HSE's Mines, Railways or Explosives Inspectorates which are not readily available.

  p=provisional

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate his Department has made of the incidence of work-related upper limb disorders; what
  132
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provisional figures for the year commencing 1 April 1992 are provided in the following table:

  discussions his Department has had with the TUC and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers about their work on these disorders; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Evidence from a supplementary questionnaire to the 1990 labour force survey indicates an
  133
  annual prevalence of around 117,000 self-reported cases of upper limb disorders caused by work. Health and Safety Executive—HSE—officials have attended meetings of a TUC working group to discuss work-related upper limb disorders, and a conference in July 1993 organised jointly by the TUC and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. Guidance for employers on prevention of upper limb disorders was published by HSE in 1990, and a four-year "Lighten the Load" campaign to raise awareness of musculoskeletal harm was launched in 1991. An action programme to tackle upper limb disorders agreed by the Health and Safety Commission in December 1993 is now underway.

  Petrol Service Station Employees
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what legal remedies are available to employees of petrol service stations whose employers deduct from their hourly wages the cost of stock or petrol stolen by third parties.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Wages Act 1986 makes it unlawful for an employer to deduct more than 10 per cent. from the gross wages of retail workers because of cash shortages or stock deficiencies. Where a deduction is in breach of the Wages Act workers may complain to an industrial tribunal; where it is in breach of their contract of employment they may take action in the civil courts.

  Health and Safety at Work
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for introducing new measures to improve the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no such proposals. However, at the Government's invitation the Health and Safety Commission is currently undertaking a review, which builds on their long-standing work of rationalising and modernising all health and safety legislation. In response to a request from the Commission, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill includes a clause designed to facilitate the removal of outdated and unnecessary health and safety legislation. The aim is to achieve a more effective health and safety regime. The commission will report back on the findings of its review in April.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library the heads of agreement between Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Power on the proposed interconnector.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  No. The agreement forms the basis of a commercial arrangement between two private sector companies.

  Water Executive Depot, County Antrim
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future provision of a new water executive depot in Lame, County Antrim.
  134
  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Department of the Environment does not intend to proceed with a replacement of the Lame depot at this time.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the subjects on which his Department formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by him to an executive agency.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Next steps agency chief executives are usually asked to reply to parliamentary questions about the day-to-day operational matters of their agency and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in their agency's framework document.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many cases payments to farmers and landowners under the arable area payments scheme have been withheld or recovered in Northern Ireland; what is the amount of money withheld or recovered in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  To date there have been four cases where payments were withheld under the arable area payments scheme. The amounts involved were £3,177·95, £3,444·25, £772·98 and £77·08. Further cases are under consideration.

  One late application valued at £121·76 was also rejected and one payment totalling £361·92 was recovered.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of 25 January,Official Report, column 152, if he will now make it his policy to give substantive answers to parliamentary questions on his testimony given at the Scott inquiry on 17 January.

  The Prime Minister
  No. While Lord Justice Scott's inquiry continues, it would be inappropriate to comment substantively on any of the evidence which has so far been taken.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what powers Lord Justice Scott has to compel the attendance as witnesses before his inquiry of people who are neither civil servants nor ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Justice Scott does not have powers to compel people to appear before his inquiry. I
  135
  have made it clear that if he feels a change in his powers or terms of reference is needed, the Government will be ready to consider that.

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the possible trial of Libyan suspects relating to Pan Am 103 taking place in The Hague, under a Scottish judge, with Scottish court rules.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy is to obtain justice for the 270 victims of the Lockerbie disaster. Part of this is to ensure the appearance for trial in a United Kingdom or United States court of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing. The two accused would receive a fair trial in Scotland. There is therefore no need to establish a special court to try them in The Hague. The Libyan Government should comply in full with Security Council resolutions 731, 748 and 883 without further delay.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

  Biwater Group
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public engagements of Ministers held in connection with the Biwater group of companies since 1983.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Charterline Pilot Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 406, what proportion of the representations he has received on the Charterline pilot scheme have been (a) favourable and (b) critical.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: Recent surveys of Charterline users show that 87 per cent. are happy with the Charterline service and 93 per cent. would use the Charterline service again. I have received one representation critical of Charterline.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors led him to make a decision at Prime Ministerial level to over-rule an accounting officer in the case of the Pergau Dam.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said to the House on this matter and to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's answer of 25 January 1994 at column 145–46 to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
  136

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Know-How Fund
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to extend the know-how fund to other countries in the near future.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund will be extended to the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia with effect from the beginning of the financial year 1994–95.

TRANSPORT

  Great Western Line
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the original target dates for the Great Western line franchise(a) to begin running as a shadow franchise and (b) in the private sector; and what are the current expected dates for these stages.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Great Western main line should begin operating as a shadow franchise from 1 April, which has always been the target date. It will be for the franchising director to determine when this franchise should be offered to the private sector.

  Ports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for the policing of ports following privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Many harbour authorities have statutory powers to employ their own constables but few do so. On privatisation, the statutory powers used by the former undertakers are transferred to the new owners. The Department does not intervene in ports' decisions about their policing arrangements.

  Seamen's Agencies
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the licensing requirements for seamen's agencies; and on how many occasions licences have been refused or revoked since 1973.

  Mr. Norris
  Seamen's agencies may be licensed in accordance with section 110 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. This section permits the Department of Transport to make the licence subject to such terms and conditions as are considered appropriate. Prior to 1988 the Department refused licences to commercial agencies and the only licence holders were seven Merchant Navy establishment administration—MNEA—offices, and two unions. No licences have been refused since 1990 but two were revoked in 1993.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 604, what statements and press notices were made and issued on the channel tunnel rail link in November 1989; and if he will set out the information in the same form as his earlier answer.
  137
  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  3 November 1989

  Cecil Parkinson in response to a question from Jonathan Aitken MP
  "I am greatly encouraged by the clear indications that I have had from the private sector that Channel Tunnel Rail services, including a new Channel Tunnel Rail Link can be financed commercially and that…the new link can still be brought into operation by 1988."

  I regret that this item was not discovered during the search which was made in response to the hon. Member's earlier question.

  British Rail Board Pay
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of British Rail board members pay was linked to performance in July 1992 and July 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the year to 31 March 1992 BR executive board members participated in a bonus scheme with a potential maximum of 25 per cent. of annual remuneration. Percentage payments made in 1992 were in the range of 10 per cent. to 11 per cent. of remuneration. In the next year the potential maximum was 40 per cent., and payments were 22·5 per cent.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the subjects on which his Department formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by him to an executive agency.

  Mr. Norris
  Next steps agency chief executives are usually asked to reply to parliamentary questions about the day-to-day operational matters of their agency and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in their agency's framework document.

  British Rail, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Doncaster-based British Rail employees were employed by each division of British Rail on 1 January(a) five years ago and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Freeman
  As at 1 January 1994 the number of Doncaster-based British Rail employees by division was as follows:

  Number

  Central Services

  391

  Trainload Freight

  449

  Inter City

  547

  British Transport Police

  17

  Regional Railways

  258

  BR Maintenance Ltd.

  570

  National Stores Centre

  335

  Total

  2,567

  Information for the previous years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Season Tickets
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail season ticket holders have, since January 1993,(a) had the validity of their season tickets
  138
  extended for days when there is no effective service, (b) been offered discounts on the renewal of their season tickets to compensate them for poor service in the previous year and (c) made use of the season ticket discount offered.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on season ticket extensions is not held centrally. Decisions on extensions are made by local BR management according to local circumstances. I understand that 93,182 passengers have been offered and have accepted discounts on renewal of their season tickets since January 1994.

  Merchant Navy (Homosexuality)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 828, whether he will introduce legislation this year to decriminalise homosexuality in the Merchant Navy.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government will bring forward the necessary legislation at the earliest convenient opportunity, taking account of the many other pressures on the legislative timetable.

  Pollution Incidents
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action his Department is to take following the recent pollution incidents in North Wales, Lancashire and Cumbria caused by the Norwegian company Stolt-Nielson;

  (2) what is the cost of the clean-up operation in North Wales, Lancashire and Cumbria following the pollution incident caused by the Norwegian company Stolt-Nielson.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer to my answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 26 January 1994 at column 245.

  The marine pollution control unit has discussed the circumstances of this incident with the Stolt-Nielson group. The group has agreed to settle claims for the reasonable costs incurred by local authorities and other organisations involved in cleaning up the pollution and treating affected birds. Preliminary estimates of these are of the order of £100,000.

  British Rail Employees
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail employees deal with the public in the course of their work; and how many of these wear name badges.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail employs approximately 22,000 retail staff. This figure includes all station and terminal staff and directly employed on-board train staff who come into contact with the public. All staff who have face-to-face contact with the public are required to wear name badges.

  London Transport Board Pay
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of London Transport board members' pay was linked to performance in July 1992 and in July 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  Only the full-time executive members of the London Transport Board are covered by performance
  139
  pay arrangements. Non-pensionable bonuses for these members are paid retrospectively, based on performance in the previous financial year. In the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 the bonuses paid represented on average additions of, respectively, 14 per cent. and 27 per cent. to the basic salary for the relevant year of the members concerned. The increase between the two years is partly explained by an increase in the maximum bonus payable under the bonus scheme from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. of basic salary.

  Rail Track Record Displays
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of British Rail stations displayed track record displays of punctuality and reliability as at July 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  Track record displays appear at 231 of BR's 2,482 stations. Figures for punctuality and reliability performance are available on request from all staffed stations.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 506, regarding existing contracts with his Department, if he will publish the terms of reference for each contract.

  Mr. Norris
  The existing contracts awarded over the past five years contain a wide variety of types of work. They will not normally be let against simple terms of reference, but if the hon. Member has a particular interest in any one of the cases listed in my answer of 31 January,I will be happy to respond.

  Tankers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reported incidents of tankers breaching areas to be avoided around Shetland there have been since 5 January; and if he will give details of each incident.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has received one report since the area to be avoided off the Shetland Islands was extended on 28 November 1993. That report related to an

  Comparison of summer off-peak airport charges

  Total charges

  BAe 146–200

  737–200

  747–200

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Gatwick

  £155

  £130

  £285

  £174

  £169

  £343

  £633

  £580

  £1,213

  Stansted

  £138

  £141

  £279

  £191

  £183

  £374

  £1,485

  £628

  £2,113

  Manchester

  £387

  £691

  £1,078

  £476

  £898

  £1,374

  £3,047

  £3,086

  £6,133

  Birmingham

  £507

  £697

  £1,204

  £625

  £905

  £1,530

  £4,460

  £3,110

  £7,570

  East Midlands

  £495

  £753

  £1,248

  £611

  £978

  £1,588

  £4,355

  £3,361

  £7,715

  Charges per passenger

  BAe 146–200

  737–200

  747–200

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Gatwick

  £2·31

  £1·94

  £4·25

  £2·00

  £1·94

  £3·94

  £2·12

  £1·94

  £4·06

  Stansted

  £2·05

  £2·10

  £4·15

  £2·20

  £2·10

  £4·30

  £4·97

  £2·10

  £7 ·07

  Manchester

  £5·77

  £10·32

  £16·09

  £5·48

  £10·32

  £15·80

  £10·19

  £10·32

  £20·51

  Birmingham

  £7·57

  £10·40

  £17·97

  £7·19

  £10·40

  £17·59

  £14·92

  £10·40

  £25·32

  East Midlands

  £7·39

  £11·24

  £18·63

  £7·02

  £11·24

  £18·26

  £14·56

  £11·24

  £25·80

  140
  87,000 grt Singapore-registered tanker spotted on 30 January, when the ship was approximately 1 km south of Sumburgh head, travelling in a south-westerly direction. The Department has asked the Singapore authorities, as the responsible flag state, to investigate the incident.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 506, regarding prospective contracts with his Department, if he will publish the terms of reference for each contract.

  Mr. Norris
  Consultancy contracts are not let against simple terms of reference, they are let taking account of specification and conditions which need to be established to understand the scope of the work involved. If the hon. Member has a particular interest in any one of the cases listed in my answer of 31 January, I will be happy to respond.

  Aircraft Landing Charges
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 385, on aircraft landing charges, if he will provide figures on the same basis but for summer off-peak rates.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The information requested, which has been provided by the CAA, is shown in the tables:

  Aircraft type

  Maximum take off weight

  Seats

  Passengers at 80 per cent, load factor

  747–200B

  378

  374

  299

  737–200

  53

  109

  87

  BAe 146–2

  43

  84

  67

  Note:

  1 Charges are based on the assumption that the aircraft concerned meet ICAO chapter 3 noise standards and qualify for any noise rebates available at the airports concerned. The preceeding aircraft assumptions also apply.

  2 All landing charges include Aerodrome Navigation Services charges.

  3 All passenger charges include security charges and are based on charges for international services.
  141
  Note: These charges are based on summer off-peak rates. However, the periods covered by these rates are different for each airport and the off-peak periods which apply for each airport are shown below.

  Gatwick

  Landing charges—1100–1659 and 1900–0559, 1 April to 31 October.

  Passenger charges—1600–0529, I May to 30 September.

  Stansted

  Landing charges—Any time, 1 May to 31 October.

  Passenger charges—1600–0659, 1 May to 30 September.

  Manchester

  Landing charges—Any time except 1400–1559, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 1 November to 30 April.

  Passenger charges—Any time, 1 May to 31 October.

  Birmingham

  All charges—Any time of the day throughout the year.

  East Midlands

  Landing charges—Any time of the day throughout the year.

  Passenger charges—Any time, 1 March to 31 October.

ENVIRONMENT

  Deregulation
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations were consulted by his Department, on each of the recommendations of the business deregulation task forces before they were agreed and action proposed in the DTI document "Deregulation: Cutting the Red Tape".

  Mr. Gummer
  Decisions were taken on the task forces' 130 recommendations for my Department in the normal way; interested bodies have been or will be consulted as appropriate.

  Sewage
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve sewage treatment and disposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom has the highest percentage connection rate to sewers among our European Community partners and is among the leaders regarding the provision of sewage treatment.

  Improvements will result from the sewerage undertakers' large investment programmes to maintain and replace their assets and to meet statutory requirements.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the cost of the Audit Commission was for each year since 1989; what is the cost for the current year; what assessment he has made of performance and the results of the Audit Commission; and what value for money the Audit Commission has achieved.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Audit Commission has no direct cost to the Exchequer. The audit of local authorities and health service bodies and the undertaking of value for money studies is financed by fees from publicly funded bodies.

  The operating costs of the commission have been as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  28·4

  1989–90

  33·9

  1990–91

  46·4

  1991–92

  61·6

  1992–93

  74·3

  1993–94

  176·6

  142
  1 Estimated.

  NB. 1991–92 was the first full year that the commission appointed auditors to NHS bodies.

  In 1992 the commission was subject to a financial management review by its sponsors: the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office.

  Copies of the report of this review, which was published on 14 January 1993, and of the commission's annual reports and accounts are available from the Library.

  Housing Act 1985
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many mortgage indemnity agreements he has approved under section 442 of the Housing Act 1985;

  (2) how many local authorities have agreed to indemnify mortgages under section 442 of the Housing Act 1985; and how many properties have been indemnified.

  Sir George Young
  The Secretary of State approved a standard form of mortgage indemnity agreement in October 1988. This superseded earlier approved forms of agreement.

  In the period 1 April 1986 to 30 September 1993, 48 English local authorities reported entering into mortgage indemnity agreements. The estimated total number of mortgages indemnified by local authorities during this period is some 2,500.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to know the outcome of the review of the extension of part M of the building regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on 20 January 1994,Official Report, column 840.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current major issues being examined by each department devoted to rural strategic policy planning in the Rural Development Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Rural Development Commission's strategy directorate has three policy branches which are currently considering the following major issues affecting or likely to affect rural areas of England:
  143
  (i) Rural Economy

  The relationship between structural change in traditional rural industries and the need for new and diverse economic activity in rural areas.

  (ii) Rural Services

  Policies and practices affecting the provision of local services in rural areas and accessibility to them.

  The impact of living in rural areas on particular groups of people eg women, young children, the elderly and the handicapped and their accessibility to jobs and services.

  Policies affecting the voluntary sector in rural areas.

  (iii)Housing and Planning

  The provision of affordable housing in rural areas.

  Planning policy and development plans.

  The needs of rural dwellers and rural businesses within a strategy for sustainable development.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many posts there are in the Rural Development Commission devoted to strategic rural policy planning; and if he will list the departments and their responsibilities and the grades of those posts.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Rural Development Commission has a small strategy directorate in which 11 staff are directly concerned with analysis and advice on strategic policy issues affecting rural communities and businesses in England. They are the Director, civil service grade 5, and three policy branches dealing with issues affecting

  (a) the Rural Economy: (1 Grade 7, 1 HEO, 1 AO)

  (b)Rural Services: (1 Grade 7, 1 HEO, 1 EO, 1 AO)

  (c)Housing and Planning: (1 Grade 7, 1 HEO, 1 AC)

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the local authorities in receipt of standing spending assessment reduction grant for 1994–95 and (b) what is the amount in each case.

  Mr. Baldry
  The inforamtion requested was provided in special grant report (No. 9) laid before the House on 27 January 1994.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what method the Government use to assess the weight of public opinion when considering whether or not to hold a public inquiry;

  (2) what criteria are used by his department when assessing whether or not a project should be subject to a public inquiry;

  (3) what he considers to be a sufficient number of complaints to make a subject worthy of a public inquiry.

  Mr. Baldry
  In deciding whether to hold a public local planning inquiry, each case is considered on its merits. All the relevant issues, including the complexity of a case and the weight of public opinion or complaints arising, are taken into account.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the United Kingdom will ratify the UNEP Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom deposited its instrument of ratification for the Basel convention on 7 February. This means that the United Kingdom will become a party to the convention on 8 May. The EC will also become a party on 8 May.
  144
  The convention provides a framework for states to control shipments of hazardous waste. where these do occur, the onus is on the exporting state to ensure environmentally sound management of the wastes. Shipments are not allowed between parties and non-parties without specific agreements. Parties may ban imports of waste.

  The Waste Shipments Regulation (259/93/EEC), which incorporates the obligations of the Basel convention, will apply on 6 May. The regulation will enable the United Kingdom to control more effectively waste imports and exports. The regulation covers shipments destined for the recovery operations, as well as those going for final disposal.

  The United Kingdom is firmly committed to the objectives of the Basel convention. We have been making voluntary financial contributions to the running of the convention each year since 1990.

  Planning Conditions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has to intervene to establish legal planning conditions in a dispute arising from amended planning permission expiring under the Town and Country Planning Act 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State has the power to call in planning applications—including applications to vary conditions previously attached to a planning permission—for his own determination by virtue of section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State also has the duty to determine appeals made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  In exceptional circumstances, the Secretary of State has the power to make orders to revoke or modify planning permissions or to discontinue any use of land.

  Senior Regional Directors
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name the persons already appointed to the posts of senior regional directors, consequent to his decision to establish multi-departmental teams together with their biographical details and occupational experience; and what is the period of each appointment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  Eastern:

  John Turner

  East Midlands:

  Mark Lanyon

  Mersey side:

  John Stoker

  North East:

  Pamela Denham

  North West:

  Marianne Neville-Rolfe

  South East:

  Gillian Ashmore

  South West:

  Brian Leonard

  West Midlands:

  David Ritchie

  Yorkshire and Humberside:

  Jeremy Walker

  Biographical notes:

  Eastern

  John Turner has been Deputy Chief Executive of the Employment service since 1989. He joined the Civil service in 1967, and after 14 years in the Department of Trade and Industry and its predecessor Departments working on industry sponsorship at home and abroad, he trasferred to the Department of Employment group and worked on training polices and programmes in the then Manpower Services Commission. He then served as Principal Private Secretary to Lord Young and Sir Norman Fowler and was then Head of Small Firms and Tourism Division.

  East Midlands

  Mark Lanyon has been DTI's Regional Director for Yorkshire and Humberside since April 1993. He is a graduate of the University of

  145
  St. Andrews, a chartered engineer and a member of the British Institute of Management. He joined the Civil Service in 1963, and has served in the DTI's South West Regional Office, and from 1982–85 as Regional Director in the West Midlands office. His career also includes working on programmes designed to spread best practice in advanced manfacturing technology and managerial methods, computer aided engineering, advanced robotics and manfacturing processes. Between 1990 and 1993, he was Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs at the Office of Fair Trading.

  Merseyside

  John Stoker has been Director of the Merseyside Task Force since 1992. He was educated at King Edward's School, Birmingham and Brasenose College, Oxford. He joined the Department of the Environment in 1973. He has served in the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Office, based in Leeds (dealing with housing affairs), and in London on housing policy and rates reform. He also served as a Civil Service Selection Board assessor and in the Cabinet Office. Since 1985 he has headed Divisions responsible for departmental organisation, housing (Estate Action), the preparation of the 1990 Environment White Paper (Our Common Inheritance) and the coordination of the department's financial programmes.

  North East

  Pamela Denham has been Regional Director for the Department of Trade and Industry in the North East since 1990. She was educated at Central Newcastle High School, and holds a doctorate in Physics from King's College, London. She joined the Civil Service in 1967, and has spent much of her career working in policy related to Industry—including international negotiations, Government assistance for research and development, and running programmes to encourage the application of best practice and new technology. She led the Quality Design and Education Division of the DTI from 1985–89, before a secondment in the Management and Development Group at the Cabinet Office.

  North West

  Marianne Neville-Rolfe is at present Chief Executive of the Civil Service College and Director of the Cabinet Office Top Management Programme. She was educated at St. Mary's Convent, Shaftesbury, and Oxford University. After seven years with the Confederation of British Industry including two years in Brussels, she joined the Department of Trade and Industry in 1973. Her jobs there have included dealing with selective financial assistance to industry, the promotion of major export projects, and most recently, responsibility for policy towards the Single European Market, including ensuring that business was fully informed of the implications and opportunities.

  South East

  Gillian Ashmore is currently on secondment from the Department of Transport to the British Railways Board working on railway privatisation. She joined the Civil Service in 1971 and has worked variously in the Departments of the Environment, Transport, Employment and Trade and Industry. On the Transport side, she has worked mainly in the public transport field. In the latter two Departments she was Deputy Director of the Enterprise and Deregulation Unit. Mrs. Ashmore has also been a non-executive director of P & O European Transport.

  South West

  Brian Leonard is Regional Director for the Departments of Environment and Transport in Newcastle. He was educated at Dr. Challoner's Grammar School in Amersham and the London School of Economics. He joined the Civil Service in 1974 and has worked in divisions dealing with the Government's public expenditure and private rented sector housing, and on secondment to a major housing association in London. In 1986/87, he served as Assistant Private Secretary to two Secretaries of State and in 1987/88 spent a year in North America on a Hubert Humphrey Fellowship to the University of Minnesota. On return he served as a Regional Controller for Housing in the London Regional Office and as head of the division responsible for local authority housing finance policy in England.

  West Midlands

  David Ritchie is Regional Director of the Departments of Environment and Transport in Newcastle. He was educated at
  146
  Manchester Grammar School and St. John's College, Cambridge. He joined the Ministry of Transport in 1970 and he has had two spells in the joint Environment and Transport North West regional Office. He has also served in London dealing with Water Legislation and Housing association Policy.

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Jeremy Walker has been regional Director of the Employment Department in Yorkshire and Humberside for the last five years, and leader of the Leeds and Bradford City Action Team since 1990. He joined the Department of Employment in 1971 after graduating from Birmingham University. He has also worked in the Cabinet office; on an exchange programme with the Australian Government; and in the Manpower Services Commission, where he headed up the Community Programme and the New Job Training Scheme during the 1980s.

  The duration of these appointments will be up to three years in the first instance.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the job descriptions of the newly-appointed senior regional directors for urban regeneration; what variation there is between areas; and what specific duties will apply to that of the director for London.

  Mr. Baldry
  The duties of the new senior regional directors will be to implement Government policies in the English regions on behalf of the Department of Environment, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Employment—training, enterprise and education directorate—and Department of Transport; to ensure that the development of Government policies and programmes for the English regions are informed by local views and experience; and to contribute to Government policy formation for the regions. These duties will apply to all directors, including London, although the emphasis given to particular policies and programmes will differ from region to region to take account of local circumstances.

  Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 439, whether sections 59 and 60 of the Housing Act 1985 are also applicable before any local authority duties arise for securing accommodation for persons asked to leave by family or relatives.

  Sir George Young
  Section 65 of the Housing Act 1985 provides that where a local housing authority is satisfied that a homeless applicant has a priority need and is not intentionally homeless the authority must secure accommodation for him.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 439, if he will list the number of representations received about the operation of part III of the Housing Act 1985 which specifically referred to the House of Lords' decision in the case of Din v. London Borough of Wandsworth and to the operation of section 63 of the Act.

  Sir George Young
  The proposals in our consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies" have not been formulated in response to specific representations.
  147

  Local Authority Tenants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the companies commissioned in 1992–93 by his Department to carry out polling and market research of the views of council tenants; and if he will list the areas of research, the questionnaires used and report the results of the research.

  Sir George Young
  No companies were specifically commissioned to do so in 1992–93, but a number of the continuous general surveys carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which provide housing information for my Department, include council tenants in the sample. Examples of these are:

  The Survey of English Housing;

  The Family Expenditure Survey;

  The Omnibus Survey;

  The General Household Survey.

  All my Department's published research reports are placed in the House of Commons Library. Among those published in 1993 dealing with local authority housing are:

  Crime Prevention on Council Estates;

  Priority Estates Project Costs Effectiveness Study: Summary of Findings;

  An Evaluation of Estate Based Housing Management;

  An Evaluation of the First Year Experience of the Local Authority Reports to Tenants Regime.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority tenants received a personal copy of an annual report about standards of local authority housing management performance in 1992–93.

  Sir George Young
  Section 167 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires local authorities to send every tenant an annual report on their housing management performance.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority tenants had at July 1993 transferred to housing action trusts.

  Sir George Young
  Figures are not available for the number of tenants that have transferred to housing action trusts. However, the proportion of local authority dwellings which had transferred to housing action trusts at July 1993 was about 0·1 per cent.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of council house tenants had transferred their tenancy to a new landlord at July 1993.

  Sir George Young
  Between April 1988 and July 1993 nearly 119,000 dwellings were transferred out of local authority ownership as a result of large-scale transfers—LSVTs—tenants' choice and small-scale transfers. This represents about 2·75 per cent. of the council stock at 1 April 1988. A further 3,500 dwellings have transferred since July and another 25,000 should transfer by the end of March this year. The Department does not record the number of individual tenancies transferred to new landlords.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new rights were introduced for council tenants between July 1992 and July 1993 to simplify and strengthen their ability to get minor repairs affecting health, safety or crime prevention carried out by their landlord.
  148
  Sir George Young
  The existing right to repair scheme was introduced under the Housing Act 1985 and came into effect on 1 January 1986. The new right to repair scheme is being introduced under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in place of the current scheme, from 1 April 1994. The new scheme will be more effective in ensuring that tenants get certain small urgent repairs affecting their health, safety or security done quickly and at no expense to them.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority tenants enjoyed delegated management as at July 1993.

  Sir George Young
  By July 1993, the Secretary of State for the Environment had approved 71 management agreements for tenant management organisations on local authority estates. These cover approximately 35,000 homes, representing about 0·9 per cent. of local authority dwellings.

  Paignton Zoo
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make public his decision upon the recommendation of his inspector in respect of Paignton zoo under his reference SW/P/5183 and local planning authority reference 92/1161/OA.

  Mr. Baldry
  These proposals for a superstore and associated developments raise some complex issues. As soon as the inspector's report is received, the Secretary of State will write to the parties indicating his proposed timescale for the decision. The outcome will be made public at the earliest opportunity.

  Housing Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total amount of housing benefit subsidy otherwise payable to local authorities in England which was clawed back by negative entitlement under the housing revenue account subsidy formula in the last year for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  The total amount of rent rebates paid to local authority tenants for 1992–93 was £3,477 million of which £2,982 million was funded directly by housing revenue account subsidy. The details appear in the table.

  1992–93 outturn £ million

  Gross rent rebates

  3,477

  Housing subsidy negative entitlements

  -495

  Rebate element of HRA subsidy

  2,982

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the change in the annual level of United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions between the year 2000 and 2012, on the basis of current policies.
  149
  Mr. Atkins
  It is not possible to estimate future changes in United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions in 2000 and 2012 precisely. The analysis published in "Climate Change—the UK Programme" draws on the range of scenarios in energy paper 59. These suggest on the basis of past trends that United Kingdom emissions in 2000 could be between 3 million tonnes of carbon below and 19 million tonnes of carbon above the 1990 level; and in 2012 between 15 and 80 million tonnes of carbon higher than in 1990. The measures in the United Kingdom's programme should reduce emissions in 2000 by some 10 million tonnes of carbon, but it is not yet possible to assess what effect emissions reduction measures could have by 2012.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which major new policy commitments and initiatives announced in "Sustainable Development: the United Kingdom Strategy" have not already appeared in previous Government documents and ministerial speeches.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government did not delay practical commitment to sustainable development until we were ready to publish our strategy document. Many policies were therefore well in place by 25 January. However, among the new announcements made in the strategy are the Government's panel on sustainable development, a United Kingdom round table on sustainable development and a citizens' environment initiative. Each chapter in sections 3 and 4 contains a summary of the way forward in that sector or topic area.

  Secure Cycle Parking
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that there is adequate provision for secure cycle parking in new developments.

  Mr. Baldry
  Last year we published a draft planning policy guidance note 13 (PPG13) on planning and transport issues. It suggested that local authorities should encourage the provision of secure cycle parking at public transport interchanges, including railway stations and park and ride facilities, to increase the opportunities to use cycles in combination with public transport and car sharing. Provision of secure cycle parking facilities should be sought in all major developments and in town centres, and encouraged at education institutions. We hope to publish the final version of the guidance within the next few months.

  Construction Industry (Subcontracting)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to abolish labour-only subcontracting in the construction industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have no plans to abolish labour-only subcontracting.

  North Yorkshire County Council
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of money allocated from Government funds in the last financial year for each department of North Yorkshire county council; and what comparable amounts will be provided in the next financial year.
  150
  Mr. Baldry
  Central Government support—that is, revenue support grant and redistributed business rate income—is given in support of the provision of local services as a whole. It is not hypothecated to particular service departments. For 1993–94 central Government support to North Yorkshire county council is £283·4 million, of which revenue support grant is £135·3 million. For 1994–95 the corresponding figures are £290·5 million and £154·2 million respectively.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received on the issue of local government reorganisation since January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available, except at disproportionate cost.

  Minister for Local Government and Planning
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what areas under consideration by the Local Government Commission will be subject to special arrangements to ensure that the Minister for Local Government and Planning is not involved in decisions affecting local authorities in his constituency and those adjoining.

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government and Planning, will not be involved in decisions on the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire. Whether or not he is involved in decisions on recommendations for Lancashire and Cumbria will depend on the nature of those recommendations.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost to date of the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 24 January 1994 at column 29.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the reform of English local government to be completed.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The Local Government Commission has been directed to make final recommendations for change to local government structure, boundaries or electoral arrangements of the shire counties in England by the end of 1994. We expect to have completed implementation of any changes following from these recommendations by April 1997, subject to Parliament.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the average numbers of staff in each local authority in England who are engaged in work connected with his plans for the reform of local government.
  151
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: We have made no such assessment; this is a matter for individual authorities.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of his Department are engaged on work connected with his plans for local government reform.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: Numbers may vary from time to time, but the branch directly responsible for issues arising from the Local Government Commission's reviews has 12 members of staff at present. Staff elsewhere in the Department are involved as necessary.

  Showmen Sites
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the provision of permanent sites for showmen in the west midlands following his refusal on 21 January of appeals by J. Owen and the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: It is for local authorities in the west midlands to consider the needs of showpeople when preparing their development plans and determining planning applications. Guidelines relating to the provision of accommodation for showpeople are set out in Government circular 22/91.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Campsfield Detention Centre
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average total daily cost of detaining(a) an adult and (b) a child at the detention centre at Campsfield in Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is commercially confidential and it would not be proper to disclose it.

  Prison Conditions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in the United Kingdom, indicating which have slopping out; what is his definition of overcrowding; and which prisons are currently overcrowded.

  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 Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 8 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about slopping out and overcrowding.The attached table lists Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, indicating those at which there is slopping out or overcrowding. The Prison Service does not have responsibility for prisons in other parts of the United Kingdom.There are 31 establishments where there is still some element of slopping out but in many cases this involves very small numbers. At the end of December 1993, 89 per cent. of prisoners had full access to night sanitation facilities and this will rise to over 95 per cent. by the end of 1994.152 A Prison Service establishment is said to be overcrowded when the number of prisoners held in it is higher than its certified normal accommodation (CNA).

  Establishments with slopping out or overcrowding on 4 February 1994

  Establishment

  Cells without sanitation

  Population exceeding CNA (per cent.)

  Acklington

  0

  0

  Albany

  0

  0

  Aldington

  0

  0

  Ashwell

  0

  0

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  Aylesbury

  210

  0

  Bedford

  0

  133

  Belmarsh

  22

  0

  Birmingham

  18

  130

  Blakenhurst

  0

  0

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  Blundeston

  0

  0

  Brinsford

  0

  102

  Bristol

  102

  119

  Brixton

  179

  114

  Brockhill

  0

  103

  Bullingdon

  7

  0

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  Camp Hill

  0

  0

  Canterbury

  0

  133

  Cardiff

  0

  129

  Castington

  0

  0

  Channings Wood

  0

  0

  Chelmsford

  0

  147

  Coldingley

  0

  0

  Cookham Wood

  0

  0

  Dartmoor

  167

  0

  Deerbolt

  0

  0

  Dorchester

  0

  141

  Dover

  0

  0

  Downview

  0

  0

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  Durham

  202

  131

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  Elmley

  5

  0

  Erlestoke

  60

  0

  Everthorpe

  10

  0

  Exeter

  9

  141

  Featherstone

  0

  0

  Feltham

  15

  0

  Finnamore Wood

  0

  0

  Ford

  0

  0

  Frankland

  0

  0

  Full Sutton

  0

  0

  Garth

  0

  0

  Gartree

  12

  0

  Glen Parva

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  0

  117

  Grendon

  0

  0

  Guys Marsh

  0

  0

  Haslar

  0

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  Haverigg

  0

  0

  Hewell Grange

  0

  120

  Highdown

  0

  0

  Highpoint

  0

  0

  Hindley

  0

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  11

  0

  Holloway

  0

  0

  Holme House

  0

  0

  Hull

  0

  142

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  Kingston

  0

  0

  Kirkham

  0

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  0

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  Leeds

  508

  139

  Leicester

  0

  168

  Lewes

  130

  126

  153

  Establishment

  Cells without sanitation

  Population exceeding CNA (percent.)

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  88

  136

  Lindholme

  0

  0

  Littlehey

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  390

  144

  LongLartin

  0

  0

  Low Newton

  0

  131

  Maidstone

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  Moorland

  1

  0

  Morton Hall

  0

  104

  The Mount

  0

  0

  New Hall

  0

  0

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  Northallerton

  0

  106

  Norwich

  15

  0

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  Onley

  0

  0

  Parkhurst

  40

  0

  Pentonville

  200

  121

  Portland

  156

  0

  Prescoed

  0

  0

  Preston

  346

  141

  Pucklechurch

  0

  107

  Ranby

  0

  0

  Reading

  0

  0

  Risley

  0

  0

  Rochester

  21

  0

  Rudgate

  0

  0

  Send

  0

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  0

  115

  Shrewsbury

  0

  176

  Spring Hill

  0

  0

  Stafford

  0

  0

  Standford Hill

  4

  0

  Stocken

  0

  0

  Stoke Heath

  0

  0

  Styal

  0

  112

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  Swaleside

  0

  0

  Swansea

  0

  116

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  0

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  Thorp Arch

  0

  0

  Usk

  0

  0

  The Verne

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  36

  101

  Wandsworth

  288

  102

  Wayland

  0

  0

  Wellingborough

  0

  109

  Werrington

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  0

  0

  Whatton

  5

  0

  Whitemoor

  0

  0

  Winchester

  0

  0

  The Wolds

  0

  102

  Woodhill

  0

  0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  333

  123

  Wymott

  0

  0

  Prisoner Accommodation
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use Army camps and prison ships for accommodating prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange to a reply to be given.
  154
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 8 February 1994.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prison ships and Army camps. The Prison Service is considering a number of options, including marine detention facilities and Army camps, as part of its contingency planning. The aim is to identify means for coping with any emergency where the prison population exceeds the available accommodation. There are no current plans to use either option.

  Prison Violence
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of violence between prisoners took place in each year since 1990.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 8 February 1994.
  VIOLENCE BETWEEN PRISONERS The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many incidents of violence between prisoners took place in each year since 1990.The information you have requested is given in the attached table.

  Prison adjudications where inmate found guilty1 of assault on an inmate or fighting, England and Wales, 1990–1993

  Year

  Offence

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  Assault on an inmate2

  1,917

  1,944

  2,060

  2,344

  Fighting3

  5,915

  5,644

  5,865

  6,397

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Includes attempting, inciting or assisting an assault on an inmate.

  3 Includes inciting or assisting fighting.

  Source: Statistics of offences against prison discipline and punishment, England and Wales, 1990 (Cm 1651), 1991 (Cm 2066), and 1992 (Cm 2411).

  Drugs Prevention Initiative
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with his Department's drugs prevention initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am publishing today the drugs prevention initiative's third annual progress report, which sets out an encouraging record of community-based drugs prevention activity in the 12 months 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993, particularly in the 20 areas with local drugs prevention teams. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library.

  European Elections (Voting)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to inform EC nationals resident in the United Kingdom of their right to vote in the European elections; and what arrangements will be made to allow EC national to register on the electoral roll to enable them to vote in the European elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham,
  155
  Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 2 February at column 703. Application forms for Community citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral register will be made available once the European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) Regulations 1994 have been approval by Parliament.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in the last year for which figures are available the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board paid out compensation where a conviction had not been secured.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regret that this information is not available. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does not collate information in such a way as to distinguish cases in which there has been a conviction for the crime giving rise to the claim for compensation.

  Forged Passport
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent deportation of a woman who arrived at Gatwick airport to meet a flight as a sponsor and was found to have a forged passport.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 15 December 1993 a Jamaican woman was recognised by police officers at Gatwick airport and arrested on suspicion of being in breach of the immigration laws. She was interviewed under caution in the presence of a solicitor. In the light of the information available, she was judged to be an illegal entrant and was detained as such. She subsequently signed a notice that she wished to leave for Jamaica as soon as possible and did so on 22 December.

  DNA Genetic Fingerprint Database
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a national DNA genetic fingerprint database; whether the database will be held on the police national computer; and whether the database will include personal data which relate to individuals who have committed no crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 3 February that the Forensic Science Service and the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory are to carry out a pilot study on the running of a national DNA database. The pilot study will be completed in March 1994 and it will include the development of the necessary IT software and hardware for a national database.

  No decisions have yet been taken on who will, in the long term, run the national database. The national intelligence database will contain only DNA records of stains from unsolved crimes and of convicted criminals but of no one else.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles were convicted of offences in Gloucestershire in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1992 is given in the table. Data for 1993 will not be available until the autumn.
  156

  Number and percentage of juveniles1 convicted at all courts in Gloucestershire police force area by type of offence 1992

  Type of offence

  Juveniles

  All ages2

  Number

  Per cent.

  Indictable

  236

  8

  2,916

  Summary non-motoring

  74

  2

  4,410

  Summary motoring

  36

  0

  9,728

  Total

  346

  2

  17,054

  1 Persons aged 10 and under 17 years.

  2 =100 per cent.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the rate of re-offending by juveniles who have(a) been placed in secure accommodation and (b) been placed in alternative private residential homes or schools.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Prisoners' Compact
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons that, as at July 1993(a) operated a prisoners' compact explaining the facilities available to prisoners whilst in prison and what was expected from them and (b) did not operate a prisoners' compact.

  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 Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 8 February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking him to list those prisons that, as at July 1993 (a) operated a prisoners' compact explaining the facilities available to prisoners whilst in prison and what was expected of them and (b) did not operate a prisoners' compact.

  Listed below are those establishments which in June 1993 were operating prisoner compacts similar to the type described in the question:

  Blantyre House

  Brinsford

  Bristol—(Pilot scheme in one wing)

  Canterbury—(Unconvicted wing and Resettlement wing)

  Cardiff—(Remand wing)

  Deerbolt—(Pilot scheme)

  Drake Hall

  Erlestoke—(Education Department)

  Haslar

  Kirklevington Grange

  Leyhill

  Lindholme—(One wing)

  Low Newton

  Manchester—(Education Department)

  Moorland

  Swinfen Hall

  Thorn Cross

  Thorpe Arch

  Werrington

  Wetherby

  Compacts were also being experimented with at the following establishments:

  Bullwood Hall

  Downview

  Frankland

  Hull

  157

  Latchmere House

  Morton Hall

  North Sea Camp

  Norwich

  Rudgate

  Swaleside

  Usk/Prescoed

  Wakefield

  Whitemoor

  Wolds

  Inspectorate of Constabulary
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspectors the inspectorate of constabulary had in May 1993; and how many of these were lay inspectors.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In May 1993, there were seven inspectors of constabulary and one chief inspector of constabulary in Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. There were no lay inspectors in post at that time.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Data Protection Registrar on the applicability of each data

  Table 1 Period from first listing to completion in magistrates courts, for defendants remanded in custody throughout their proceedings, for indictable offences, by type of proceedings

  England and Wales

  Number and percentage

  October 1991 to June 19921

  October 1992 to June 19931

  Type of proceedings

  Number in sample

  More than 56 days Per cent.

  More than 70 days Per cent.

  Number in sample

  More than 56 days Per cent.

  More than 70 days Per cent.

  Summary trial

  Guilty plea

  254

  11

  6

  255

  7

  4

  Not guilty plea

  83

  22

  13

  77

  25

  13

  Plea not recorded

  27

  30

  12

  17

  24

  24

  All summary trials

  364

  15

  8

  349

  12

  7

  Committal proceedings

  Full committal

  100

  71

  50

  91

  54

  35

  Paper committal

  617

  37

  19

  532

  18

  10

  All committal proceedings

  717

  42

  24

  623

  23

  14

  Other proceedings

  65

  14

  2

  82

  5

  4

  All proceedings

  1,146

  32

  17

  1,054

  18

  11

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

  Name Badges (Police Officers)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police services in Great Britain in which uniformed police officers on the beat(a) wear and (b) do not wear name badges.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is not available in the form requested. Name badges are worn by some or all officers in the following police forces in England and Wales:

  Bedfordshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Devon and Cornwall

  Dyfed-Powys

  Essex

  Greater Manchester

  Kent

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  South Wales

  158
  protection principle to the definition of record in clause 43(4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Officials met with representatives of the Data Protection Registrar on 20 January to discuss the data protection issues arising from those clauses in the Bill which are concerned with the taking and retention of body samples. The views of the Data Protection Registrar will be taken fully into account during the passage of the Bill.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of remand prisoners brought to trial (i) between July 1992 and 30 June 1993 and (ii) 1 July 1991 and 30 June 1992(a) had spent more than 56 days in custody since their first appearance at a magistrates court and (b) had spent more than 70 days from first appearance before magistrates to committal in the Crown court.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information, which is collected in sample weeks in February, June and October of each year for indictable offences—including either way—is given in the following table:

  South Yorkshire

  Suffolk

  Thames Valley

  West Mercia

  National Alliance of Women's Organisations
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about funding of the National Alliance of Women's Organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the three months ended 31 January 1994 35 letters containing representations about the funding of the National Alliance of Women's Organisations were received in the Home Office. As I made clear on 2 February at column 703, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), there are insufficient resources to fund this organisation in 1994–95.
  159

  Firearms Permits
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms permits there are currently in force in(a) Blyth Valley and (b) south Northumberland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is not available on the number of firearm and shotgun certificates currently in force in Blyth valley and south Northumberland. I understand, though, from the Northumbria police that the number of firearm and shotgun certificates currently in force in the south-west and south-east Northumberland police districts is as follows:

  District

  Firearm certificates

  Shot gun certificates

  Total

  South West Northumberland

  502

  1,269

  1,771

  South East Northumberland

  533

  1,311

  1,844

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the subjects on which his Department formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by him to an executive agency.

  Mr. Howard
  Next steps agency executives are usually asked to reply to parliamentary questions about the day-to-day operational matters of their agency and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in their agency's framework document.

  DNA Fingerprints
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy that all reasonable steps are taken to destroy the DNA genetic fingerprints of those who have committed no crime;

  (2) what is his policy on whether personal data representing a DNA genetic fingerprint and which relate to individuals who are present at the scene of crime can be retained by the police indefinitely.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend's policy on the taking and use of DNA samples by the police mirrors as closely as possible the existing, tried and tested regime for the taking of fingerprints. At present fingerprints and samples must be destroyed if the person from whom they were taken is cleared or not proceeded against.

  There are practical problems in the destruction of material generated in the processing of DNA profiles. These problems arise where the samples relating to one case are processed together to reduce experimental distortion; and with computer records where total erasure may be impractical. It is also important to ensure that records remain intact for any subsequent inquiries into alleged miscarriages of justice.

  The important principle is that information from unconvicted suspects should not be retained on the intelligence database and should not be used against them either in evidence or for the purposes of investigating offences. My right hon. and learned Friend has undertaken to introduce an amendment to clause 42 of the Criminal
  160
  Justice and Public Order Bill to clarify the circumstances in which information derived from samples taken from unconvicted suspects should be able to be retained but protected from use in evidence or in the investigation of offences.

  Crime Detection
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the crime detection rates for each police authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole for each year since 1987;

  (2) what are the crime detection rates for the latest convenient period for each police authority in England and for England as a whole.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published in table 2.11 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1992", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he commissioned a survey of data users' view of the European Commission's data protection directive separate from the independent and comprehensive survey of data users commissioned by the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The European Commission has asked member states for their assessment of the costs of implementing the directive. It was necessary to seek data users' views in order to respond to this request.

  Deputy Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the deputy lords lieutenant in England and their dates of appointment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A comprehensive record of the names and dates of appointment of the 1,870 deputy lieutenants in England is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am having placed in the Library the addresses of the 46 lieutenancy offices in England, from which the information in respect of local deputy lieutenants may be obtained.

  Juries
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures were introduced between July 1992 and June 1993 to allow juries to go home at the end of the working day.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such measures were introduced. It is already possible for a jury to separate up to the time at which it is directed to consider its verdict. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will allow a court, where it thinks fit, to permit a jury to separate once the jury has begun its deliberations.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Hepple
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations were consulted by his Department, on each of the recommendations of the business deregulation task forces before they were agreed and action proposed in the DTI document, "Deregulation: Cutting the Red Tape".
  161
  Mr. Howard
  Each of the task force recommendations agreed, or agreed in principle, by the Government has been or will be the subject of appropriate consultation with interested parties.

  Ministers (Travel)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State since 27 May 1993.

  Mr. Howard
  These costs are met from a larger budget within which there is no specific allocation to individual Ministers. Information about the cost of internal travel by car is not readily available. The cost of my internal travel by other means is £1,793 since 27 May 1993. The cost of overseas travel for the same period is £3,553.

  Deportation (Physical Restraints)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the use during deportations of(a) handcuffs, (b) arm restraints, (c) leg restraints, (d) bodybelts and (e) tape was authorised by his Department's guidelines prior to the joint Home Office/Metropolitan police review of deportations published on 12 January.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Arrangements were introduced in April 1993 requiring private security firms to seek prior authority from at least inspector level of the Immigration Service for the use of handcuffs, save in unforeseen emergencies where an essential need arises on safety or security grounds. Arrangements for obtaining authority at a more senior level for the exceptional use of leg restraints, the only other form of restraint which might be used by the private sector, were introduced following the events surrounding the death of Mrs. Joy Gardner.

  The Home Office issued a circular of guidance in 1992 to all chief officers of police on the appropriate use of handcuffs following arrest. This would include cases in which a person has been arrested prior to deportation. The circular was prepared in close consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, self defence committee.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Data Protection Tribunal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Data Protection Tribunal currently consists of:

  Chairman

  J. A. C. Spokes, QC

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor A. L. Diamond

  Rear-Admiral J. H. T. Walters, CB

  Members

  Professor T. F. Carberry, OBE

  Mr. A. B. Cowling

  Mrs. K. Foss

  Mr. J. Hanson, OBE

  Professor W. W. Holland

  Mr. B. Kelly

  Mr. G. Lanchin

  Mr. A. Lawrence

  162

  Mr. P. E. Lumb

  Mr. P. R. Oglesby, CB

  Sir Leonard Peach

  Mr. D. L. Perrot

  Mr. L. A. Plowman, CBE

  Mr. A. W. Pragnell, CBE

  Mr. J. C. Richards, MBE

  Mr. J. M. Ross

  Mr. V. Ross

  Dr. M. Smith

  Mr. E. H. Thomas

  Mr. N. J. F. Watson

  Professor G. J. Zellick

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the office of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Data Protection Registrar is Mr. Eric Howe, CBE.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Board on Restricted Patients.

  Mr. Maclean
  The current members are:

  Her Honour Judge Valerie Pearlman, Chairman;

  Mrs. Lindsey Addyman, JP;

  Mr. Malcom Bryant (Chief Probation Officer, Berkshire); Dr. Derek Chiswick (Consultant Forensic Science Psychiatrist, Royal Edinburgh Hospital);

  Dr. James Higgins (Consultant Forensic Science Psychiatrist, Scott Clinic, Liverpool);

  Commander Sally Hubbard (Assistant Inspector of Constabulary);

  Mr. Michael Lindsey (Deputy Director of Social Services, Shrosphire);

  Ms Rosy Mannion (Solicitor)

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to all boards of visitors to penal establishments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am arranging for details of the current membership of the board of visitors for each prison establishment in England and Wales to be placed in the Library.

  Psychotherapy (Offenders)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what funding his Department provides for psychotherapy of offenders and ex-offenders(a) whilst in custody and (b) after release;

  (2) what is (a) the average cost and (b) the average length of a course of psychotherapy for offenders;

  (3) how many persons (a) in prison and (b) on probation have been given courses of psychotherapy in each of the last five years;

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of psychotherapy of offenders in reducing reoffending behaviour.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Robert Maclennan dated 8 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the provision of psychotherapy for offenders and ex-offenders.163 All psychotherapy rests on the assumption that problems with an origin in earlier damaging experiences are capable of correction through a new and different personal relationship with a trained therapist. There are various styles of such treatment including individual psychotherapy and group psychotherapy.In the Prison Service group psychotherapy is employed at HM Prisons Grendon and Wormwood Scrubs, and HM Young Offender Insititution Glen Parva. At HMP Grendon research undertaken by Gunn and Robertson (A Ten Year Follow-up of Men Discharged from Grendon Prison) and Genders and Player (Grendon - A Study of a Therapeutic Community within the Prison System) confirms that attitudinal changes to take place in inmates undergoing therapy. For example, Genders and Player claimed that within six months, 71% had abandoned the conventional inmate pecking order, 68% could talk to prison officers about personal matters, and that after 12 months 60% were able to disclose if illicit activities were taking place. All felt less isolated and less directed. In addition prisoners had an insight into their own problems and a greater understanding of others.Nevertheless until recently there has been no evidence of a reduction of recidivism by prisoners released from Grendon, although there was evidence that those who reoffend committed offences of a lesser order. However, research yet unpublished (Cullen 1992) indicates that prisoners released from Grendon over the last five years have in fact reoffended proportionally less often then the prison population as a whole. Similarly a study by Jones in 1988 (The hospital annexe: a preliminary evaluation report) at the Wormwood Scrubs annexe showed that those completing the course of therapy had a reconviction rate significantly lower than those who had failed to complete the treatment.A combination of group psychotherapy and individual psychotherapy has been employed at the C Wing Special Unit at HM Prison Parkhurst for the last two years. Whilst this work has not yet been formally evaluated there has no doubt been a significant change in the attitude in many of the men undergoing therapy, exemplified by their willingness to come to terms with past traumas and to diplay a greater degree of self-confidence.Psychotherapy is also carried out in establishments on an individual basis by visiting consultant psychiatrists. However, because of the constraints of doctor/patient confidentiality, it is impossible to ascertain what proportion of such sessions could be considered psychotherapeutic; although it is likely that all such sessions will contain some element of this type of treatment.The treatment of sex offenders within the Prison Service falls into two broad categories, medical or educational, depending on whether treatment consists of a form of psychotherapy or is based on a cognitive behaviour approach. For the former, facilities exist in Her Majesty's Prison Grendon and the Wormwood Scrubs Annexe, where therapy is conducted through group and one to one sessions involving psychiatrists, psychologists, and other special staff; and at HMYOI Glen Parva which provides similar programmes for young offenders. Therapy or treatment is also provided at many establishments on an individual basis according to the clinical needs of the prisoners.The second category of treatment is being facilitated by the Prison Service sex offender programme which was introduced in 1992 and targeted initially at prisoners who receive sentences of four years or more. The programme, which is educational rather than medical in character is divided into two main sub-programmes.

  A core programme, which tackles offenders distorted beliefs about relationships;

  and

  an extended programme for those who represent the greatest risk.

  At present there are seven prisons acting as assessment centres, 13 providing core programmes and seven providing extended programmes. In addition, two establishments offer concentrated core programmes for high risk inmates serving less than four years.In 1992–93 there were 16,737 prisoners referred to visiting consultant psychiatrists, compared with 17,583 in 1991–92 and 13,396 in 1990–91.I regret that the exact number who have undergone psychotherapy, the cost of such treatment and that proportion of the psychiatric budget apportioned to psychotherapy is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.164

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 February, c. 713]: The Director General of the Prison Service has now written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 8 February 1994:
  Further to your recent Parliamentary Question, the Home Secretary has asked me to give you details of those members of Prison Service staff judged guilty of fraud in each year since 1989, and the numbers of those who have been dismissed.
  The information is as follows:

  1989—One member of staff convicted and dismissed.

  1990—One member of staff convicted and dismissed.

  1991—None.

  1992—Two members of staff convicted: one resigned, one dismissed.

  1993—Two members of staff convicted and dismissed.

  1994—One member of staff convicted: still under consideration.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile offenders were placed by local authorities last year in private residential homes or schools such as Bryn Melyn in Wales.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information available centrally about the number of children and young people accommodated compulsorily by local authorities relates to the legislation under which they are held and not to offences committed or alleged.

  The most recently held information relates to the period 14 October 1991 to 31 March 1992 and is based on valid information received from 90 local authorities. It is estimated that, in England, between 40 and 50 children or young people who were subject to a care order in criminal proceedings and between 30 and 40 who were on remand were accommodated compulsorily by local authorities in private residential homes or schools in this period.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Post Boxes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what consultations took place about the design of post boxes in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Following consultation between officials of the House and the Post Office, which had agreed to commission and bear the cost of new post boxes, advice was sought on their practicability and design from the relevant Committees of both Houses and professional advisers. The introduction of the new boxes followed a limited trial period and an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  165

  Dining Rooms (Bookings)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will ensure that all bookings of private dining rooms in the Palace of Westminster are published each month.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: No.

  Smoking
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will report progress regarding a policy on smoking in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: Following the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on 14 June last, the Commission has discussed policy on smoking in the House, and has concluded that this is a matter primarily for individual Departments of the House, for the relevant Domestic Select Committees, and for mutual agreement between the occupants of offices. The Library, Finance and Administration, and Refreshment Departments have taken action to formalise voluntary no smoking arrangements for their staff.

  There has been no change in the arrangements which prohibit or curtail smoking in certain parts of the House used by Members. In addition, Rooms A, C and D of the Members' Library have been designated no smoking areas and the Catering Committee has agreed to the establishment of no smoking areas or arrangements in all Refreshment Department outlets.

  In addition, the Refreshment Department has established, in consultation with relevant staff representatives, a mandatory no smoking policy to meet statutory requirements for its storage, production and service areas.

  The Administration Committee has smoking policy on its agenda for consideration in the near future.

  Departmental Select Committees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many departmental select committee reports there have been since 1979; and how many have been debated in the House on a substantive motion.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him by my predecessor on 13 June 1989 at column 358 and 11 November 1991 at column 365, which give the information up to the end of Session 1990–91. During Sessions 1991–92 and 1992–93, departmental Select Committees published 109 reports and 58 special reports. One was debated on a substantive motion; many others have been debated in other ways, including debates on Estimates days and other occasions when reports were cited on the Order Paper as relevant to proceedings in the House. Information on all such debates is published in the Select Committees section of the sessional returns.

  Sitting Days
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many working days the House sat; and how many it was in recess in each of the last 20 calendar years.
  166
  Mr. Newton
  The table sets out the number of sitting and non-sitting days in the 20 years from 1974 to 1993. The number of non-sitting days does not include weekends or bank holidays.

  Calendar years

  Sitting days

  Non-sitting days1

  1974

  151

  2102

  1975

  178

  75

  1976

  190

  64

  1977

  159

  94

  1978

  170

  83

  1979

  146

  2107

  1980

  173

  81

  1981

  177

  76

  1982

  175

  78

  1983

  154

  299

  1984

  171

  83

  1985

  171

  82

  1986

  166

  87

  1987

  150

  2103

  1988

  173

  81

  1989

  176

  77

  1990

  176

  77

  1991

  165

  88

  1992

  148

  2106

  1993

  165

  88

  Average

  167

  87

  1Weekends and bank holidays are assumed to account for 112 days each year.

  2General election year.

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members are drawing the new salary which came into force on 1 January.

  Mr. Newton
  Five hundred and fifty one right hon. and hon. Members are currently drawing the new full parliamentary salary and 92 right hon. and hon. Members are drawing the new reduced parliamentary salary payable to Ministers and office holders, both of which came into force on 1 January 1994.

EDUCATION

  Student Debt
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the value of the average debt incurred by students concluding their courses.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is as follows:

  Course completed at end of academic year 1992–93

  Average (mean) debt outstanding £

  Commercial borrowing:

  1Younger students (aged 26 or less at start of course)

  430

  Student loans:

  2All students

  440

  1Source: Student Income and Expenditure Survey 1992–93

  2Source: Student Loans Company

  Information on average commercial borrowing by older students is not currently available: hence the two figures should not be added.
  167

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the annual running cost of the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Boswell
  United Kingdom grant-in-aid for 1993–94 for the running costs of the Student Loans Company is £.16·105 millions. This includes contributions from the Scottish Office Education Department and the Department for Education, Northern Ireland.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average cost of assisted places in each local education authority in 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) on 17 January at column 410.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of dismantling the HMI office network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Ofsted. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Departmental Regional Offices
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide an estimate of the costs of establishing regional offices of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has no plans to establish regional offices.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the local education authorities which maintain sixth forms in schools and colleges of lesser size than the minimum recommended in the 1985 White Paper, "Better Schools", Cmnd 9469.

  Mr. Boswell
  The local education authorities in England which in January 1993 were maintaining some secondary schools with sixth forms with fewer than 150 pupils are as follows:

  Avon

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Brent

  Bromley

  Buckinghamshire

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  Camden

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Coventry

  168

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Durham

  Ealing

  East Sussex

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gateshead

  Gloucestershire

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hampshire

  Haringey

  Havering

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertforshire

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Islington

  Kent

  Kingston upon Thames

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Lancashire

  Lambeth

  Leeds

  Leicestershire

  Lewisham

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newham

  Norfolk

  North Tyneside

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Oldham

  Oxfordshire

  Redbridge

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  St. Helens

  Sandwell

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  Shropshire

  Solihull

  Somerset

  Southwark

  Staffordshire

  Stockport

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Sutton

  Tameside

  Tower Hamlets

  Trafford

  Waltham Forest

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Wandsworth

  Warwickshire

  Westminster

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  169

  Grant Maintained Schools Centre Ltd.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what outstanding moneys were owed by the organisation Choice in Education to the Grant Maintained Schools Centre Ltd. as at February 1993; for what purpose the money was originally transferred; and why it was outstanding;

  (2) which staff employed by Choice in Education had salaries paid from Grant Maintained Schools Centre Ltd. funds; when such payments were made; and when Choice in Education was recharged.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for accounting arrangements concerning those activities of the Grant Maintained Schools Centre Ltd. which are not grant aided. The centre's auditors have certified that Government grants have been used for purposes approved by my right hon. Friend. No part of any Government grant to the centre was used to fund Choice in Education.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what weaknesses in the financial systems operated by the Grant Maintained Schools Centre Ltd. were identified by his Department's internal report of February 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Grant Maintained Schools Centre Ltd. has addressed the weaknesses in financial systems mentioned in the Department's internal report. The auditors' report on the company's accounts for 1992–93 include clear statements that following improvements in its systems the centre is maintaining adequate financial controls and that Government grant was used for the intended purposes.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what ex gratia payments have been made by the Grant Maintained Schools Centre Ltd.; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any ex gratia payments made by the Grant Maintained Schools Centre Ltd. other than elements of redundancy payments to a small number of staff.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 2 February at column 738.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education who are the members currently appointed to the School Teachers' Review Body.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The current members of the School Teachers' Review Body are:

  Mr. John Gardiner

  Mrs. Brigita Amey

  Mr. Alan Cox CBE

  Mr. Philip Halsey CB LVO

  Mr. Mike Harding

  Mrs. Gill Rostron

  Mrs. Anna Vinton

  170

  School Inspections
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many contracts for the inspection of schools have been let this year in each local education authority; and, of these, what proportion have been let to an inspection team(a) from the same local education authority and (b) from another local education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The arrangements for inspecting schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992, including the awarding of contracts to registered inspectors, are a matter for Ofsted. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of(a) primary schools in England and (b) secondary schools in England Ofsted expects to inspect in the academic year 1993–94.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school inspections have now been published by the Office for Standards in Education; and how many of these resulted in an overall assessment of(a) good, (b) satisfactory and (c) unsatisfactory.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The arrangements for inspecting schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 are a matter for Ofsted. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Members.

  Administration and Support Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects the Audit Commission to publish comparative tables on efficiency of administration and support services in the different local education authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Audit Commission will publish national comparisons of performance in 1995 across a broad range of services, including the provision of an educational service. Before then, each local authority will publish details of its own performance in a local newspaper circulating in its area.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what are the responsibilities of the property controller of the Further Education Funding Council;

  (2) how many hours per week the new property controller will work in the Further Education Funding Council; and what remuneration and allowances he will be given.

  Mr. Boswell
  The new head of property services at the Further Education Funding Council will be responsible for leading a team of professionally qualified building advisers and support staff who advise the council on capital policy matters and provide guidance and assistance to colleges on estate management and the development of accommodation strategies. His appointment is full time and is on civil service terms appropriate to a grade 6 special appointment on a fixed-term contract.
  171

  Examination Results
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many complaints were received about the accuracy of the data published by his Department about the public examination results achieved by schools, further education and sixth form colleges in the 1992–93 academic year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has received 146 complaints. Investigation of these complaints has indicated 47 errors for which the Department or its contractors were responsible; 34 errors for which the school or college was wholly or partly responsible; 11 errors for which no responsibility was attributable; and 54 instances where the complaint was unsubstantiated. Fewer than 1 per cent. of schools and colleges had incorrect entries in the tables as a result of an error by the Department or its contractors.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost of advertising grant-maintained schools in the national press(a) in total and (b) in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total expenditure on advertisements designed to make factual information about grant-maintained schools available to parents, governors and schools is around £400,000, of which £200,000 relates to the 1992–93 financial year and around £200,000 to the current financial year.

  Disabled Student's Allowance
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for education what has been the financial allocation through the disabled student's allowance by the local education authorities in England and Wales to students with disabilities in higher education in each year since 1990–91 to(a) students studying in Scotland and (b) students studying in England and Wales; and how many individual students this represents.

  Mr. Boswell
  Returns from LEAs in England and Wales show that the gross value of disabled students' allowances made by them as part of mandatory awards was £869,000 in the 1990–91 academic year and £1,960,000 in 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available. These two figures are not directly comparable because the data collected for 1990–91 were incomplete. Disabled students' allowances form part of the student's total maintenance requirement. The net grant payable may be lower once his resources have been taken into account. Mandatory awards are made to students who are domiciled in England and Wales in respect of their attendance on courses in the United Kingdom. Information on the number of students in receipt of disabled students' allowances and their places of study is not collected centrally.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the companies commissioned by his Department in 1992–93 to carry out polling and market research about the views of parents of school pupils in the course of preparing an updated parents charter; and if he will list the areas of research, the questionnaires used and the groups questioned.
  172
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Research on a draft text and design of the parents charter was carried out in 1993–94. The identity of the company commissioned to carry out the research is commercial in confidence.

  As is usual in qualitative research, the research was conducted through group discussions rather than via a questionnaire. The research covered the readability and content of the text, and its relevance and value for parents. It also looked at the effectiveness of the design and layout, and the preferred distribution route to parents. The research groups were a representative mix of parents, reflecting a number of socio-economic categories, both urban and rural areas, and different geographical regions.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the subjects on which his Department or its predecessors formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by him to an executive agency.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The chief executive of the Teachers' Pensions Agency has, under the terms of the agency's framework document, responsibility to deal directly with parliamentary questions on day-to-day operational matters and on those matters for which the Chief Executive has delegated authority.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what extra resources will be made available for the financial years 1994–95 and 1996–97 to assist education authorities with the provision of classes for three to five-year-olds in maintained primary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The local government finance settlement for 1994–95 takes account of the broad range of pressures on local authorities, including the projected number of pupils aged under five in maintained schools, as published in the Department's annual report. The settlement reflects the fact that it is up to each local authority to decide what provision to make for children aged under five.

  Religious Education
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the names of those who made submissions in response to the draft circular on religious education and collective worship x/94, published in October 1993; and when he expects to publish the results of his consultation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received 327 submissions in response to the draft circular on religious education and collective worship: 108 from LEAs or standing advisory councils on religious education; 62 from church or religious groups; 134 from educational groups; and 23 from other groups and individuals. Individual submissions received are treated as sent in confidence. It would therefore be inappropriate for my right hon. Friend to list the names of those who sent them, or to publish them. The comments received were taken into account in the final circular 1/94, published on 31 January.
  173
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions he will make for the teaching of humanism as part of religious education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Religious education concerns the development of children's knowledge, understanding and awareness of religious beliefs and practices; the encouragement of respect for those holding different beliefs; and the development of the ability to make reasoned and informed judgments about religious and moral issues.

  Humanism is not a religion and should not be taught in religious education lessons as if it were. A syllabus may, however, include teaching about people, such as humanists, who do not believe in God but nonetheless have a code of moral values, or give examples of secular equivalents to practices which have a religious background such as the marriage service or the taking of an oath. The detailed content of an agreed syllabus for religious education is decided by a local agreed syllabus conference.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had regarding the publication of the model syllabuses for religious education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend, has received 24 letters from members of the public since the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) published its draft model syllabuses for religious education on 25 January. The SCAA has invited comments on the models during a consultation period of two months.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many changes have been made to the national curriculum since the guide to the national curriculum was published in 1991; how many revised versions of the guide have been published since then; and if the current version is up to date.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The second edition of the "Parent's Guide to the National Curriculum", published in June 1992, contained two changes to the curriculum on which the Government were consulting at the time the first edition was published. This current version does not reflect the changes to key stage 4 resulting from the Dearing report, which have not yet been given statutory effect.

  Choice of School
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of parents had received by July 1993(a) a written report on their child's progress in school and (b) a reminder of their right of appeal and how to use it in cases where the local education authority or school governors refuse them a place for their child in the school of their choice.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the current reporting regulations schools are required to send a written report to all parents on their child's progress at least once in every school year. It is for individual schools to decide when to do so. All admission authorities are required by law to remind parents of their right of appeal when informing them of a decision not to allocate a place for their child at their preferred school.
  174

SCOTLAND

  Land Disposal
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conditions are attached to the disposal of Exchequer-funded land and buildings by further education colleges in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The conditions will allow further education colleges to retain the proceeds of sale of Exchequer-funded land and buildings without reference to the annual supply procedures, within specified limits agreed by the Secretary of State. These conditions are among those set out in an amendment to the financial memorandum between the Department and each FE college board of management, a copy of which I will be placing in the Library.

  Betterment Levy
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about continued collection of betterment levy imposed by the Land Commission Act 1967.

  Sir Hector Monro
  It is no longer cost effective to continue pursuing collection of the betterment levy. In the 1992–93 financial year, five amounts of the levy and interest totalling £39,125·56 were written off. There remain five cases outstanding in Scotland totaling £7,880·59 and I have decided that these should be written off also.

  War Crimes Act
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on whether any charges are to be made in Scotland under the War Crimes Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate issued the following statement on 3 February 1994:"A specialised Crown Office Unit was formed in May 1991 to investigate allegations that persons living in Scotland were responsible for war crimes committed during the Second World War.
  Extensive and thorough investigations of these allegations were carried out by the staff of the Unit in the United Kingdom and overseas. The results of these enquiries were reported to Crown Counsel.
  After careful consideration Crown Counsel have decided that, as matters stand, there is not at present sufficient available evidence for a criminal prosecution in any of the cases reported to them.
  Since no war crimes cases remain under active investigation in Scotland, a specialised unit will not be maintained. As with all serious enquiries, however, it will remain open to the criminal authorities to resume their investigations, should fresh evidence be brought to their attention. Any new allegations will, of course, be treated on their merits and investigated as their circumstances require."

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the subjects on which his Department or its predecessors formerly answered parliamentary questions directly but which are now referred by him to an executive agency.

  Mr. Lang
  I normally ask the chief executives of the executive agencies for which I am responsible to reply to
  175
  parliamentary questions on subjects covering operational matters carried out by them under the terms of their framework document. Such replies are then published in the Official Report.

  Barrhead Regeneration Strategy
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects which(a) have been completed, (b) are under way, (c) are legally committed and (d) are planned under the Barrhead regeneration strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following information has been provided by Renfrew district council, which chairs the Barrhead regeneration working party:

  Projects completed

  1. The landscape and environmental improvements at Main Street, Cochrane Street, Levern Water, Glen Street areas.

  2. Corridor enhancement at the Barrhead/Hurlet Road.

  3. Surveys and reports on traffic shopping, and housing conditions in the town centre and townscape/floorscape study.

  4. Tenemental refurbishment at Walton Street, Henry Street/George Street and Main Street.

  5. New build housing developments at Henry Street/George Street and John Street.

  Projects underway

  1. Further landscape and environmental improvements at Main Street, Glen Street, Levern Water.

  2. Main Street widening and realignment.

  3. Further townscape/floorscape studies, and floodlighting study.

  Money spent

  Project

  Renfrew District Council

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Scottish Homes

  The Scottish Office

  Private Sector

  Total

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  Landscape/Environmental improvements

  118

  365

  —

  —

  —

  —

  483

  Surveys/Studies

  11

  21

  4

  —

  —

  —

  36

  Tenement Refurbishment and new build housing

  —

  —

  —

  11,900

  —

  —

  11,900

  Totals

  129

  386

  4

  11,900

  —

  —

  12,419

  Money legally committed

  Project

  Renfrew District Council

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Scottish Homes

  The Scottish Office

  Private Sector

  Total

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  Landscape/Environmental improvements

  210

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  290

  Surveys/Studies

  10

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Roadworks

  —

  —

  2,200

  —

  —

  —

  2,200

  Totals

  220

  85

  2,200

  —

  —

  —

  2,505

  Money planned to be spent (subject to approval/completion of procedures)

  Project

  Renfrew District Council

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Scottish Homes

  The Scottish Office

  Private Sector

  Total

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  Landscape/Environmental improvements

  160

  160

  —

  —

  —

  —

  320

  Tenement Refurbishment and new build housing

  —

  —

  —

  6,000

  —

  12,000

  18,000

  Commercial Property Improvements

  38

  —

  —

  —

  112

  150

  300

  Public Car Park

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  100

  176
  4. Tenemental refurbishment at Mill Street/Cross Arthurlie Street, and Barnes Street

  Projects planned

  1. Further landscape and environmental improvements in the town centre/Levern Water area.

  2. Commercial Improvement Area Grant scheme for property improvement.

  3. Public car park at Carlibar Road.

  4. Further tenemental refurbishment at Cross Arthurlie Street, Cochrane Street.

  5. Further new build housing at Glen Street, Cochrane Street, Carlibar road, Cross Arthurlie Street.

  6. Women's Centre, Main Street.

  7. Land acquisition at Cochrane Street, Glen Street, Cross Arthurlie Street.

  Barrhead was designated in May 1993 as a smaller urban renewal initiative, led by Scottish Homes. An action plan, building on the achievements already made, is currently being prepared.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing how much(a) has been spent, (b) is legally committed and (c) is planned by (i) Renfrewshire Enterprise, (ii) Strathclyde regional council, (iii) Renfrew district council, (iv) Scottish Homes, (v) the private sector, (vi) other Scottish Office agencies or departments and (vii) other organisations on the Barrhead regeneration strategy since its inception.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following information has been provided by Renfrew district council, which chairs the Barrhead regeneration working party:
  177

  Project

  Renfrew District Council

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Scottish Homes

  The Scottish Office

  Private Sector

  Total

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  £,000

  Women's Centre

  —

  —

  88

  —

  264

  —

  352

  Land Acquisition

  170

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  170

  Totals

  368

  160

  188

  6,000

  376

  12,150

  19,242

  Catholic Education
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Scotland when he last met representatives of the Roman Catholic Church to discuss the provision of primary and secondary education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My officials met representatives of the Catholic Education Commission in Glasgow on 28 September 1993 to discuss this issue. My right hon. Friend and I have since corresponded with the Church authorities on a number of occasions and we have indicated our willingness to meet them to discuss matters further.

  Disabled Students
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Scotland what has been the financial allocation through the disabled students allowance by the Scottish Office Education Department to students with disabilities in higher education in each year since 1990–91 to(a) students studying in Scotland and (b) students studying in England and Wales; and how many individual students this represents.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  a. Disabled students undertaking higher education courses in Scotland

  Academic year

  Disabled students1 allowance payments

  Number of students

  £

  1990–91

  102,476

  74

  1991–92

  214,724

  162

  1992–93

  291,860

  188

  1993–94

  250,635

  175

  b. Disabled students undertaking higher education courses outwith Scotland

  Academic year

  Disabled students1 allowance payments

  Number of students

  £

  1990–91

  14,145

  7

  1991–92

  22,278

  11

  1992–93

  41,893

  16

  1993–94

  29,293

  12

  Notes:

  1The above figures include postgraduate students.

  2 Academic year 1993–94 is up to 3 February 1994 only.
  178

  Schools (Audiology Services)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision of audiology services in schools within(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Renfrew Division.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Audiology services in schools may be provided both by health boards and education authorities. The level and location of such services are wholly for the decision of the bodies concerned. Responsibility for the provision of educational audiology services for any part or parts of an education authority's area therefore lies with that authority. The Secretary of State has no power to intervene.

  Proxy Votes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make the application form to vote by post or proxy due to disability or physical incapacity available in braille.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of people living in homes of multiple occupation in Scotland; what regulations govern this type of shared accommodation; what plans he has to bring forward new legislation, regulations and controls; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of people living in houses in multiple occupation is not held centrally. The 1991 census showed that 10,435 people were living in accommodation which is not self-contained.

  Housing authorities have powers to make orders applying the code of management contained in the Housing (Management of Houses and Buildings in Multiple Occupation) (Scotland) Regulations 1964, and to introduce licensing schemes for houses in multiple occupation under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1991. The Government will continue to monitor the use of these powers and is not planning to amend the statutory provisions. HMOs are also covered by secondary legislation which can be introduced for various specific purposes, including fire safety.

  Foxes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he has allocated to fox destruction clubs in the past five years; what criteria are applied in the distribution of this funding; what methods the funded clubs use to destroy foxes; and if he will make a statement.
  179
  Sir Hector Monro
  The information on grant allocated to fox destruction clubs in the past five years is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  47,649

  1989–90

  58,981

  1990–91

  47,566

  1991–92

  59,846

  1992–93

  60,400

  Grants are paid to 31 clubs throughout Scotland to meet 50 per cent. of the approved cost of carrying out systematic fox control within a clearly defined area of adequate size. Group activity by farmers through these clubs has proved effective in reducing lamb losses.

  Fox clubs use legal methods to dispatch foxes.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many citizens living overseas have applied to be registered to vote in elections in each parliamentary constituency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about applications by overseas electors to be included in the electoral registers are not held centrally.

  Information about the number of overseas electors included in the 1992 and 1993 electoral registers is published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in "1993 Electoral Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Similar data for the 1993 and 1994 registers is expected to be published in the summer.

  Homosexuals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines have been recently issued by the Lord Advocate to procurators fiscal, sheriffs and judges concerning consenting homosexual relationships among males aged 16 years or more; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate does not issue guidelines to sheriffs and judges. Since December 1991 procurators fiscal have been directed by the Lord Advocate to report to the Crown Office for Crown Counsel's consideration cases of consensual homosexual acts where both of the participants are over 16 years but one or both are under 18 years.

  Where both the participants are over 18 years but one or both are under 21 years and there are circumstances pointing to exploitation, corruption or breach of trust, the direction to procurators fiscal is that prosecution would be appropriate and that such cases need not be reported to the Crown Office unless none of those circumstances is present but the procurator fiscal considers that there are other circumstances which would justify proceedings.

  Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of women in the eligible target group have been screened for breast cancer in the last three years in Scotland; how many women have breast cancer; and how many women died from breast cancer in Scotland.
  180
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: Seventy-one per cent. of women invited in the eligible target age group have attended for screening by the Scottish breast screening programme in the last three years.

  Figures are not available for the number of women with breast cancer. The number of new registrations of invasive cancer of the breast and the number of deaths from invasive cancer of the breast in Scotland is as follows:

  Number of new registrations

  Number of deaths

  1989

  2,742

  1,356

  1990

  2,944

  1,250

  1991

  3,092

  1,278

  1992

  —1

  1,250

  1 Figures not yet available.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of women in the target group have had a cervical cancer smear test in Scotland within the last five years; how many women in Scotland have cervical cancer; and how many women died of cervical cancer.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: Eighty per cent. of the eligible target population in Scotland have attended for a cervical smear within the last five years.

  Figures are not available on the number of women with cervical cancer but the number of new registrations of invasive cancer of the cervix and the number of deaths from invasive cancer of the cervix is as follows:

  Year

  Number of new registrations

  Number of deaths

  1987

  461

  188

  1988

  460

  191

  1989

  376

  205

  1990

  494

  162

  1991

  458

  175

  1992

  1—

  183

  1 Figures not yet available.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many applications he has received to date for assistance under the aid scheme to assist farmers in Scotland wishing to convert to organic production methods, which he announced in August;

  (2) what is the estimated expenditure in the current financial year in respect of aid to those wishing to convert to organic production methods in Scotland; and what is the estimated expenditure in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The proposed organic aid scheme is not yet open for applications. It is part of the Scottish agri-environment programme currently with the EC Commission for approval. Subject to approval by Parliament and the Commission, planned expenditure on the Scottish agri-environment programme is expected to be in the region of £11 million in 1995–96.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received since the August
  181
  announcement on the agri-environment programme about the exclusion of current organic producers from the aid scheme proposed for organic production methods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: Since the August announcement about a proposed organic aid scheme, 22 representations have been received about the position of existing organic producers. Existing producers are not excluded from the scheme provided they have further land to convert. The scheme is designed to encourage farmers to convert to more environmentally friendly farming methods, not as a subsidy for existing organic producers.

  Criminology Researchers
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the granting of permission to criminology researchers to interview prisoners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: I have asked the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to reply.

  Letter from Mr. E. Frizzell to Mr. John McFall, dated 7 February 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the policy on the granting of permission to criminology researchers to interview prisoners.
  All requests for access to prisons for the purposes of conducting research are dealt with by Scottish Prison Service Headquarters. A substantial number of these involve requests to interview prisoners or have prisoners complete questionnaires.
  The merits of such requests are considered against a number of criteria: relevance to the programme of Ministerially approved and published criminological research priorities; congruence with the interests of the Scottish Prison Service; the possible security implications of the proposed work; the value of the research to the advancement of criminological understanding; and the likely cost in terms of staff time and possible disruption which the research may have on the operations of specific establishments. In addition, a professional commentary on the methodology of the research proposal is supplied by criminologists from the Central Research Unit of The Scottish Office Home and Health Department.
  Access is granted only in those cases where the research proposal satisfies some or all of these criteria. If granted access, researchers must sign an undertaking that they will adhere to the code of ethical guidelines of their profession or discipline (eg the British Psychological Society or the Social Research Association) and, if appropriate, receive approval from the Ethics Committee of the local Area Health Board. It is a requirement of any access that all prisoners approached are given the opportunity to decline to be interviewed and that all material gained during the interview is confidential and will be treated anonymously.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Hospital Trust.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: The current membership of the Scottish Hospital Trust is:

  Mr. G. M. Murray FFA (Chairman)

  Mr. J. R. Gibson FFA

  Mr. G. A. Hepburn ACMA, ACIS

  Mr. J. B. Hume MA

  Mrs. M. A. Jeffcoat FCCA

  Mr. J. T. Laurenson MA FCA

  Mr. J. M. Watherston CA

  182
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the State Hospital Management Committee.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: The information is as follows:

  Chairman

  Mr. Philip Hamilton-Grierson

  Non-executive members

  Dr. Barbara Ballinger

  Mrs Nan Burnett

  Mr. Bob Davis

  Mrs. Heather Jenkins

  Mr. Archie McCunn

  Dr. Andrew Zealley

  Executive members

  Mr. Dick Manson

  Dr. Janice Duncan

  Mrs Ruth Whitty

  Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will release additional funds to local authorities to enable them to replenish their housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: Substantial resources totalling some £405 million have been made available to local authorities for capital investment in public sector housing in 1993–94. I will announce the housing capital allocations for 1994–95 shortly. These allocations are generally not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for local authorities themselves to determine their own policies and priorities for meeting local housing needs.

  NHS Trusts (Ayrshire)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement listing the current executive and non-executive directors on the boards of(a) the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust, (b) the South Ayrshire Trust and (c) the Community Health Care Trust; and which bodies nominated these individuals for membership of the trust boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: Appointment of executive directors is a matter for the trust boards themselves and particulars of individuals appointed are not held centrally. The current non-executive directors are listed below. None of them was nominated for appointment by an organisation.

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  Mr. James Grier

  Mr. Keith Tulloch

  Mrs. Kim Donald

  Mrs. Angela Dunbar

  Mr. Alan Stewart

  South Ayrshire NHS Trust

  Mr. Harold Currie

  Mrs. Dorothy MacLellan

  Mr. William Mowat

  Mrs. Ann Wilson

  Mr. Graeme McKinstry

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Mr. Ian Allison

  Mr. David Gall

  Mr. W. Scott McConnell

  Mr. Robert Johnston

  Dr. Susan Kinnaird

  183

  Mr. Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. Gordon McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy submitted on behalf of Raymond Gilmour, Her Majesty's Prison Saughton.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The detailed inquiries into the petitions submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf, referred to my reply to the hon. Member on 7 December 1993, have now been completed. My right hon. Friend will respond to the petitions shortly and will also write to inform the hon. Member of his decision.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available additional funding to local authorities and owner-occupiers to deal with the structural problems associated with Orlit and Whitsun-Fairhurst type houses; if he will ring-fence this expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources totalling some £405 million have been made available to local authorities for capital investment in public sector housing in 1993–94. I will announce the housing capital allocations for 1994–95 shortly. These allocations are generally not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for local authorities themselves to determine their own policies and priorities for meeting local housing needs including the need to deal with Orlit and Whitsun-Fairhurst type houses.

  Additional housing capital allocations are made available to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in the provision of reinstatement grants or repurchase from eligible owners of Orlit and Whitsun-Fairhurst houses.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the provisions of legislation relating to housing defects; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to amend the provisions of the housing defects legislation. Under these provisions assistance has been available to eligible owners of defective houses for a 10-year period. In Scotland that period ends on 30 November 1994 and all applications must be submitted by that date.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special financial provision he currently makes available to local authorities and owner-occupiers to deal with the structural problems associated with Orlit and Whitsun-Fairhurst type houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources totalling some £405 million have been made available to local authorities for capital investment in public sector housing in 1993–94. Resources are not allocated specifically for work on any one type of house. It is for individual authorities to determine their own policies and priorities for investment in their own housing stock, including the need to tackle the structural problems found in Orlit and Whitson-Fairhurst houses.
  184
  Eligible owners of Orlit and Whitsun-Fairhurst houses can require local authorities to repurchase or give grant to make good the house. Supplementary capital allocations are issued to local authorities each year to meet in full their expenditure liabilities.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary State for Scotland if he will visit the Paisley, South constituency to assess the problems of Orlit and Whitsun-Fairhurst type houses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Paisley, South. Responsibility for the repair and maintenance of council housing lies with local authorities and my right hon. Friend has no powers to intervene in individual cases.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the options for dealing with housing with structural defects, such as those of Orlit and Whitsun-Fairhurst design; what plans he has to fund research into potential solutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. Designated defective houses may either be demolished or repaired. PRC Homes Ltd., a subsidiary of the National House Building Council, is responsible for validating schemes of repair and it is for the building industry to devise schemes to meet specific requirements.

WALES

  Secondary School Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what specific investments have been made in new funding for secondary school buildings by the Welsh Office in 1993; and what is proposed for 1994.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Under the voluntary aided schools capital building programme, in addition to the funding for routine repair and maintenance schemes, three secondary schools received funding for new school buildings and improvements to existing buildings in 1993–94. In the same period, under the grant-maintained schools capital building programme, in addition to the formula-related capital grant which such schools receive, six secondary schools received funding for new school buildings and improvements to existing buildings. I hope to announce successful applications for grant for new starts for both the voluntary aided and grant-maintained sectors in 1994–95 shortly. Grant has also been allocated to eight secondary schools under the technology schools initiative, including one grant-maintained school and to one technology centre.

  Building works at LEA-maintained schools are the responsibility of individual authorities and it is for each to decide on the level of spending, within the overall resources made available, on each service including education and thereafter on which school.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon;
  185
  (2) which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many residential and nursing homes there are in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at 31 March 1993 there were 675 local authority and registered private and voluntary residential homes for the elderly, physically disabled and visually disabled. At the same date there were 380 registered private nursing homes.

  Ministers (Travel)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by the Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State since 27 May 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State's travel costs are not budgeted separately from those of other Ministers. Expenditure on internal and overseas travel are not recorded separately nor is the Secretary of State's foreign travel identified separately when he travels with a party. The Department's identifiable expenditure on the Secretary of State's travel since 27 May 1993 was £15,861. The Secretary of State has been on one overseas trip to Hong Kong, Japan and the United States of America promoting Wales as a centre for investment and has travelled regularly and extensively throughout Wales.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether Wales social services departments are interpreting satisfactorily the guidelines on occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance on the assessment of an individual's ability to pay for services is contained in the charging for residential accommodation guide. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that social services departments in Wales are not interpreting these guidelines satisfactorily.

  Sitting Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of sitting services provided by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not collected centrally.
  186

  Respite Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of respite care provision in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for local and health authorities to determine the need for respite care facilities in their areas and to procure it accordingly. Additional resources of £1,200,000 will be available to local authorities in Wales in 1994–95 to assist in the development of domiciliary, day and respite care.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of specifically designated respite care beds in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of beds by specialty is collected centrally on the basis of specialties recognised by the Royal Colleges. Respite care is not one of these recognised specialties and hence the information requested is not available.

  Continuing Care Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of continuing care beds in Wales, by each health authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of beds by specialty is collected centrally on the basis of specialties recognised by the royal colleges. Continuing care is not one of these recognised specialties and hence the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policies he proposes to ensure that carers have a statutory right to separate arrangements and to respite care services.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is impossible to separate the needs and rights of carers from those of the people for whom they care. In every case, the assessment of needs—including the need for respite care—must take full account of the interests of both and indeed section 8(1) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 requires a local authority, when assessing the needs of a disabled person living at home and receiving a substantial amount of care on a regular basis from an informal carer, to take account of the ability of that carer to continue to provide that support.

  Elderly Carers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he will take to relieve the financial burdens on elderly carers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the acceptability of national minimum standards for care in the community; and if he will make a statement.
  187
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is the responsibility of local authorities to manage the implementation of community care. We will continue to monitor progress closely and offer guidance and direction as is considered necessary.

  Nursing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the use of nursing banks and agencies in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are nursing banks to meet the staffing needs of most hospitals in Wales. Nurses attached to the banks are frequently former members of staff who because of personal circumstances no longer work regularly. Nursing agencies are not widely used in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many intensive care nurses are employed in each of the major hospitals of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Detailed breakdowns of the number of nursing staff employed by health authorities and NHS trusts into occupational groups such as that requested are not available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of whether there are sufficient(a) cardiac intensive care nurses and (b) general paediatric intensive care nurses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he is taking to obtain more intensive care trained nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for individual health authorities and NHS trusts to determine their staff requirements for the intensive care they provide. Currently in Wales there are no major difficulties with the recruitment of nurses and intensive care units are staffed to their establishments.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he will next meet the Welsh Housing Consultative Council; and if he will discuss with them the publication of the House Condition Survey.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My officials wrote to the Council of Welsh Districts on 10 January to establish whether it had any agenda items for a meeting of the Welsh Housing Consultative Committee.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received since 1991(a) for and (b) against proposals for wind farm developments in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received 91 representations in favour of developments, two of which included petitions with 10 and 60 signatures respectively, and 275 representations against developments, one of which included a petition with 897 signatures.

  Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage the development of retail, wholesale and manufacturing co-operatives.
  188
  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office offers a range of assistance to new and existing businesses including co-operatives. There is also a Wales co-operative development and training centre which receives funding from the Welsh Development Agency and from the training and enterprise councils through the business start-up scheme.

  Nursery and Primary School Spending
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the levels of spending per nursery and primary school pupil for the last available year for each education authority in Wales, and for Wales as a whole.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is given in table 14.18 of "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools' No. 2, 1994," a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Postal and Proxy Votes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available in braille the application form to vote by post or proxy due to disability or physical incapacity.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Helwick Bank
  Mr. Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange for the deposit in the Library of(a) the 1992 and 1993 Helwick bank hydrographic and beach profile surveys and (b) the H. R. Wallingford report on the potential impact of the dredging of Helwick bank.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The initial Helwick bank hydrographic and beach profile survey was deposited in the Library of the House in July 1993. I will deposit both the summer 1993 hydrographic and beach profile survey and the H. R. Wallingford report, "Wave and Sand Transport Studies" as soon as possible.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of the total cost of the administration of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools for each year since 1990–91.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales—OHMCI—was established as a separate Government Department in September 1992. Prior to that date, when Her Majesty's inspectors of schools formed part of the Welsh Office, administration costs were not separately identified. Administration costs after September 1992 are a matter for OHMCI.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of the expenditure incurred by the Welsh Office to inform schools regarding application for grant-maintained status.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The day-to-day costs involved in providing schools with information about grant-maintained status are met out of the Department's running costs and it is not possible to disaggregate them.
  189
  It is, however, possible to identify two specific initiatives as they involved the use of outside contractors. In October 1992 three booklets on the grant-maintained arrangements were issued to all schools in Wales. The cost of producing and distributing these was £23,900. In October and November last year three conferences on grant-maintained status were arranged for heads and governors of schools. The cost of these has still to be finalised.

  Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of organisations representing housing co-operatives to discuss funding and strategy; what is his policy regarding the development of housing co-operatives; what criteria he applies when determining financial assistance to housing co-operatives; what plans he has to encourage the development of housing co-operatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I expect Housing for Wales and local authorities to consider proposals for such schemes on their merits in the context of local housing strategies and available resources.

  Dinas Dinlle Beach
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received in respect of Dinas Dinlle beach, Gwynedd; what steps he is taking to ensure the safety and cleanliness of all beaches in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No such representations have been received by my right hon. Friend. In common with the large majority of bathing waters on the Welsh coastline identified under the EC bathing waters directive, Morfa Dinlle—which includes the beach at Dinas Dinlle—consistently meets its mandatory standards. Dwr Cymru is currently engaged in a £230 million remedial works programme to ensure that all EC identified bathing waters in Wales meet these standards. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, district councils have a duty to ensure that all public amenity beaches are kept clear of litter and refuse above the mean high water mark.

  Mink Farm, Llanybydder
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 7 December,Official Report, column 181, and 31 January, Official Report, column 524, in respect of a mink farm at Llanybydder, Dyfed, established in February 1988, what reasons were given for the withdrawal of the application for a licence; and on what grounds the mink farm was allowed to operate without a licence.

  Mr. Redwood
  No reasons were given for the withdrawal of the licence application. The mink farm was allowed to operate pending a decision on the licence application.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what percentage of hip replacement operations carried out in(a) Wales and (b) at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic centre, Rhydlafar, Cardiff, in the last three years have required revision operations;
  190
  (2) what percentage of hip replacement operations using the Zimmer implant carried out (a) in Wales and (b) at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic centre, Rhydlafar, Cardiff, in the last three years have required revision operations;

  (3) what percentage of hip replacement operations using the Johnson and Johnson implant carried out (a) in Wales and (b) at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic centre, Rhydlafar, Cardiff, in the last three years have required revision operations;

  (4) what percentage of hip replacement operations using the BioMet implant carried out (a) in Wales and (b) at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic centre, Rhydlafar, Cardiff, in the last three years have required revision operations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Rural Planning
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current major issues being examined by each department devoted to rural strategic policy planning in(a) the Development Board for Rural Wales and (b) the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  (a) The DBRW's corporate plan identifies the following strategic issues which will impact on its policy in the medium term:

  —impact of the recession

  —agricultural change and the impact of CAP

  —the closure of Trawsfynydd power station

  —future European priorities

  —environmental improvement, especially the Board's sites and property

  —partnership with other public bodies

  —private sector involvement in property development

  —Newtown housing transfers

  More generally the board will also take account of the impact of other policies which might affect rural areas in co-operation, where appropriate, with other agencies such as the Welsh Development Agency and the Rural Development Commission.

  (b) The Welsh Development Agency's rural development programme for 1994–95 will continue to support the rural economy by targeting resources at specific rural locations, working in partnership with other organisations, and identifying new economic opportunities. The agency will continue to become involved in European Commission initiatives specifically designed for rural areas, and will continue to support sectoral initiatives.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many posts there are on(a) the Development Board for Rural Wales and (b) the Welsh Development Agency devoted to strategic rural policy planning; and if he will list the departments and their responsibilities and the grades of those posts.

  Mr. Redwood
  The development and marketing departments of the Development Board for Rural Wales, which employ some 55 professional staff, have the main responsibility for strategic rural policy planning. However, a number of other board staff have some involvement in the development of its rural policies, but this is not separately identifiable or measurable. The Welsh Development Agency also has a number of staff with responsibilities for strategic rural planning, although some have other responsibilities too.

  I have asked the chief executive of the DBRW and the chief executive's office at the WDA to write to the hon.

  191
  Member with details of the grades and responsibilities of the posts involved. Copies of the replies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to public funds of(a) the dismissal and subsequent exoneration of Alan Crew as unit general manager of the Cardiff Royal Group of Hospitals and (b) the suspension on full pay and preparation of, and withdrawal of, disciplinary proceedings against consultant orthopaedic surgeon and director of the Welsh Office treatment centre, Mr. Ian Mackie; and whether South Glamorgan health authority has sought any additional contingency funds assistance from his Department to cover these costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These are matters for South Glamorgan health authority to handle as employer. The authority has not sought any additional financial assistance in respect of either case.

  University of Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and the chairman of the Welsh Higher Education Funding Council in relation to the winding-up of the University of Wales review.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Arable Areas
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in how many cases payments to farmers and landowners under the arable area payments scheme have been withheld or recovered in Wales; what is the amount of money withheld or recovered in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Every case in which payments may be withheld or recovered is examined very carefully and applicants have an opportunity to comment before a final decision is taken. This means that it is possible to provide only very provisional figures at this stage. Some 30 payments have so far been reduced or withheld entirely, but there are further cases still under consideration. These figures exclude penalties for late applications and adjustments made following corrections notified by the applicant under the special arrangements which applied in 1993 for dealing with genuine errors. The total amounts withheld in individual cases vary considerably.

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of each annual audit and any quinquennial value for money or other extraordinary audit of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and Heartbeat Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The summarised accounts of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, which on its establishment on 1 April 1987 took over responsibility for Heartbeat Wales, are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General each year and are laid before the House.
  192

  Lloyds Bank
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of Lloyds bank to discuss their proposal to close their Welsh headquarters and move the administration to Taunton.

  Mr. Redwood
  I like to maintain contact with the banks and hope to be able to meet Lloyds bank shortly to discuss a range of matters.

HEALTH

  Respite Beds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of respite beds for(a) elderly people, (b) people with a mental illness and (c) people with learning difficulties in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  Places for respite care are not separately identified on the routine statistical returns. The closest available information concerns local authority-arranged short-term placements but these figures include not only residents receiving respite care but those admitted for other reasons, such as assessment, emergency and phased care.

  Paediatricians
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultant paediatricians, (b) specialist trained paediatric nurses and (c) hospital nurses have been employed in the Trent region in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Hospital nurses, qualified nurses in paediatric area of work and consultant paediatricians—Trent region at 30 September 1988 to 1992, excluding agency and locum staff

  Whole-time equivalents

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Consultant paediatrics/ paediatric neurology

  60

  60

  60

  70

  70

  Qualified paediatric nursing staff

  840

  910

  960

  1,020

  1,020

  Hospital nurses

  31,930

  31,900

  31,910

  31,660

  29,530

  Project 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,090

  Community nurses

  4,210

  4,150

  4,140

  4,190

  4,160

  Hospital midwives

  1,650

  1,650

  1,710

  1,630

  1,600

  Notes

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Qualified paediatric nursing staff include some who may not be registered RSCNs.

  3. Project 2000 nursing statistics supplied by Trent RHA.

  4. Community nursing staff includes those in primary health care—such as health visiting, district nursing, school nursing etc—and community midwives.

  Patient Transport Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will investigate the extent to which the specification on which the tendering procedure for the patient transport service contracts in North Staffordshire was based matches the existing level of PTS;

  (2) if she will investigate whether the specification on which the successful bid for the passenger transport service

  193
  contract in North Staffordshire is based takes precise account of high-dependency cases transported between different clinics and units; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to carry out an investigation. The issue of the patient transport service contract for north Staffordshire is being resolved through local conciliation.

  London Hospitals
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which London hospitals she has visited during the last 12 months; and what were the dates and times of her visits.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of ministerial visits to hospitals in London during the last 12 months are shown in the table.

  Minister

  Hospital

  Date

  Minister for Health

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital

  21 January 1993

  Minister for Health

  Royal London Hospital

  24 February 1993

  Minister for Health

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  3 March 1993

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health

  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington

  1 April 1993

  Secretary of State

  Greenwich District Hospital

  19 April 1993

  The number, net ingredient cost, NIC, and the net ingredient cost per head of population for all and generic prescriptions1 England 19914

  All prescriptions

  Generic prescriptions

  Items (million)

  NIC (£million)

  NIC (£) per head

  Items2 (million)

  NIC3 (£million)

  NIC (£) per head3

  Northern

  28·7

  177·6

  57·43

  12·5

  28·5

  9·22

  Yorkshire

  33·6

  196·5

  53·39

  13·5

  26·9

  7·30

  Trent

  41·6

  248·3

  52·27

  17·0

  35·1

  7·38

  East Anglia

  16·6

  105·6

  50·70

  6·0

  12·2

  5·84

  North West Thames

  25·6

  167·9

  48·11

  10·1

  21·3

  6·09

  North East Thames

  30·1

  190·5

  50·32

  11·8

  24·2

  6·40

  South East Thames

  29·8

  185·1

  49·96

  11·8

  24·3

  6·56

  South West Thames

  21·6

  145·4

  48·87

  8·5

  18·7

  6·28

  Wessex

  23·4

  151·8

  51·61

  9·3

  19·3

  6·57

  Oxford

  17·7

  120·5

  47·08

  6·7

  14·4

  5·61

  South Western

  28·4

  181·8

  52·15

  11·5

  22·9

  6·57

  West Midlands

  45·8

  274·1

  52·06

  18·0

  35·2

  6·68

  Mersey

  23·7

  142·6

  59·02

  9·3

  17·0

  7·06

  North Western

  39·9

  232·3

  58·35

  15·7

  28·9

  7·26

  England

  406·5

  2,519·8

  52·27

  161·7

  328·8

  6·82

  1 The figures include all prescriptions dispensed in the family health services authorities by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  2 Prescription items written generically.

  3 Prescription items dispensed generically.

  4 Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys 1992 based mid-year estimates for 1991 and 1992 population have been used for rates per head.

  The number, net ingredient cost and the net ingredient cost per head of population for all and generic prescriptions England 1992

  All prescriptions

  Generic prescriptions

  Items (million)

  NIC (£million)

  NIC (£) per head

  Items2 (million)

  NIC3 (£million)

  NIC (£) per head3

  Northern

  29·8

  199·0

  64·23

  13·7

  28·1

  9·06

  Yorkshire

  34·7

  220·5

  59·62

  14·8

  26·7

  7·21

  Trent

  43·6

  281·1

  58·86

  18·7

  34·0

  7·12

  East Anglia

  17·6

  121·6

  58·22

  6·5

  11·9

  5·70

  North West Thames

  26·8

  191·2

  54·57

  11·1

  20·5

  5·84

  North East Thames

  31·6

  221·6

  58·33

  12·8

  25·3

  6·65

  South East Thames

  31·4

  210·7

  56·74

  12·9

  23·4

  6·30

  South West Thames

  22·6

  167·0

  55·98

  9·3

  17·6

  5·90

  Wessex

  24·5

  171·7

  58·06

  10·4

  18·8

  63·5

  Oxford

  18·7

  136·7

  52·97

  7·4

  14·0

  5·41

  South Western

  29·9

  206·6

  58·99

  12·7

  22·2

  6·33

  West Midlands

  48·0

  308·9

  58·54

  20·0

  34·7

  6·57

  Mersey

  24·7

  161·5

  66·95

  10·2

  17·0

  7·05

  North Western

  41·4

  259·8

  65·16

  17·4

  28·6

  7·17

  England

  425·1

  2,858·0

  59·08

  177·8

  322·5

  6·67

  194

  Minister

  Hospital

  Date

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health

  Hammersmith Hospital

  5 May 1993

  Minister for Health

  Guy's Hospital

  13 July 1993

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Lords

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  23 July 1993

  Secretary of State

  Whittington Hospital

  24 August 1993

  Secretary of State

  Chelsea and Westminster Hospital

  22 September 1993

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health

  West Middlesex Hospital

  3 November 1993

  Secretary of State

  St. Mark's Hospital

  6 December 1993

  Minister for Health

  St. Thomas's Hospital

  9 December 1993

  Minister for Health

  Guy's Hospital

  9 December 1993

  Secretary of State

  Homerton Hospital

  20 December 1993

  GP Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was, in each NHS region, the number, value and value per head, of(a) all GP prescribed prescriptions and (b) GP prescriptions prescribed generically for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the tables.
  195
  1 The figures include all prescriptions dispensed in the family health services authorities by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  2 Prescription items written generically.

  3 Prescription items dispensed generically.

  4 OPCS 1992 based mid-year estimates for 1991 and 1992 population have been used for rates per head.

  Bjork-Shiley Heart Valves
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the serial numbers and types of Bjork-Shiley convexo-concave valves are recorded as part of a patient's medical history.

  Mr. Sackville
  The content of medical records is a matter for local decision.

  Community Care, Housing and Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the 10 local authorities participating in the study of community care, housing and homelessness undertaken by the NHS management Executive.

  Mr. Bowis
  This is one of a number of special studies being carried out jointly by the social services inspectorate and the NHS Management Executive as part of the Department of Health's programme of monitoring community care implementation. The Department of the Environment is jointly involved in this study.

  The 10 local authorities being visited are:

  Bradford

  Camden

  Dudley

  Durham

  Haringey

  Hounslow

  Nottinghamshire

  Suffolk

  Wandsworth

  West Sussex

  The special studies are based on social services authorities, but each of the 10 studies involves social services, health and housing agencies.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of discussions held with the Data Protection Registrar relating to the use of copyright legislation to protect the privacy of individuals whose personal data are contained in medical records; what discussions were held on whether copyright legislation would prevent the use of medical records for other purposes by another Department of State; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been no discussions with the Data Protection Registrar relating to the use of copyright legislation to protect the privacy of individuals whose personal data are contained in medical records. The confidentiality of personal data in medical records is protected by the common law, health professionals' ethical responsibilities and, in the case of computerised data, the Data Protection Act 1984.

  The only discussions with the Data Protection Registrar regarding copyright have been about the use of Crown copyright to ensure national health service numbers are used only for NHS purposes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of whether the personal data 196
  to be contained in an NHS administrative register are more sensitive than the personal data contained in community charges registers were; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what plans she has to protect personal data to be contained in NHS administrative registers in the same way as the Government afforded protection to personal data contained in community charge registers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Security and confidentiality of personal data to be held in the national health service administrative register will be carefully protected. Measures to secure this are being developed and tested. Data will be available only to those who need to know it for NHS purposes, and the Data Protection Act 1984 will be complied with.

  Section 64 Funding
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many applications were received for section 64 funding for the financial year commencing 1 April; and how many were refused;

  (2) which organisations have received section 64 funding for the financial year commencing 1 April; and how much has been allocated to each one.

  Mr. Bowis
  A total of 472 applications were received for possible support commencing 1 April 1994. They are still being processed.

  Performance Standards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of all contracts between district health authorities and provider units as at July 1993 set specific performance standards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The NHS management executive expects the NHS to improve the quality of services provided to patients through standard setting. However, details of contracts are not monitored centrally.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether she will require NHS hospitals and trusts to publish maximum waiting times from receipt of a general practitioners referral to admission as well as from first out-patient appointment to admission;

  (2) what proportion of NHS hospitals and trusts had, at July 1993, published their current maximum admission times for each specialty; and which hospital or trust had the longest and shortest waiting time at 1 April 1993 in each specialty.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times for in-patient and day-case treatment by specialty and by district health authority and trust is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", which is published twice yearly. The latest published figures are for March and September 1993 and copies are available in the Library.

  Information on waiting times to first out-patient appointment is not yet collected.
  197

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what proportion of cases an emergency ambulance arrived within 14 minutes in an urban area and within 19 minutes in a rural area in 1992–93.

  Me. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Percentage of emergency responses within patients charter standard—95 per cent.—1992–93

  Per cent.

  Rural ambulance services

  96·9

  Urban ambulance services1

  94·1

  1This excludes information on the London ambulance service.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last received a submission from the North Staffordshire district health authority in respect of a request to lower the Orcon standard for north Staffordshire; what were the reasons for the decision on this; and if she will place a copy of her reply in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers have received no such submission.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the Orcon standard for accident and emergency service in respect of(a) the West Midland ambulance trust and (b) the Staffordshire ambulance trust for (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national patients charter standards for these two trusts in both years are:

  West Midlands ambulance trust—14 minutes

  Staffordshire ambulance service—19 minutes

  The reason for the difference is that the first standard relates to an urban area, and the second to a rural area.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been on hospital waiting lists in England in total, and in each specialty on 1 July 1992 and on 1 July 1993 for(a) three months or less, (b) six months or less, (c) 12 months or less, (d) 24 months or less or (e) over 24 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times by specialty for in-patient and day-case treatment is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England". This is published twice yearly for March and September and copies are available in the Library. Information is given in time bands of zero to five months, six to 11 months, 12 to 23 months and 24 months and over.

  Provisional waiting time figures in annual time bands are published quarterly. These show that in England at 30 June 1992 there were 843,210 patients waiting less than a one year, 925,695 waiting less than two years and 1,244 waiting over two years. At 30 June 1993 there were 952,023 waiting under one year, 1,017,488 waiting under two years and only 275 waiting over two years, all of whom were waiting for specialised infertilty treatment at a London hospital.

  Selected Items
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations underlie her policy not to hold information centrally in respect of the new selected items 198
  that have been made available to the national health service; if she will make it her policy in future to hold a list centrally; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the selected list scheme, drugs may be removed from prescription at national health service expense on the advice of an independent, expert committee. Drugs and other substances which are to be added to the list of items which may not be prescribed under the national health service are listed in statutory instruments.

  Patients Charters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the health authorities in England which at July 1993 had published local patients charters containing detailed information on local health services, including quality standards and maximum waiting times;

  (2) how many (a) national health service trusts and (b) directly managed provider units had (i) published or (ii) not published charters containing detailed information on quality standards and maximum waiting times as at July 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities, national health service trusts and directly managed units are not required to publish local charters, although many have done so.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of national health service authorities have published reports on the performance of individual local hospital and ambulance services against patients charter rights and standards in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All district health authorities have published patients charter annual reports for 1992–93.

  Dental Treatment
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights the patient has by way of complaint if a dentist refuses to treat a patient under the national health service, and then the private treatment is unsatisfactory.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Unsatisfactory private treatment is a matter between the dentist and his patient. It is not covered by the national health service complaints procedure.

  Paediatric Speech and Language Therapy
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on paediatric speech and language therapy by each NHS purchaser(a) in absolute terms and (b) as a proportion of their total speech and language therapy budget, in the most recent financial year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  Expenditure on speech and language therapy services in England has increased by 184 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79 to £60·4 million in 1991–92; expenditure on paediatric and adult services cannot be separately identified. Some 66 per cent. of new episodes of treatment commenced in 1991–92 were with children aged from birth to 15 years.

  Mentally Ill People
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the changes in the number of beds in mental hospitals and hospitals for people
  199
  with learning disabilities (a) in the South Birmingham health authority area, (b) in the West Midlands health authority area and (c) in England in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is contained in the annual publication "Bed Availability for England", financial year 1992–93. Copies of this publication are available in the Library.

  Care Plans
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of social services clients had an individual care plan on(a) 1 April 1992 and (b) 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information should be held by social services departments of local authorities.

  NHS Complaints
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS complaints received between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993 were dealt with within(a) one week, (b) one month, (c) three months and (d) more than three months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 7 February at column 43.

  Operations (Cancellation)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients had their operations cancelled on the day they were due to arrive in hospital in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally. Information is, however, collected on performance against the patients charter standard on twice cancelled operations, and is available in the NHS management executive annual report 1992–93, copies of which are in the Library.

  Chemical Entity Products
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations underlie her policy not to hold information centrally in respect of the new chemical entity products made available to the national health service since February 1993 that would have been covered by the selected list scheme; if she will make it her policy in future to hold a list centrally; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All drugs, including those containing a new chemical entity, must be licensed by the Medicines

  Table A: number of children in secure accommodation at 31 March 1992, admitted subject to a care order in criminal proceedings, remanded or detained, by local authority and legal status

  Subject to care order made in criminal proceedings

  Remanded Section 23, CYPA11969

  Remanded to LA accommodation

  Detained Section 38(6) CYPA1 Act 1984

  Detained S53 CYPA Act 1933

  England

  15

  4

  69

  1

  81

  Avon

  1

  —

  3

  —

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  4

  —

  2

  Coventry

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Devon

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Durham

  7

  3

  6

  —

  8

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  —

  1

  6

  —

  6

  200
  Control Agency before they may be prescribed for patients under the national health service. Once a product is licensed it is the manufacturer who decides when to bring it on to the market. Manufacturers do not need to notify the Department of this decision.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidelines to local authorities to prevent juvenile offenders from being sent abroad during their punishment.

  Mr. Bowis
  We intend to issue guidance shortly.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to social services departments to ensure that juveniles in their care attend at court hearings on the day they are due to appear.

  Mr. Bowis
  Volume 1 of the Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations makes it clear that it is the responsibility of a local authority to ensure that any juvenile remanded to local authority accommodation is produced in court at the date, place and time specified by the court. A copy of the guidance and regulations is available in the Library.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many local authorities use private residential homes in the treatment of juvenile offenders;

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown by local authority of the number of young offenders in (a) council-run secure accommodation and (b) private residential homes or schools at the latest available date.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally about the number of children and young people accommodated compulsorily by local authorities relates to the legislation under which they are held and not to offences committed or alleged.

  The numbers in secure accommodation at 31 March 1992 who were admitted on remand or detained or subject to a care order in criminal proceedings are given in table A.

  Numbers of children and young people who were accommodated compulsorily by local authorities in private residential homes or schools at 31 March 1992, and were on remand or detained or subject to care order in criminal proceedings, are given in table B. Only local authorities that submitted valid data for the period ending 31 March 1992 and had at least one child accommodated in this way at 31 March 1992 are listed.
  201

  Subject to care order made in criminal proceedings

  Remanded Section 23, CYPA1 1969

  Remanded to LA accommodation

  Detained Section 38(6) CYPA1 Act 1984

  Detained S53 CYPA Act 1933

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lancashire

  2

  —

  4

  —

  23

  Leeds

  2

  —

  7

  —

  15

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  Newham

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Salford

  —

  —

  5

  —

  2

  Southwark

  —

  —

  5

  —

  2

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1 Children and Young Persons Act.

  Table B

  Number of children looked after at 31 March 1992 in private residential accommodation and schools, subject to a care order in criminal proceedings or remand

  Local authorities

  Criminal care order

  Remand

  Total1

  24

  6

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  Birmingham

  2

  1

  Coventry

  1

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  1

  Devon

  1

  —

  Dorset

  1

  —

  Gateshead

  1

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  1

  Havering

  1

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  —

  Lambeth

  —

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  —

  Newham

  2

  —

  Oxfordshire

  —

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  —

  Somerset

  2

  —

  South Tyneside

  1

  —

  Staffordshire

  3

  —

  Stockport

  1

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  1

  Tameside

  1

  —

  Wiltshire

  1

  —

  Wolverhampton

  2

  —

  1The total of the 90 authorities with validated returns.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the guidance his Department issues to local authorities regarding the placement of young offenders.

  Mr. Bowis
  Current guidance to local authorities derives from a number of sources. It is kept under review to reflect changing circumstances.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department gives to health authorities about the provision of orthodontic treatment and the recruitment of orthodontists in the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The planning and provision of dental treatment including orthodontic treatment is a matter for 202
  district health authorities to undertake jointly with family health services authorities. Recruitment is a matter for local decision. Much orthodontic treatment is provided by general dental practitioners who are independent contractors.

  Departmental Press Release
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 377, what is the significance of the reference number H93/1145 heading the Department of Health press release of 31 December entitled "Your Health Matters More in '94."

  Mr. Sackville
  There is not any significance. A technical problem early in 1993 meant the first press releases could not be consecutively numbered from H93/1. The number of the first press release in 1993, H93/472, continued from 1992. The number of the last press release in 1993, the 675th, was H93/1145.

  Cannabinol
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will seek a report from the Committee on Safety of Medicines concerning the alleged therapeutic uses of cannabinol; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware of recent claims about the therapeutic value of cannabinoids in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and other conditions.

  The Medicines Control Agency would seek the advice of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines on the receipt of an application for a licence to treat these conditions with cannabinoids.

  Care in the Community Grant
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she expects to have completed her examination on the need for damping the alterations to the grant for care in the community for the Isle of Wight;

  (2) when she expects to respond to the Department of the Environment Minister's letter about the effect of the care in the community grant for 1994–95 for the Isle of Wight;

  (3) when she will make a response to the deputation on the grant for 1994–95 for care in the community in the Isle of Wight.
  203
  Mr. Bowis
  I have carefully considered the representations made by the Isle of Wight county council in response to its indicative allocation of the special transitional grant for 1994–95. I understand that similar representations were made to Ministers at the Department of the Environment. I have concluded that the distribution method announced on 2 December 1993 remains the most sensible and appropriate, and in the best interests of community care across the country as a whole. This decision was notified in writing to the hon. Member and to the Isle of Wight county council on 2 February 1994.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her calculations reveal on the effect of the standard spending assessment for care in the community in 1995–96 as a result of the alterations in the grant for 1994–95 for the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Bowis
  The personal social services element of the standard spending assessment for the Isle of Wight for 1994–95 has been set at £14·12 million, an increase of almost 18 per cent. over the current year. The figures for 1995–96 will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those local authorities who find themselves in a similar position to the Isle of Wight with their grant for 1994–95 for care in the community.

  Mr. Bowis
  None. Care in the community is partly financed by the personal social services element of the standard spending assessment, partly by the special transitional grant and partly by decisions within each local authority as to priorities for spending of its overall spending assessment.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will receive copies of the literature promised by the officials at the meeting with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), showing the Department's intention to alter the grant for the care in the community in 1994–95 and the effect it will have on a community like the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Bowis
  Officials wrote, as promised, to the director of social services for the Isle of Wight on 22 December. A copy of that letter has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Upper-limb Disorders
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate her Department has made of the number of people with work-related upper limb disorders; if she has commissioned any research into these disorders and their cause, or will be doing so; what medical advice she has about their cause; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no such estimates and would seek to be advised by the Department of Employment, to whom the hon. Member has addresed a similar question.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, MRC, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We understand that the MRC is not currently supporting any research specifically into work-related upper limb disorders, but is always willing to
  204
  consider scientifically based sound proposals for research. The prospects for funding of research into work-related upper limb disorders will, therefore, depend on the nature of any applications received.

  There is no medical consensus on whether work-related upper limb disorders are a single syndrome or a collection of differing conditions; nor is there general agreement on their cause or treatment.

  Mammography
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in which circumstances the national health service allow for mammography for women aged under 50 years; and what instances of mammography being refused for women of this age group have been drawn to her attention;

  (2) in how many health authorities women in the 35 to 50 years age group are provided with free national health service mammograms upon request.

  Mr. Sackville
  Women under 50 will not be invited for routine screening for breast cancer; younger women at special risk may be offered mammography if referred by their general practitioner as will women with symptoms. This is a clinical decision and not one in which we would wish to interfere. No instances of mammography being refused have been drawn to our attention.

  NHS Authorities (Membership)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the chairs and members who serve concurrently on more than one NHS authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Chairmen and non-executive members of national health service authorities may not serve concurrently on more than one such authority, excepting family health services authorities chairmen who may be appointed as a member of a regional health authority. Executive members of NHS authorities may serve on more than one authority. These appointments are a matter for the authorities themselves.

  Elderly Persons' Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of places available in local authority elderly persons' homes for each year since 1979.

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

  Number of places in staffed local authorities homes catering primarily for elderly people and young physically disabled people, England

  As at 31 March

  Elderly and younger physically disabled people

  Elderly people

  Younger physically disabled people

  1979

  113,592

  1—

  1—

  1980

  114,103

  1—

  1—

  1981

  114,921

  1—

  1—

  1982

  115,493

  1—

  1—

  1983

  115,913

  1—

  1—

  1984

  116,430

  1—

  1—

  1985

  116,080

  1—

  1—

  1986

  115,609

  1—

  1—

  1987

  114,189

  112,360

  1,829

  1988

  112,422

  110,598

  1,824

  1989

  109,194

  107,386

  1,808

  1990

  105,380

  103,601

  1,779

  1991

  97,853

  96,137

  1,716

  1992

  86,676

  85,037

  1,639

  205
  1 Not available.

  Note: The decrease in places in 1991 and 1992 reflects the transfer of local authority homes to the independent sector and rationalisation.

  Latero Flora
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 January,Official Report, columns 324–25, when she now expects the Medicines Control Agency to complete its investigation into the American-imported product Latero Flora and its active ingredient bacillus laterosporus.

  Mr. Sackville
  Following its earlier undertaking to stop promoting Latero Flora as a medicinal product, the supplier has now told the Medicines Control Agency that it ceased trading in the product three weeks ago. The agency will continue to work with other agencies to monitor the situation and protect public health.

  Westcountry Ambulance Services Trust
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual budget of the Westcountry ambulance services trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993–94 the trust's income is planned to be £23·8 million.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names and salaries of the chairman and non-executive directors of the Westcountry ambulance services trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  The chairman of the Westcountry ambulance services trust is Mr. James Pease-Watkin who receives an annual remuneration of £17,145.

  Age (years)

  Number of HIV infections reported

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  16

  3

  4

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  17

  4

  1

  5

  11

  5

  3

  4

  18

  11

  14

  9

  12

  11

  7

  15

  19

  23

  15

  21

  13

  21

  18

  11

  20

  39

  30

  22

  31

  38

  35

  20

  21

  60

  29

  31

  36

  36

  58

  36

  22+

  1,898

  1,400

  1,499

  1,932

  2,205

  2,125

  2,093

  Total

  2,038

  1,493

  1,587

  2,037

  2,316

  2,247

  2,180

  Laboratory reports of rectal gonorrhoea are routinely received by the HIV/STD division at the communicable disease surveillance centre. The number who were of the

  Number of rectal gonorrhoea isolates reported

  Age (Years)

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23+

  Total

  1989

  Female

  4

  4

  3

  3

  2

  4

  1

  20

  41

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  23

  24

  Unknown

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Totals

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  4

  1

  44

  66

  1990

  Female

  2

  2

  4

  1

  5

  2

  1

  18

  35

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  103

  106

  Unknown

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Totals

  2

  2

  4

  3

  5

  2

  2

  122

  142

  206
  The non-executive directors are Mrs. Betty Collard, Mr. Justin Luttrell, Mrs. Hilary Bucklar, Mr. Patrick Egan and Lt. Colonel Robert Perkins OBE. All non-executive directors receive an annual remuneration of £5,000.

  Nurses Grading
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken to ensure monitoring takes place of the ethnic status of nurses appealing against their nurse clinical gradings;

  (2) if she will provide statistics on the ethnic status of nurses appealing against their gradings and their rate of success.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to monitor centrally the ethnic status of nurses appealing against their grading. Under the clinical grading structure staff are graded according to the duties and responsibilities of the post occupied. Any staff who are unhappy with the grading of their post are able to challenge the employing authority's decision.

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) HIV and (b) rectal gonorrhoea in the age groups 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 years and over were notified to her Department in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  Laboratory reports of HIV infections newly identified in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are made to the Public Health Laboratory Service AIDS centre at the communicable diseases surveillance centre. The number who were of the ages shown at the time their HIV infection was diagnosed is given for each year since 1987. The 1993 figures may not be complete.

  ages shown at the time of report are shown broken down by sex for each year since 1989. Data are unavailable for 1988 and 1987. The 1993 figures may not be complete.
  207

  Age (Years)

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23+

  Total

  1991

  Female

  1

  5

  4

  8

  4

  3

  2

  17

  44

  Male

  0

  1

  2

  2

  4

  3

  4

  97

  113

  Totals

  1

  6

  6

  10

  8

  6

  6

  114

  157

  1992

  Female

  2

  3

  6

  8

  2

  4

  1

  14

  40

  Male

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  3

  27

  36

  Totals

  2

  3

  7

  10

  2

  7

  4

  41

  76

  1993

  Female

  1

  5

  2

  1

  4

  1

  1

  12

  27

  Male

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  7

  3

  26

  43

  Totals

  1

  5

  3

  2

  9

  8

  4

  38

  70

  Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 599, whether a person may serve concurrently as a chair or non-executive director of a trust of NHS authority board and a shadow trust board.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the percentage of ethnic minority non-executive directors of NHS trusts, health authorities and family health services authorities in each year since 1990–91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Three per cent. of people currently appointed to national health service authorities and trusts in a non-executive capacity are from ethnic minorities. We are aiming to increase this proportion to 4 per cent. by September 1996. Information for earlier years is not available.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to decrease funds to general practitioner fundholders who do not meet waiting list targets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Fundholders are expected to comply with patients charter standards in the same way as district health authorities, and are proving extremely effective in improving waiting times.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 198, what financial capital allocation each regional health authority will receive in 1994–95; and what is the aggregate capital allocation to national health service trusts in each regional area.

  Mr. Sackville
  The division of the regional capital planning totals announced on 7 December 1993 between regional health authorities and national health service trusts is set out in the table. Regions have now been notified of their capital allocations, and trusts their external financing limits, for 1994–95.
  208

  RHA (£ millions)

  NHS trusts (£ millions)

  Total (£ millions)

  Northern

  24·694

  75·768

  100·462

  Yorkshire

  5·193

  111·934

  117·127

  Trent

  4·798

  143·074

  147·872

  East Anglia

  2·749

  61·765

  64·514

  North West Thames

  35·287

  62·432

  97·719

  North East Thames

  19·812

  91·988

  111·800

  South East Thames

  1-1·143

  116·386

  115·243

  South West Thames

  7·815

  78·254

  86·069

  Wessex

  15·500

  81·381

  96·881

  Oxford

  6·722

  66·928

  73·650

  South Western

  10·000

  106·657

  106·657

  West Midlands

  22·000

  140·940

  162·940

  Mersey

  16·500

  60·009

  76·509

  North Western

  4·038

  125·932

  129·970

  England

  163·965

  1,323·448

  1,487·413

  1Receipts from asset sales equal or exceed regional planned capital expenditure.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the number and percentage of invalidity benefit recipients who are in receipt of other sources of income by source and average amount of such other income.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the number of invalidity benefit recipients who are in receipt of other sources of income is not available. Estimates of the percentage of invalidity benefit recipients who are in receipt of other sources of income and the average amount of such income are in the table.

  Source

  Percentage of invalidity benefit recipients

  Average amount per week1£

  Investment

  52

  18

  Occupational pensions

  38

  60

  Non income-related benefits (exc. Invalidity benefit)2

  78

  11

  Community Charge and Housing Benefits3

  37

  17

  Income Support and family credit3

  7

  40

  209

  Source

  Percentage of invalidity benefit recipients

  Average amount per week1£

  Net earnings4

  8

  37

  Other5

  7

  13

  Source: 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys

  Notes:

  1 January 1991 prices.

  2 Christmas bonus, child benefit, industrial injuries disablement pension, invalidity care allowance, disability living allowance, attendance allowance, war disablement pension.

  3 Figures relate to "benefit units" rather than to individuals. Benefit units containing two invalidity benefit recipients are counted twice.

  4 Average is "inflated" by a small number who receive payments from former employers.

  5 Children's income, income-in-kind, income from absent spouse etc.

  Benefit Levels
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish the level in real terms of each benefit in 1979, or at time of introduction if later, and at present;

  (2) what is the current level of each benefit; and what it was in 1979, or at the time of introduction, if later, in constant prices.

  Mr. Burt
  The information for the main social security benefits is in the table.

  Level of benefit in 1993 or time of introduction, at 1993 prices

  Benefit

  April 1993

  Rate in 1979 or introduction, at April 1993 prices

  £

  £

  Retirement pension single person

  56·10

  54·37

  Retirement pension married couple

  89·80

  87·04

  Unemployment benefit (personal benefit)

  44·65

  43·17

  Unemployment benefit (Dep.Adult increase)

  27·55

  26·72

  Invalidity benefit

  56·10

  54·37

  Attendance allowance (higher rate)

  44·90

  43·40

  Mobility allowance

  1—

  28·00

  Disability living allowance (Care component higher rate)

  44·90

  243·91

  Disability living allowance (mobility component higher care)

  31·40

  230·69

  Child benefit (first child)

  10·00

  9·33

  Child benefit (subsequent children)

  8·10

  9·33

  One parent benefit

  6·05

  5·83

  Supplementary benefit (couple with 2 children aged 7 and 11)

  1—

  95·14

  Supplementary benefit (pensioner couple)

  1—

  82·06

  Income support (couple with 2 children aged 7 and 11)

  115·85

  3111·31

  Income support (pensioner couple)

  95·25

  389·24

  Family income supplement

  1—

  29·42

  Family credit (one child under 11)

  53·25

  350·29

  1Indicates benefit replaced.

  2Introduced April 1992.

  3Introduced April 1988.

  Note: The amounts relating to pensioners under the age of 80 have been giver.
  210
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefit claimants there were, excluding unemployment-related claimants, in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. Figures relate to benefit recipients and unless otherwise stated have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Some claimants receive more than one benefit. It has not been possible to exclude unemployment-related claims except in the case of supplementary benefit/support and unemployment benefit itself.

  Benefit recipients

  Benefit

  1979

  1993

  Attendance Allowance

  286,000

  890,000

  Child Benefit

  7,190,000

  6,855,000

  Child Special Allowance

  1825

  199

  Rent Rebate3

  1,205,000

  22,961,000

  Rent Allowance3

  220,000

  21,217,000

  Rate Rebate3

  3,065,000

  Not applicable

  Community Charge Benefit3

  Not applicable

  26,254,000

  Disability Living Allowance

  Not applicable

  1,167,000

  Disability Working Allowance

  Not applicable

  13,165

  FIS/Family Credit

  81,000

  487,000

  Guardians Allowance

  4,000

  2,000

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support

  2,288,000

  3,671,000

  Industrial Death Benefit

  31,000

  22,000

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  198,000

  2204,000

  Invalidity Benefit

  610,000

  21,439,000

  Invalid Care Allowance

  6,000

  2189,000

  Maternity Allowance

  105,000

  211,000

  Mobility Allowance

  138,000

  Not applicable

  One Parent Benefit

  381,000

  877,000

  Pneumo, Byssinosis and misc.

  2,000

  21,000

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  148,000

  2157,000

  Retirement Pension

  8,806,000

  10,084,000

  Sickness Benefit

  430,000

  21,38,000

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Not applicable

  2302,000

  Widows Benefit

  452,000

  337,000

  Workmans Compensation

  5,000

  21,000

  War Pension

  367,000

  2260,000

  HNCIP/NCIP

  162,000

  Not applicable

  1 Exact figures.

  2 1992 data.

  3 Figures relate to benefit units.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff from(a) the Benefits Agency medical service and (b) the Benefits Agency will be required to process claims for incapacity benefit; and how many of these staff will be qualified medical practitioners.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated staffing consequences for the introduction of incapacity benefit appear in the financial memorandum accompanying the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill. Further refinement of these figures will depend upon decisions still to be taken by Parliament

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates his Department has as to the time it will take to process claims for the two thirds of claimants who will have their claims for incapacity benefit referred to the Benefits Agency medical service.

  Mr. Scott
  Until details of the new objective medical test are agreed we cannot produce precise estimates for how long each reference will take. Because cases will be
  211
  referred while benefit is being paid, we do not expect any worsening of the overall clearance time for claims on account of the introduction of incapacity benefit.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the receipt of the allowance for VAT will have upon retirement pensioners' entitlement to housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  For those in receipt of retirement pension at the standard basic rate, the extra help for VAT of 50p for a single pensioner and 70p for a pensioner couple will not affect housing benefit entitlement. Those on a modified basic retirement pension, who receive proportionally less help with VAT, will see some increase in their housing benefit entitlement. Couples, where each partner receives the standard rate pension in their own right, will see some decrease in their housing benefit entitlement but will gain by more than the 70p overall.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the average cost of housing benefit payments to(a) tenants of local authorities, (b) tenants of housing associations and (c) tenants of private landlords in the latest year for which the information is available.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 3 February 1994.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the privatisation of parts of social security administration will have on the rights of a citizen to make a complaint of maladministration to the parliamentary ombudsman.

  Mr. Hague
  The jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is unaffected where administrative functions of a Department are carried out by private contractors.

  One Place Service
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of the population is served by local offices offering a single point of contact for help and information;

  (2) what action his Department has taken in response to his one-stop consultation paper.

  Mr. Burt
  Following overwhelmingly positive responses to the one-stop discussion paper, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 9 September a national programme whereby all Benefits Agency district offices will provide a one-place service.

  The one-place programme will mean that customers will be able to:
  obtain advice and information on all benefits from their local Benefits Agency office;
  lodge a claim for any benefit at a local office, (regardless of where that benefit is processed) report a change of circumstance, receive reliable advice about the claim to benefit from that local office.

  The Benefits Agency has issued to all its managers a national customer service definition so that staff are clear about the level and scope of service to be delivered.
  212
  The Benefits Agency has 159 districts with over 470 outlets. The national customer service definition will ensure that all customers will be able to receive a one-place service throughout the country by July 1994.

  Although there are no figures available as to the number of Benefits Agency district offices already providing this service, work is under way to establish the current position and ensure that this level of service will be in place by July 1994.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number and proportion of pensioners on benefits in(a) London and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for SocItal Security how many cases of industrial injuries disablement benefit have been granted in each of the last five years for(a) people with primary carcinoma of the lung associated with asbestosis and (b) people with bilateral diffuse pleural thickening of the lungs associated with asbestosis (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) by region.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not collected in the precise format requested. The available information is given in the table and relates only to medical assessments made by special medical boards in Great Britain.

  Special Medical Boards Number of cases, analysed by special medical board, assessed as having 14 to 100 per cent, disablement relating to prescribed diseases D8 and D9

  D81

  D92

  1992

  All boards

  52

  123

  Cardiff

  7

  12

  Swansea

  0

  4

  Glasgow

  4

  16

  Stoke

  9

  7

  Sheffield

  3

  32

  Manchester

  11

  4

  Newcastle

  8

  23

  London

  10

  25

  1991

  All boards

  51

  115

  Cardiff

  5

  14

  Swansea

  5

  4

  Glasgow

  7

  15

  Stoke

  4

  6

  Sheffield

  6

  32

  Manchester

  10

  10

  Newcastle

  8

  17

  London

  6

  17

  1990

  All boards

  56

  104

  Cardiff

  11

  7

  Swansea

  4

  2

  Glasgow

  8

  11

  Stoke

  4

  5

  Sheffield

  4

  23

  Manchester

  13

  14

  Newcastle

  5

  24

  London

  7

  18

  213
  1 D8=Primary carcinoma of the lung

  2 D9=Bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.

  Note: Based on 100 per cent. sample.

  Information is not available for years prior to 1990.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for industrial injuries disablement benefit from people with asbestos-related diseases have been refused in each of the last five years(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) by region.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not collected in the precise format requested. Available information is in the table and relates only to medical assessments made by special medical boards in Great Britain.

  Special Medical Boards Number of cases, analysed by Special Medical Board, of asbestos-related diseases not diagnosed, or diagnosed at less than the applicable percentage (prescribed diseases D1 and D3 1 per cent, D8 and D9 14 per cent.1)

  1992

  D123

  D34

  D85

  D96

  All boards

  758

  58

  191

  278

  Cardiff

  17

  7

  22

  35

  Swansea

  14

  2

  5

  7

  Glasgow

  199

  11

  23

  29

  Stoke

  14

  4

  12

  11

  Sheffield

  59

  6

  32

  42

  Manchester

  135

  11

  44

  40

  Newcastle

  243

  4

  13

  42

  London

  77

  13

  40

  72

  1991

  D123

  D34

  D85

  D96

  All Boards

  1,317

  50

  189

  279

  Cardiff

  36

  5

  21

  43

  Swansea

  7

  1

  6

  8

  Glasgow

  159

  7

  25

  17

  Stoke

  11

  6

  13

  17

  Sheffield

  62

  6

  24

  46

  Manchester

  95

  7

  41

  19

  Newcastle

  891

  6

  27

  73

  London

  56

  12

  32

  56

  1990

  D123

  D34

  D85

  D96

  All Boards

  637

  54

  237

  256

  Cardiff

  35

  4

  21

  43

  Swansea

  6

  2

  8

  5

  Glasgow

  126

  1

  25

  28

  Stoke

  15

  5

  13

  9

  Sheffield

  67

  10

  26

  35

  Manchester

  102

  16

  50

  37

  Newcastle

  232

  5

  50

  57

  London

  54

  11

  44

  42

  1989

  2 3D1

  4D3

  1 5D8

  1 6D9

  All boards

  473

  39

  117

  136

  Cardiff

  31

  4

  16

  19

  Swansea

  4

  0

  3

  1

  Glasgow

  92

  2

  15

  9

  Stoke

  14

  3

  5

  10

  Sheffield

  63

  4

  17

  28

  Manchester

  97

  7

  24

  27

  Newcastle

  106

  5

  10

  16

  London

  66

  14

  27

  26

  214

  1988

  2 3D1

  4D3

  1 5D8

  1 6D9

  All boards

  486

  39

  155

  120

  Cardiff

  43

  3

  25

  25

  Swansea

  5

  1

  6

  4

  Glasgow

  112

  4

  15

  8

  Stoke

  12

  0

  8

  5

  Sheffield

  37

  2

  11

  9

  Manchester

  101

  10

  23

  17

  Newcastle

  104

  3

  36

  9

  London

  72

  16

  31

  43

  Note: Based on 100 per cent. sample.

  1Only refers to 0 per cent. cases for 1988 and 1989 due to different method of data collection at that time.

  2Asbestos industry only.

  3D1=Pneumoconiosis.

  4D3=Diffuse mesothelioma.

  5D8=Primary carcinoma of the lung.

  6D9=Bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been the annual costs of industrial injuries disablement benefit payments for asbestosis-related cases in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for assistance from the independent living fund have been turned down during the current financial year on the grounds that the value of the applicant's existing care package totals £500 or more; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the independent living (1993) fund that 11 applications to the fund have been turned down on those grounds.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) successful applications for assistance were made to the independent living fund during the current financial year, (b) individuals receiving help from the independent living fund under the previous arrangements continued to receive help during the current financial year and (c) unsuccessful applications for help were made to the independent living fund in the current year; and if he will break these figures down by local authority.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the independent living (1993) fund that, as at 1 February, 187 successful applications had been made to the fund. A further 311 applications have been unsuccessful. At the same date, 19,137 former clients of the independent living fund were receiving payments from the independent living (extension) fund.

  A breakdown of the figures at 1 February by local authority is not yet available. The table shows the breakdown of applications as at 31 December 1993.

  Local authority

  Successful cases

  Unsuccessful cases

  Avon

  5

  4

  Bedfordshire

  1

  2

  Berkshire

  2

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  1

  Cheshire

  0

  6

  Cleveland

  0

  5

  215

  Local authority

  Successful cases

  Unsuccessful cases

  Cornwall

  0

  1

  Cumbria

  4

  3

  Derbyshire

  5

  1

  Devon

  2

  2

  Dorset

  1

  1

  Durham

  1

  4

  East Sussex

  0

  3

  Essex

  7

  4

  Gloucester

  3

  0

  Hampshire

  3

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  2

  Hertfordshire

  2

  4

  Humberside

  1

  2

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  1

  3

  Leicestershire

  2

  0

  Lincolnshire

  2

  2

  Norfolk

  1

  4

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  Northumberland

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  1

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  4

  Oxfordshire

  2

  2

  Shropshire

  4

  3

  Somerset

  2

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  2

  Suffolk

  4

  2

  Surrey

  5

  0

  Warwickshire

  1

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  1

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  Wigan

  0

  0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  1

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  Salford

  1

  1

  Manchester

  0

  0

  Oldham

  2

  6

  Trafford

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  Tameside

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  Wolverhampton

  1

  3

  Walsall

  1

  1

  Dudley

  1

  0

  Sandwell

  2

  0

  Birmingham

  0

  2

  Solihull

  1

  2

  Coventry

  0

  1

  Merseyside

  Sefton

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  6

  St. Helens

  0

  4

  Knowsley

  0

  1

  Wirral

  0

  1

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  1

  Sheffield

  3

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle

  1

  2

  North Tyneside

  0

  1

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  1

  1

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  1

  0

  Leeds

  1

  0

  216

  Local authority

  Successful cases

  Unsuccessful cases

  Calderdale

  1

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  2

  Wales

  Clwyd

  11

  7

  Dyfed

  2

  0

  Gwent

  0

  1

  Gwynedd

  1

  7

  Mid-Glamorgan

  2

  0

  Powys

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  1

  2

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  N. Ireland

  Northern area

  0

  2

  Southern area

  0

  6

  Eastern area

  1

  4

  Western area

  0

  7

  Scotland

  Highland

  0

  1

  Grampian

  0

  0

  Tayside

  1

  0

  Fife

  2

  3

  Lothian

  2

  3

  Central

  3

  0

  Borders

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  7

  7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  0

  Orkneys

  0

  0

  Shetlands

  0

  1

  W. Isles

  0

  1

  London Central

  Camden

  4

  5

  Greenwich

  2

  1

  Hackney

  3

  4

  Hammersmith

  0

  6

  Islington

  0

  1

  Kensington

  2

  4

  Lambeth

  4

  2

  Lewisham

  0

  1

  Southwark

  2

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  0

  1

  Westminster

  1

  1

  City

  0

  0

  Outer London

  Barking

  1

  1

  Barnet

  0

  1

  Bexley

  0

  1

  Brent

  2

  1

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  Ealing

  0

  1

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Haringey

  1

  2

  Harrow

  1

  1

  Havering

  2

  1

  Hillingdon

  1

  1

  Hounslow

  1

  0

  Kingston

  3

  0

  Merton

  1

  0

  Newham

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  1

  0

  Richmond

  1

  0

  Sutton

  1

  0

  Waltham Forest

  1

  0

  217

  Mortgages
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current assessment of the number of people in receipt of direct assistance with their mortgage payments.

  Mr. Burt
  There are 562,000 cases with mortgage interest included in the assessment of benefit.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1993

  Note: The number of claimants has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentages of children aged(a) under five years, (b) five to 11 years and

  Numbers and proportions of children in families receiving family credit

  Year

  Under five years

  Per cent.

  Five to 11 years

  Per cent.

  12 to 15 years

  Per cent.

  1993

  282,000

  7·5

  425,000

  8·5

  230,000

  8·6

  1992

  253,000

  6·7

  368,000

  7·4

  192,000

  7·2

  1991

  229,000

  6·1

  317,000

  6·4

  160,000

  6·1

  1990

  217,000

  5·9

  284,000

  5·8

  139,000

  5·4

  1989

  216,000

  5·9

  261,000

  5·4

  131,000

  5·0

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest thousand and percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  2. 1993 percentages based on population figures for mid-1992.

  3. Family credit figures are not available for 1988.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistical Enquiry, February 1993.

  Income Support Statistical Annual Enquiries, May 1988–1992.

  Family Credit 5 per cent. Sample of Awards, June 1989–1992.

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the total number of families with children in receipt of(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) disability working allowance include a qualifying child for child support purposes.

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not available centrally.

  Unemployed Volunteers
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proposals he has to encourage unemployed people to offer their services as volunteers and to improve the conditions for doing so;

  (2) what representations he has received from the National Association of Voluntary Bodies on the need for further improvements in conditions for unemployed volunteers in receipt of benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  The Government strongly support opportunities for volunteering and provide a variety of advice and opportunities for the unemployed who wish to do so. Publicity leaflets outline the advantages to unemployed people who wish to undertake voluntary work and point out that as volunteers they can now be allowed 48 hours notice before taking up a job opportunity.

  Community action will this year provide 50,000 opportunities for unemployed people to do work of benefit
  218
  (c) 12 to 15 years live in families receiving (i) income support and (ii) family credit; and what were the comparable figures in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the precise form requested as income support and family credit were not introduced until April 1988. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Numbers and proportions of children in families receiving income support

  Year

  Under five years

  Per cent.

  Five to 11 years

  Per cent.

  12–15 years

  Per cent.

  1993

  1,139,000

  30·1

  1,291,000

  25·9

  540,000

  20·3

  1992

  1,062,000

  28·1

  1,166,000

  23·4

  476,000

  17·9

  1991

  949,000

  25·3

  1,019,000

  20·5

  400,000

  15·4

  1990

  829,000

  22·4

  860,000

  17·5

  355,000

  13·8

  1989

  830,000

  22·6

  829,000

  17·2

  371,000

  14·0

  1988

  820,000

  22·7

  853,000

  18·0

  419,000

  15·1

  to the community. Participants receive an allowance equivalent to £10 per week more than their weekly benefit rate.

  Additionally, the benefit rules contain a more generous provision for this treatment of earnings received by people such as retained fire fighters, lifeboatmen and others who volunteer for forms of special service to the community.

  No recent representations have been received from the National Association of Voluntary Bodies.

  National Association of Pension Funds
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make public the National Association of Pension Funds submission in response to the Government's Green Paper on social security reforms of September 1985.

  Mr. Hague
  Publication is a matter for the National Association of Pension Funds.

  Child Support Ageny
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits savings were made in the first nine months as the result of the collection of child support maintenance; and what plans he has to revise the targets for the Child Support Agency, in particular those for benefit savings, number of applications and completed assessments, following the recent changes in the rules.
  219
  Mr. Burt
  For the period from April to December 1993, benefit savings of £214·5 million have so far been reported. This figure does not represent the total amount of savings achieved because some will be scored retrospectively.

  The policy changes will have an effect on the agency's achievements against targets this year, but it is too early to be precise about the impact. We do not intend to revise the targets at this stage in the year.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate both the income from Child Support Agency fees and the Child Support Agency running costs for the first nine months of its operation, both the expected income from Child Support Agency fees and running costs in each year from 1993–94 to 1997–98; and what plans he has to increase the fees from April 1994 or at any point during this year.

  Mr. Burt
  A provisional figure for the agency's total expenditure for the period April 1993 to December 1993 is £70 million. The money collected from fees in this period was £756,000. This reflects the fact that the assessment process is taking longer than expected. The latest information currently available for 1994–95 and 1995–96 is in the table. Information on 1996–97 and revised estimates for 1994–95 and 1995–96 will be available in the DSS departmental report 1994, to be published in March.

  A routine review of fee levels will take place in October 1994. There are no plans to increase the fees from April 1994.

  Child Support Agency: Financial Provision

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total planned expenditure

  135

  136

  Fees

  12

  19

  Source: DSS Departmental Report 1993.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost of introducing a £5, £10 or £15 disregard on income support for parents with care in receipt of child support maintenance as from,(a) April 1994, (b) October 1994 and (c) April 1995.

  Mr. Burt
  The full-year costs of a £5, £10 and £15 disregard, assuming one third of lone parents to be receiving maintenance, are in the table. This proportion is broadly in line with what we expect the Child Support Agency to achieve in 1994–95.

  Cost £ million

  Disregard

  £5

  £10

  £15

  April 1994

  100

  200

  300

  October 1994

  100

  210

  310

  April 1995

  110

  210

  320

  Note:

  Estimates based on forecast increase in lone parents in receipt of Income Support, rounded to nearest £10 million.
  220

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments have been so notified and consulted upon since June 1992;

  (2) which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Council Members (Schools)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the schools attended by each member of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  According to their respective entries in "Who's Who", the schools attended by the members of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster were Winchester: the Duchy Attorney General, Mr. Timothy Lloyd QC, Ampleforth: the Duchy Receiver General, Major Sir Shane Blewitt KCVO, Eton: the Vice Chancellor of the County Palatine, the hon. Mr. Justice Morritt: and Sir Michael Bunbury Bt, Stowe: Sir Simon Towneley KCVO, Gresham's: Professor Christopher Howes CB, and Charterhouse: Mr. J. R. Sclater.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Human Genome Research.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Advisory Committee on Human Genome Research is chaired by Professor William D. P. Stewart FRS, chief scientific adviser, Office of Science and Technology, and its members are as follows:

  Professor Thomas Blundell FRS,

  Director-General, Agricultural and Food Research Council;

  Sir Walter F. Bodmer FRS,

  Director-General, Imperial Cancer Research Fund;

  Professor Sydney Brenner FRS,

  Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge;

  Dr. Peter Doyle CBE,

  Director of Research and Technology, Zeneca Pharmaceuticals plc;

  Professor Malcolm A. Ferguson-Smith FRS,

  Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge;

  Dr. Trevor Jones FPS FRSC,

  Director of Research, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd;

  Dr. Bridget Ogilvie ScD FlBiol Hon FRCPath,

  Director, The Wellcome Trust;

  Professor Michael Peckham FRCP FRCPGIas FRCR,

  Director of Research and Development, Department of Health;

  Dr. George Poste,

  Research and Development Chairman, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals;

  Sir Dai Rees FRS,

  Secretary, Medical Research Council;

  Dr. Geoffrey Robinson,

  Chief Adviser on Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry;

  Sir Richard Sykes,

  Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive, Glaxo Holdings plc.

  221

  Crown Bodies (Inspection and Enforcement)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he proposes that Crown bodies be fully brought within the regulatory provisions on inspection and enforcement which apply to others.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizen's charter said that public services should not, through Crown immunities, be shielded from inspection and enforcement on such matters as health and safety regulations. It will take time, however, to bring all existing legislation into line. As legislative opportunites arise, Crown bodies are being brought within the regulatory provisions which apply to others, falling short of exposing the Crown itself, as opposed to negligent employees, to criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, Crown bodies are expected to behave as if they were bound by the regulations.

  As a result of food safety and environmental legislation in recent years, if a Crown body is found to be falling below standards, enforcement authorities can go back to the courts for a declaration of non-compliance, which would be followed by immediate corrective action.

  The Health and Safety Executive will be sharpening procedures for serving Crown notices for infringement of health and safety legislation and will be considering the implications of removing Crown immunity.

  In addition, the Home Office has recently completed a review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The question of Crown immunity is one of many aspects being considered.

  Paper Shredders
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many paper shredding machines there are(a) in his private office and (b) in his Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: My private office does not have a paper shredding machine. Within my Department, including agencies, there are nine shredding machines. COI and HMSO, which are separate departments for which I am responsible, have 50 shredders and nine compactors between them.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the National Enterprise Board.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The members currently appointed to the National Enterprise Board, are:

  Mr. I. Harvey

  Mr. R. Kathoke

  Dr. J. Morton

  Sir R. Riley

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Monitoring Committee on Misleading Price Indications.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Monitoring Committee on Misleading Price Indications was stood down on 7 May 1993.
  222

  Manufacturing (Assistance)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to assist the manufacturing industries in the north-west region.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Manufacturing industries in the north-west will continue to benefit from a large part of the region retaining assisted areas status. Companies in those areas are eligible for financial assitance under schemes such as regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grants.

  Manufacturing industry in the region will also benefit from objective 2 areas which allow for improvements in infrastructure. The north-west has a number of areas designated by the EC, including west Cumbria as far south as Barrow, large parts of east Lancashire, the greater and more industrial part of Greater Manchester, the smaller industrial part of west Lancashire, Widnes and Runcorn, Ellesmere Port and Neston. Of course, objective 1 scheduling has already been designated for the Merseyside county.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make a statement about the future of Parcelforce.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I cannot yet say when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be able to make a statement about Parcelforce; the future of the business is still being considered, alongside the main Post Office review. We are, however, still firmly of the view that Parcelforce belongs in the private sector, because it is a business which competes with private sector parcels companies for the very large majority of its services.

  Underwriting Costs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received the results of the Office of Fair Trading study of underwriting costs.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading advises me that he has recently received the results of the independent research which he commissioned on this subject. He is currently considering this before deciding what action he should take, if any.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which organisations were consulted by his Department on each of the recommendations of the business deregulation task forces before they were agreed and action proposed in the DTI document, "Deregulation: Cutting the Red Tape".

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Each of the task force recommendations agreed or agreed in principle by the Government has been or will be the subject of appropriate consultation with interested parties.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the consumer representatives on the advisory panel and task forces on deregulation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The deregulation advisory panel and the seven business deregulation task forces were set up specifically to convey the views of business and did not therefore include any consumer representatives.
  223

  Malaysia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will quantify the long-term project support given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to Malaysia towards each of(a) the Pergau dam project, (b) defence and defence-related contracts and (c) other projects, in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1990–91 and 1991–92 the Export Credits Guarantee Department issued guarantees worth £945 million in support of United Kingdom export projects with Malaysia. Of this total £417 million related to the Pergau dam project and £458 million to defence business.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" relating to the Malaysian arms deal are held in his Department.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: My Department does not hold any files marked "Not for NAO eyes" relating to the Malaysian arms deal.

  Ministerial Visits Abroad
  Mr. Tim Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which countries visited by Trade and Industry Ministers since June 1987 have subsequently placed orders for arms.

  Mr. Needham
  Given the strength and competitiveness of the United Kingdom defence industry I would expect orders to have been placed by most countries visited; exports would not be licensed to certain countries where it is thought inappropriate or where there are internationally agreed embargoes. It would not be possible to provide a detailed answer except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the overseas visits that have been made by Trade and Industry Ministers since June 1987; and what was the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on all overseas visits by all Trade and Industry Ministers for any purpose since June 1987 could only be made available at disproportionate cost. The following Trade and Industry Ministers have made trade promotion visits overseas to date in the financial year 1993–94.

  The President of the Board

  Mexico/Argentina—June 1993

  Japan/Australia—January 1993

  The Minister for Trade

  Ireland—July 1993

  Czech Republic—September 1993

  Qatar/UAE—April 1993

  Turkey—July 1993

  Hong Kong/Korea—April 1993

  Thailand/Indonesia/Singapore—June 1993

  Japan/Malaysia—September 1993

  China/Taiwan/Hong Kong—October 1993

  Singapore/Malaysia/Indonesia—November-December 1993

  India—November 1993

  The Minister for Energy

  Kazakhstan—September-October 1993

  Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia—September 1993

  The former Minister, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)
  224

  Slovenia—March 1993

  Ghana—April 1993

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology

  Zimbabwe/Tanzania—October 1993

  Brazil—September 1993

  Baroness Denton

  Singapore—September 1993

  Lord Strathclyde

  China—October 1993

  Auditors' Supervisory Bodies
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the second annual reports of the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors under part II of the Companies Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have received the second annual reports of all the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors, and have placed copies in the Library. My Department will be discussing the contents of the reports with the bodies.

  Post Office
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he intends to introduce a new independent regulator to advise him on issues affecting the interests of Post Office customers;

  (2) when he expects to introduce measures to allow him to set the performance standards for the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The precise method of implementation of these commitments, which were set out in the citizens charter, is under consideration in the wider review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office. Both require primary legislation and would be included in any legislation arising from the review. The review is still continuing.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the subjects on which his Department or its predecessors formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by him to an executive agency.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are 10 DTI agencies: Accounts Services Agency, Companies House, Insolvency Service, Laboratory of the Government Chemist, National Engineering Laboratory, National Physical Laboratory, National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Patent Office, Radiocommuncations Agency and Warren Spring Laboratory. The chief executives of these are usually asked to reply to parliamentary questions about the day-to-day operational matters of their agency and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in their agency's framework document.

  Champagne
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bottles of champagne were imported from France in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on imports of champagne is not available in terms of bottles. The available information is given in the following table:
  225

  Year

  Million litres

  1979

  7·18

  1980

  6·43

  1981

  6·04

  1982

  5·93

  1983

  7·52

  1984

  9·12

  1985

  11·41

  1986

  12·40

  1987

  14·38

  1988

  15·48

  1989

  18·04

  1990

  16·12

  1991

  10·58

  1992

  11·10

  Tied Housing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of the tied house system.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Between 1986 and 1988 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission undertook an extensive study of the supply of beer in the United Kingdom, in particular the tied house system, which assessed its benefits and adverse effects.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1993,Official Report, column 985, under which safeguards provisions the transfers of plutonium to the United States took place; what notification of the plutonium exports was given in advance to the safeguards authorities; and what information he has on plutonium exported to the United States between 1963 and 1979

  Mr. Eggar
  Plutonium sent under the defence agreement with the United States is not consigned there under safeguards. Any transfers of military plutonium are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Following the announcements by President Johnson and Mr. Krushchev that their Governments were reducing their planned production of fissile materials for weapons purposes, my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister advised the House on 21 April 1964, at column 1098, that he had been informed by the United States Government that they had no intention of using for weapons purposes any of the plutonium produced in the reactors of the generating boards and consigned under the Defence agreement. In 1984 the United States Government confirmed that this plutonium had not been used in weapons and that it was their policy not to so use it. This confirmation was reported to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Energy on 9 April 1984, at column 6. I have nothing to add to these statements.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the witnesses to be called in public session before the Scott inquiry to date; what has been the total cost incurred by the inquiry; and what proportion of these costs have been taken up in expenses paid to witnesses for the provision of copies of documentation or travel costs to attend the inquiry by invitation.
  226
  Mr. Needham
  The following witnesses have appeared to date in public session before the Scott inquiry:

  4 May 1993—Sir Richard Luce, formerly Minister of State, FCO

  5 May 1993—Mr. Hart, ECGD

  5 May 1993—Mr. Bryars, ECGD

  10 May 1993—Mr. Sandars, MoD

  11 May 1993—Lt. Col. Glazebrook, MoD

  12 May 1993—Lt. Col. Glazebrook, MoD

  21 June 1993—Lt. Col. Glazebrook, MoD

  22 June 1993—Lt. Col. Glazebrook, MoD

  17 May 1993—Sir Adam Butler, formerly Minister for Defence Procurement

  19 May 1993—Mr. Channon, formerly Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  24 May 1993—Sir Hal Miller, M.P.

  27 May 1993—Sir Patrick Mayhew, formerly Attorney-General (now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland)

  11 June 1993—Mr. Collins, FCO

  15 June 1993—Sir Stephen, Egerton FCO

  28 June 1993—Mr. Patey, FCO

  30 June 1993—Mr. James, Eagle Trust PLC

  30 June 1993—Mr. Fellgett, HM Treasury

  7 July 1993—Mr. Vereker, FCO

  15 July 1993—Mr. Higson, formerly FCO

  19 July 1993—Sir David Miers, FCO

  20 July 1993—Sir David Miers, FCO

  27 July 1993—Mr. Blackley, FCO

  13 September 1993—Mr. Gore-Booth, FCO

  14 September 1993—Mr. Gore-Booth, FCO

  15 September 1993—Mr. Young, FCO

  20 September 1993—Mr. Renton, formerly Minister of State, FCO

  21 September 1993—Mr. Mellor, formerly Minister of State, FCO

  22 September 1993—Mr. Waldegrave, formerly Minister of State, FCO (now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)

  23 September 1993—Mr. Waldegrave, formerly Minister of State, FCO (now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)

  12 October 1993—Mr. Waldegrave, formerly Minister of State, FCO (now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)

  19 October 1993—Mr. Fuller, FCO

  20 October 1993—Mr. Lamport, FCO

  25 October 1993—Mr. Haswell, FCO

  6 October 1993—Mr. McDonald, MoD

  7 October 1993—Mr. McDonald, MoD

  26 October 1993—Mr. McDonald, MoD

  28 October 1993—Mr. McDonald, MoD

  1 November 1993—Mr. Barrett, MoD

  2 November 1993—Mr. Barrett, MoD

  3 November 1993—Mr. Barrett, MoD

  4 November 1993—Mr. Barrett, MoD

  8 November 1993—Mr. Sherrington, FCO

  22 November 1993—Mr. Beston, DTI

  23 November 1993—Mr. Beston, DTI

  24 November 1993—Mr. Beston, DTI

  25 November 1993—Mr. Beston, DTI

  26 November 1993—Mr. Beston, DTI

  17 December 1993—Mr. Beston, DTI

  30 November 1993—Mr. Steadman, DTI

  1 December 1993—Mr. Steadman, DTI

  8 December 1993—Baroness Thatcher, formerly Prime Minister

  13 December 1993—Mr. Clark, formerly Minister for Defence Procurement and Minister for Trade

  14 December 1993—Mr. Clark, formerly Minister for Defence Procurement and Minister for Trade

  15 December 1993—Mr. Clark, formerly Minister for Defence Procurement and Minister for Trade

  11 January 1994—Mr. Baker, formerly Home Secretary

  12 January 1994—Lord Howe, formerly Foreign Secretary

  17 January 1994—Mr. Major, Prime Minister

  21 January 1994—Mr. Bevan, Cabinet Office

  25 January 1994—Mr. Hurd, Foreign Secretary

  26 January 1994—Mr. Petter, DTI

  28 January 1994—Mr. Coolican, DTI

  The direct cost incurred by the inquiry to date has been about £700,000.
  227
  Expenses paid by the inquiry to witnesses, for the provision of copies of documentation or travel costs, total to date about £400.

  Most of the costs of providing documentation to witnesses and meeting travel expenses is met directly by the Departments in which the witnesses served.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contracts his Department or the energy technology support unit has placed with academic or independent research institutions since 1990 into the public acceptability of renewable energy technologies.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following 21 contracts have been placed since 1990 with academic institutions and independent consultants into, and associated with, the issues of public acceptability of renewables:

  Titles

  Template for Community Involvement/Consultation in the Development of Waste to Energy Projects.

  Community Appraisal Relating to Hampshire County's Waste Strategy.

  Farmers Current Attitudes to Energy Forestry in GB.

  Community Forests Integrated Review Energy Capability.

  Market Survey Investigating Conservatory Energies.

  Public Attitude Survey at Delabole.

  Video Production: Visual Impact of Wind Farms.

  Provision of Advice on Planning Policy Guidance.

  Provision of Advice on Impact of non-conforming Developments.

  Preparation of Summary Report on Landscape Impact.

  Mynddy Cemmaes Windfarm Impact assessment.

  Cemmaes Wind farm Impact Study—Phase 1.

  The Visual Impact of Windfarms Lessons from the UK NFFO.

  Landscape Impact Assessment for Wind Turbine Development.

  Design Prediction Model for Wind Turbine Noise.

  Assessment and Prediction of Wind Turbines Noise.

  Systematic Comparison of Predictions and Experiment on Noise.

  Preparation of a Wind Annex for Planning Policy Guidance.

  An Investigation of the Levels of Electromagnetic Emissions.

  Renewable Energy—Public Awareness and Attitudes (two surveys).

  Power Transmission Lines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received from the National Radiological Protection Board in regard to its evaluation of extra low frequency electric and magnetic field effects of electricity transmission.

  Mr. Eggar
  The National Radiological Protection Board publishes its findings through HMSO. The latest relevant publication is the board statement on restrictions on human exposure to static and time varying electromagnetic fields and radiation, published in March 1993, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Pensions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he plans in respect of guaranteeing post-privatisation pension improvements and on the power for him to relieve the trustees of their fiduciary responsibilities should he instruct them to act in the national interest.
  228
  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions between my Department and the trustees of the British Coal pension schemes on proposed arrangements for guaranteeing payment of index-linked pensions after privatisation are continuing.

  Newsagents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from the National Federation of Retail Newsagents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This body is to meet my officials shortly, prior to submitting written representations as part of the statutory consultation process on an order which I have proposed under the Fair Trading Act 1973 in relation to the wholesale supply of national newspapers to retailers in England and Wales. The proposed order follows a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report which identified certain practices of newspaper wholesalers as being against the public interest. I will carefully consider their views, along with all the other representations I receive during the consultation period which runs until 31 March.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards he intends to introduce to ensure a fair and level playing field to ensure the continuation of the home delivery service in respect of newsagents.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have announced a consultation period until March 31 on my proposed order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 relating to the supply national newspapers in England and Wales. I am prepared to consider any representations that the industry wishes to make to me as part of this process on home delivery, or on other issues.

  Foreign Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in which EU countries(a) the national law or (b) shareholder restrictions prohibit the takeover or buyout of major manufacturing companies by foreign firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The treaty of Rome prohibits arty member state from discriminating against bidders from other EU countries, except in very limited circumstances, for example where there are national security considerations.

  Other restrictions, in the form, for example, of differential voting rights and cross-shareholdings, are a common feature of continental corporate structures, although they tend to operate against all hostile takeover approaches, not just those from foreign companies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to encourage the sale of manufacturing capacity to foreign firms.

  Mr. Needham
  We shall continue to maintain our successful open and liberal policies towards both inward and outward investment and will not seek to impose arbitrary restrictions which only serve to distort the market.
  229

  Electricity
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will use his powers under the Electricity Act 1989 to amend the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 in order to effect the standardisation of electricity supplies.

  Mr. Eggar
  Amended regulations will come into force on 1 January 1995.

  British Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of British companies in which a controlling interest has been sold since 1979 for more than £50 million.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The information in the form requested is not readily available. However, the Central Statistical Office, CSO, bulletin on "Acquisitions and Mergers within the UK", available in the Library of the House, provides some details on, inter alia, expenditure of acquisitions and mergers within the United Kingdom. A summary of table 4 of the latest bulletin, dated 16 November 1993, is as follows:

  Size distribution of acquisitions and mergers within the United Kingdon Total acquisitions and mergers

  Year

  Expenditure over £100 million

  Expenditure over £10 million and up to £100 million

  number acquired

  number acquired

  1986

  21

  119

  1987

  30

  192

  1988

  44

  172

  1989

  40

  181

  1990

  18

  89

  1991

  17

  63

  1992

  7

  64

  1993 Q1

  4

  15

  Q2

  1

  25

  Q3

  2

  22

  Source: Table 4, CSO bulletin, "Acquisitions and Mergers within the UK".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 406, what is the perceived barrier to trade which will be removed by the standardisation of electricity supplies.

  Mr. Eggar
  That manufacturers and suppliers are presently obliged to make or stock equipment of a different specification if they wish to export within the EC.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of(a) the competitive advantage which will accrue to countries within the European Community whose electricity equipment already uses the nominal voltage of 230/400 volts by the standardisation of electrical supplies, and (b) the competitive disadvantage which will occur to those manufacturers which do not.

  Mr. Eggar
  A number of EC countries now use 230/400 volts as the nominal voltage and the rest are changing or are in the process of doing so by 1995. Consultations with manufacturers in this country and their 230
  representative trade associations have clearly indicated that considerable advantages will be realised through rationalised product ranges and thus reduced production costs together with uniform safety standards and harmonised certifying procedures throughout the European Community as a whole. Manufacturers outside the EC who do not adopt similar standards will be at a disadvantage when trading within the EC.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessments he has made as to the costs of the standardisation of electrical supplies to manufacturers of electrical equipment; and what consultations he held with the manufacturers before he accepted the new standards.

  Mr. Eggar
  The assessment of costs to manufacturers of electrical equipment of the proposed standardisation of supply voltage was made through a formal exercise. Consultations were carried out during 1992 with electrical equipment manufacturers in this country and through the major trade associations. Cost reductions of up to 5 per cent. were predicted in the event of the new standard being adopted.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 408, what proportion of the organisations representing (a) the United Kingdom electricity companies, (b) equipment manufacturers and (c) consumers consulted were opposed to changes in the reduction of voltage supplies.

  Mr. Eggar
  Those organisations who responded adversely to a reduction of supply voltage were:

  (a) Electricity supply companies—none

  (b) Equipment manufacturers—less than 10 per cent.

  (c) Consumer organisations—no firm views.

  Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will specify the amounts received by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory from outside work during the financial year 1992–93 and the first six months of the current period, broken down by industrial sector.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The National Weights and Measures Laboratory received the following income from outside work during the financial year 1992–93 and in the first six months of the current period:

  1992–93

  11993

  £

  £

  Income from local authorities

  93,887

  10,501

  Income from manufacturers of weighing and measuring equipment

  394,901

  257,015

  Total income

  488,788

  267,516

  11 April 1993 to 30 September 1993

  Most income from local authorities comes in the second half of the financial year.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the terms of reference of the nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on 16 December 1993,Official Report, column 759.
  231

  Redundant Mineworkers Scheme
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to continue the British Coal redundancy package for miners after April.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have informed British Coal that the Government are prepared to provide funding for the current redundancy terms for industrial workers where redundancies are proposed before 30 April 1994, and for so long as the consultations with the unions on any such proposal continue.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 February,Official Report, column 770.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Patent Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The consultants' work on this review, which I announced on 30 June 1993, has been completed. I am now considering both the findings in their report and the various points which have been raised by interested parties during the course of the review. I hope to announce our conclusions in the light of the review in the fairly near future.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces with UNPROFOR in central Bosnia.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The United Kingdom continues to play a major role in providing personnel and equipment as part of UNPROFOR in Bosnia. The Army battalion group—currently 1st Battalion, Coldstream Guards and its support units—is deployed on humanitarian aid and refugee escort duties. In spite of considerable difficulties from fighting and obstruction on the ground, it is carrying out a very successful operation, with great skill and courage, which has helped to save many thousands of lives, and of which we can all be justly proud.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current military situation in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Fighting continues among the different factions in Bosnia, although the winter weather has occasioned some decrease in hostilities. British forces continue to face considerable risks in carrying out their important humanitarian tasks, which they are discharging with courage and distinction. We keep the situation on the ground under regular review.
  232
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of United Kingdom service personnel currently serving in Bosnia.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given earlier to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence if he will make a statement on the future deployment of United Kingdom forces in Bosnia.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future deployment of troops in Bosnia.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given earlier to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of Britain's military presence in Cyprus.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom's military presence in Cyprus comprises about 4,500 service and civilian personnel in two sovereign base areas and a separate contribution of over 400 troops to the United Nations Force in Cyprus—UNFICYP. We have no plans to withdraw from either commitment in the foreseeable future, although we keep all our commitments under review.

  Defence Industries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has provided to defence industrialists about his plans to help the defence industries adapt to reduce defence expenditure levels.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is in frequent contact with our defence industries to keep them well informed about our future equipment requirements and our planned defence expenditure levels.

  Brazil
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on United Kingdom defence exports to Brazil.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Brazilian Government have recently announced their decision to place a £150 million order with Westland for nine Super Lynx helicopters and extensive Lynx upgrade work. This is an important success for the United Kingdom in a market where we have a long tradition of supplying defence equipment.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current stockpile of nuclear materials under the control of his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department does not hold significant stocks of fissile material other than those required for our operational needs.
  233

  Trident
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the fourth Trident submarine to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The fourth Trident missile submarine will complete around the turn of the century assuming the present Government remain in office. Construction work is progressing well.

  Technology Foresight
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of his development and procurement budget will be directed to using the results of the technology foresight exercise when they become available.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is playing a full part in the technology foresight exercise and will take full advantage of its results in the future defence programme wherever appropriate.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sub-strategic nuclear warheads are currently held by each of the former Soviet republics.

  Mr. Hanley
  We believe that all former Soviet sub-strategic nuclear weapons have been withdrawn to Russia. Between 11,000 and 12,000 may currently remain, but many of these are unlikely to be fully operational.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the scope for efficiency savings in his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since 1988, when our efficiency programme began, improvements have been made which are now worth some £1·8 billion a year. The "Front Line First" study is currently looking for ways to make substantial further efficiency savings and reductions in support and administrative costs.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department plans to withdraw from the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich by March 1998 and discussions are well under way as to procedures and price for the sale of the hospital to the Greenwich Healthcare trust.

  Defence Contracts (Kuwait)
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of United Kingdom defence contracts in Kuwait in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not Government policy to release details of the value of defence contracts placed by specific countries. However, in 1993 the Government of Kuwait placed a significant order for Warrior armoured fighting vehicles manufactured by GKN Defence.
  234

  Troop Deployment (Germany)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of troops deployed in Germany; at what cost; what were the comparable figures for five and 15 years ago in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current strength of the Army in Germany is around 31,500. The estimated expenditure against the British Army of the Rhine budget for 1993–94 is £1,330 million.

  The strength of the Army in Germany on 1 April 1988 was 55,700 and on 1 April 1979 was 55,000. We are unable to provide comparable costs for these years as they were compiled on a different basis.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress within his Department's deregulation unit.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is playing a full part in the deregulation initiative. As a non-regulatory Department the Ministry of Defence has focused its efforts on relieving unnecessary administrative burdens on its suppliers; streamlining contract procedures, and improving communications with industry.

  Defence Exports (Kuwait)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on United Kingdom defence exports to Kuwait.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding on defence procurement with Kuwait on 2 December 1992. In August 1993 an order for Warrior armoured fighting vehicles from GKN Defence was secured and we look forward to further orders for United Kingdom manufactured defence equipment in due course.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the current complement of part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment.

  Mr. Hanley
  For security reasons it is not our practice to disclose the complement of any regiment in the British Army. However, as at 31 December 1993 the strength of the part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment—Home Service—was 110 officers and 2,400 soldiers. A recruitment campaign for the part-time element of the regiment is currently under way.

  C-130J
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the C-130J will enter into service with the British armed forces.

  Mr. Aitken
  The C-130J is one of several options being considered as part of a programme to refurbish or replace up to half the RAF fleet of Hercules aircraft. We hope to be in a position to decide on the way ahead later this year.
  235

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to obtain from his United States counterpart a copy of the report "Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium", prepared for the United States Department of Defence by the committee on international security and arms council of the National Academy of Sciences.

  Mr. Aitken
  My officials have already requested a copy of this report.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future of search and rescue services at Portland.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans to alter the existing arrangements for the provision of search and rescue at Portland.

  Ministers (Travel)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the overseas visits that have been made by Defence Ministers since June 1987; and what was the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Homosexuality
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made since his statement of 17 June 1992,Official Report, column 990, in deciding whether he will introduce legislation this year to decriminalise homosexuality in the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 532.

  Partnership for Peace
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of future relations between the Visegrad countries and the WEU following the adoption by NATO of the partnership for peace policy.

  Mr. Hanley
  Discussions have taken place between the Western European Union Permanent Council and representatives from central and eastern Europe, including the Visegrad countries, following the agreement reached at the 22 November WEU ministerial meeting on the possibility of an enhanced relationship with WEU for these countries. Any such relationship would be complementary and compatible with the links developed through NATO's "Partnership for Peace".

  Falkland Islands Garrison
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the objective of the current garrison in the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Hanley
  As long as Argentina maintains its claim to the Falkland Islands, the United Kingdom needs to 236
  maintain appropriate forces there. The objective of these forces is to deter possible aggression against the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands and, if necessary, permit reinforcement through Mount Pleasant airfield.

  Tornado-helicopter Accident
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 239, on the accident involving a civil helicopter and an RAF Tornado, when he now expects to be able to publish the military aircraft accident summary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).

  T80U Tank
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 901, what were the terms of the gift of the Russian T80U tank and by whom it was donated; and if the evaluation took place with a view to possible procurement for use in the British Army.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 3 February,Official Report, column 901.

  Germany
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the savings to the defence budget of(a) a total withdrawal of the Royal Air Force and (b) a withdrawal of Tornado squadrons from Germany.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans for a total withdrawal of the Royal Air Force from Germany or for the withdrawal of the Germany-based Tornado squadrons. It would not, in any case, be the practice to publish assessments of the costs or savings which might arise from speculative changes in the Defence forward programme.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the military purpose currently being served by the deployment of the Royal Air Force in Germany.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF in Germany makes an important contribution to the collective defence of the North Atlantic Alliance. By contributing highly capable air forces to each category of NATO's new multinational force structure, the United Kingdom collaborates with other allies to assure the security of Allied Command Europe, providing forces for the full range of the alliance's missions.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the German Defence Minister on a total or partial withdrawal of the Royal Air Force from Germany.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by station(a) the units and (b) the

  237
  aircraft currently deployed in Germany, together with the number of members of the Royal Air Force and their dependants.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are four Tornado GR1 squadrons, one RAF Regiment squadron and a signals unit at RAF Bruggen; two Harrier squadrons, two RAF Regiment squadrons, and one mixed Chinook/Puma squadron at RAF Laarbruck. HQ 2 Group and its supporting units and a signals unit are located at RAF Rheindahlen. An Air weapons range is based at RAF Nordhorn and there is an RAF hospital at RAF Wegberg. Currently there are some 6,000 RAF personnel in Germany. Figures for the number of their dependants are not held centrally.

  Falkland Islands (Mines)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the latest situation regarding the removal of mines from the Falkland Islands; how many military and civilians have been killed or wounded by mines; what assistance the Argentine Government are giving in the process of clearing mines, what monetary compensation the Argentine Government are supplying; and how many Argentine(a) civilian and (b) military workers are involved in the process.

  Mr. Hanley
  Immediately after the Falklands conflict in 1982, our forces in the Falkland Islands set in hand an extensive programme of identifying, marking and, to the extent possible, clearing the minefields left behind by the Argentines. This programme was suspended in August 1983. Four engineers were seriously wounded in the course of these operations, although there were no civilian casualties. An explosive ordnance detachment remains 238
  based in the Falklands to advise the civilian population on the areas to avoid and to deal with any mines which become exposed.

  Argentina has recently offered to pay for a third party to clear the minefields in the Falklands. The Falkland Islands Government have agreed that this proposal should be explored further, and we are following this up with Argentina. Before accepting the Argentine offer we would need to reach agreement on various practical issues. There would not be any involvement by Argentine workers in any operation on the Falkland Islands to clear the mines.

  War Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the changes that he proposes in the eligibility for war widows' pensions whereby pension will be diminished or denied where the deceased has contributed to or caused his own death by tobacco or alcohol poisoning.

  Mr. Hague
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 4 January 1994 we wrote to members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions with proposals to exclude from the scope of the War Pensions scheme any death or disablement due to the use or effects of tobacco or the consumption of alcohol. This exclusion would not apply where the individual was suffering from a mental disablement which was attributable to service, assessed at 80 per cent. or more, and caused him to smoke or drink or prevented him from giving up the habit.

  We are now considering their responses and no decisions have been made.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
"Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Asylum-Seekers: Family Reunions
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are giving priority to cases involving family reunion in Britain, for asylum-seekers generally and for individuals given "exceptional leave to remain" in particular.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, all cases of family reunion are dealt with as quickly as possible, but consideration is dependent on other competing priorities.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. However, is he aware that during the past year at least two asylum-seekers, having been prevented from having a family reunion, committed suicide? Is he further aware that it may take seven or eight years for a person who is granted ELR (exceptional leave to remain) to achieve family reunion in Great Britain? Will the noble Earl persuade his colleagues to study both the Helsinki Final Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child so that such cases involving children can be dealt with more quickly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware of the two instances to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred. Clearly, it is very regrettable when anyone commits suicide, especially in those circumstances. With regard to the convention on the rights of the child, the principle in Article 10 is accepted. It is important that the noble Lord should realise that an asylum-seeker has no entitlement to settle here. Once an asylum-seeker is granted asylum, he is entitled to have his family with him. However, if he is not given asylum but is given exceptional leave to remain, he must then show that his stay here is permanent. That is the reason why such people very often have to wait for about four years before they can bring their family to this country.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although there are genuine compassionate cases, and some perhaps of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the principle of family reunion has sometimes been regarded as a way of circumventing our immigration system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is right. If we allow such persons to bring in their wives and children before they have been admitted as refugees, that would open the way to abuse of the immigration system. That is why even those who have acquired exceptional leave to remain must show that their stay here is of a permanent nature.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say in how many cases it has eventually turned out that a person granted exceptional leave to remain was not entitled to bring his family with him, even though the immigration authorities had so admitted the children improperly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not have the information that the noble Lord requires.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I know—
Earl Ferrers: Well, my Lords, if the noble Lord knows the answer, why did he ask the question in the first place?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I did so for the simple reason that the Minister is trying to pretend that the immigration rules are being flouted or in some way infringed by people who are being granted exceptional leave to remain. I wanted to demonstrate to the noble Earl a fact of which he is, apparently, unaware; namely, that there are no such instances.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I said in reply to my noble friend Lord Renton that if people with exceptional leave to remain were entitled to bring their wives and children to this country, there would be the possibility of abuse of the immigration procedure because very often the purpose of ELR is that such people have already been here for so long that it would be unfair to send them back. I also said that they must be permanently settled here before they bring their wives and children. If that were not so, there would be an abuse of the system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps we can turn to an aspect of the matter which the Government will not seek to claim is an abuse of the immigration system. Is it not the case that the Government agreed last year that 1,000 Bosnian heads of families, with their dependants, would be allowed into this country under a special admissions system? Can the Minister tell the House how many of those families have in fact been admitted under the system? Further, can he tell us whether there has been any change in the guidelines since that humanitarian announcement was first made?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the situation regarding Bosnia is clearly different. We have tried to be as accommodating as we can with regard to the situation there. However, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, concerned bringing wives and children into the country in the circumstances he mentioned in his Question. Those are different to the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question refers to asylum-seekers generally. Can I not have an answer to my question about how many Bosnian families have entered the country under the procedures that I have referred to?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly find out how many Bosnian families have been affected by the

1493
procedures the noble Lord referred to, although that is not part of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I shall pass that information to the noble Lord.

Telecommunications Directorate
2.43 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assurances have been given by the Home Office to the staff of the telecommunications directorate in advance of privatisation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, any prospective purchaser of the Directorate of Telecommunications must have the capacity to meet the liabilities and obligations which will be transferred as a result of the sale. It has been made clear to staff that their conditions of service will automatically transfer to their new employment. The new employer must also provide a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with that which is at present provided by the principal Civil Service pension scheme.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the terms which were offered by the Treasury to the Civil Service catering organisation have not been offered to the staff of the telecommunications directorate because the Treasury has stood in the way and will not allow that? Is that the case?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the circumstances regarding the transfer of the catering establishment to the private sector were different from those of DTELS, as it is called, which is a less competitive business than catering.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether this transfer comes under the scope of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations? If so, can he tell the House what protection is required by those regulations for the staff of the telecommunications directorate and what assurances have been given to the staff?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, assurances have been given to the staff and any new purchaser is bound to give them conditions similar to those which they have received heretofore. There should be no problem over that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend is in a difficult position. Will he try to persuade the Treasury to explain what the difference is between the staff of the Civil Service catering organisation and the staff of the telecommunications directorate, as that is not obvious to everyone?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as my noble friend will know only too well, persuading the Treasury to do anything is always, shall we say, an uphill task. However, there is a difference in so far as catering is a
1494
much more competitive business than that of DTELS, which is restricted in its sphere of operation and is therefore less competitive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is responding for the Government. He cannot get away with answering a question by saying that getting anything out of the Treasury is an uphill task. It is his Government's responsibility to deal with these matters and to control the civil servants who work for the Government. The Minister answered in general terms my question about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. Will he say precisely whether this transfer comes under those regulations?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, it does. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to make a trivial point by saying that I am supposed to answer for the Government. He is perfectly right in that I am supposed to answer for the Government. My noble friend asked me whether, as regards this matter, I would persuade the Treasury on his behalf. I merely commented about the difficulties of persuading anyone to do anything of this kind. However, it is a good deal easier to persuade the Treasury than to persuade the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite the fact that persuading the Treasury has comparative advantages, his earlier answer was reassuring in that it indicated that at any rate one department of state was going for restraint in public expenditure?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If I have not persuaded the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or the Treasury, I am glad that I have persuaded my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and that at least is a pleasure for me.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain why a less competitive business cannot give the terms given by a more competitive business?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is perfectly simple. The Government's policy is that there should be a clean break on privatisation. A move into the private sector brings benefits and drawbacks which are obtainable in the private sector. If a company goes bust, there is no money for redundancy. In the case of the PSA and FORWARD, the conditions were different because catering is a far more difficult and volatile market. That is why it was considered appropriate to make special arrangements.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, to enable the House to understand the difference between the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the Minister, will the noble Earl lay in the Library the two sets of proposals so that the House as a whole can understand them and decide which side to support in the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not know that there was any difference between my noble friend Lord Peyton and myself.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer my question? I asked whether he would lay these papers in the Library so that the House as a whole will understand what the Government are proposing in regard to these two organisations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the two papers are, but perhaps I may consider what the noble Lord said and if there are two such papers I can decide on whether they should be laid in the Library.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Earl—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Is my noble friend aware that there is this difference between us? When he speaks on behalf of his own department—the Home Office—we agree totally, but when he attempts to speak on behalf of that other department—the Treasury—there is quite a gulf between us.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend has been infected by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh and is now trying to be divisive. I speak on behalf of the Government not on behalf of any department.

Deprivation: Health Spending
2.50 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the weighted capitation formula is being adjusted, thereby depriving health authorities in areas of deprivation of the funds necessary to treat illnesses arising from such deprivation, and whether they will state the amount of such reductions, which will affect Birmingham, London, Liverpool and Manchester.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, a review of the weighted capitation formula is nearing completion with the prime purpose of improving its sensitivity. It is likely that the recommended formula will include variables linked to deprivation.
Lord Howell: My Lords, that reply is very welcome. Does the noble Baroness agree that the present system is likely to deprive Birmingham of £29 million next year because of the three elements of a ridiculous formula: first, the 1991 census, which is out of date; secondly, an amount of money related to the age of everybody living in the area, ranging from £1,000 for babies and people over the age of 85 to £250 for people aged 45 to 65, a large group in which deaths unfortunately occur; and thirdly, a lunatic accountancy exercise built into the system and called the standard mortality rate which, your Lordships will be interested to hear, consists of taking the actual deaths in the area, dividing them by the expected death rate, multiplying that figure by 100 and then taking its square root? Could there be a more ridiculous and lunatic way in which to finance our hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right; it is a very complicated formula. Indeed, I believe that Lord Palmerston would have found it simple compared with the Schleswig-Holstein question. It is very complicated. That is why we are trying to simplify it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, whatever the system used to apportion resources, the city of Manchester comes right at the top of the list of health deprivation? Expectation of death at birth in Manchester is the highest in the country. Deaths before the age of one are also the highest. In the case of coronaries, among both men and women the expectation of survival is the lowest in the UK. Is it not time that a formula was found to target increasing resources in areas like Manchester which appear on a list of shame I have before me?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to reassure the House that this year Manchester will receive an increase in funding. I take the noble Lord's point on deprivation. That is why we have commissioned work with York University to see whether we can find a more sensitive formula.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the replies the noble Baroness has given. She has obviously studied the situation. However, does she not agree that deprivation and the illnesses caused by deprivation are among the saddest examples of what some British people are suffering? People should be protected from deprivation in the first place. Those who are deprived should, more than anyone else, be protected from appalling illnesses. Does the noble Baroness agree that if there is one area where we should not reduce finance it is this particular one?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there clearly is a link between poverty and health, including housing, unemployment and of course income. But that is true of every country in the world. We are tackling the problem with the Health of the Nation strategy. Some diseases, for example breast cancer, afflict the wealthy population more than the poor. So there are variations.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the work being done with York University on increasing the sensitivity of these very complicated methods of coming to resource decisions will include the very serious concerns of many health authorities in inner city districts about, for example, the problem of the homeless and under-weighted capitation and, even more, the problem of the increasing number of the mentally ill within that population?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those are all aspects which the University of York is taking into consideration in studying the formula. The university will report to Ministers in March.
Lord Howell: My Lords, will the Minister agree to add to whatever York University does, which we welcome, the proposition that the best way to finance

1497
hospitals is to start by asking them how many patients they treat every year and proceed to allocate finance on the basis of the work they do?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the internal market one of the factors now being taken into consideration is the number of patients who are treated in hospitals. I should say to the noble Lord that hospitals are not the sum total of the health service. We are trying to put more and more money into primary care and the prevention of sickness and ill health. That is where the capitation formula, which is based on populations, is so important.

Doncaster: Youth Employment
2.55 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have anything to add to Lord Henley's Written Answer of 19th January 1994 (col. WA52) to the question of what percentage of those reaching school leaving age in Doncaster in September 1992 registered for youth training, but did not find either youth training or employment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no, but if any young people, or someone acting on their behalf, believe that the guarantee is not being met for them they should bring that to the attention of their local training and enterprise council as soon as possible.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may express my sympathy with the noble Viscount that he was unable to discover the answer to my Question. Does the noble Viscount recall on 23rd June last reproving me, quite rightly, for failing to make use of the detailed, accurate and comprehensive information provided each month by the careers service? Will he take note that had he used that information on this occasion he would have discovered that in addition to 6 per cent. of the age group who disappear from the records and 6 per cent. who leave the area, a further 6.4 per cent. register for youth training without finding a place or employment? Was that not a rather incurious approach to a Parliamentary Question? Further, can the noble Viscount assure me that other answers from the department on the youth training guarantee are better researched and more reliable than this one?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the point is that the historic information the noble Earl seeks cannot be provided as the monitoring arrangements were not in place at that time. However, I can tell the noble Earl that the situation in Doncaster is very encouraging. On 13th January this year there were only five young people in the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC area who were covered by the YT guarantee and had been waiting for eight weeks or more and there were over 4,000 in training.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I intervene for two reasons? First, I sympathise with the noble Earl in his search for accurate information. We are all becoming very concerned about this lack of
1498
decent research into Questions. I am myself a victim of a written reply today which might just as well not have appeared because it means nothing. Can the noble Viscount explain to me the answer that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, received on 19th January? The Answer states:
"The information requested is not available".
Information for September 1992 was not available. The Answer continued:
"However, on 9 December, the latest date for which figures are available".
How can figures be available for December while the September figures are not available? Why could not the Government tell us what happened a couple of months before? The matter has just not been researched.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the point is that the arrangements for monitoring the YT guarantee were only introduced in September 1992 following an announcement by the then Secretary of State for Employment in July. It took some time for the arrangements to be developed and become reliable.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if this important information was not available at the latter end of last year, will the noble Viscount assure the House that it will be available in future? How otherwise can the Government gauge the validity of their YT guarantee or the House be properly informed?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have explained why the information was not available at that time. I have given the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the present figures and details of the present situation in that TEC area.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister will know that we on this side of the House have long been worried about the small minority of young people who fall through the net. They do not benefit from a youth training guarantee; they are not at school and do not have employment. I understand, of course, that there is a hardship allowance arrangement in operation. Can the noble Viscount tell the House how many young people in that position are covered by hardship allowance arrangements? I gather that those allowances are rather hard to obtain.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the latest monthly figures indicate that in April 1993 12,521 claims were received under the severe hardship provision, of which 10,759, which is 86 per cent., were successful.
Earl Russell: My Lords, since the noble Viscount was unable to discover the answer to the Question, will he explain why I was able to do so? Perhaps I may also ask him to take note that the cost of doing so was 48 pence. Can he assure us that he does not regard that cost as disproportionate?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that I have explained in great detail why the information which the noble Earl sought was not available. Under the present arrangements the information is available for the current situation.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Earl has just stated that he was able to obtain the information. It was available. It cost him 48 pence to obtain it. Is it the cost which worries the Government?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. The Government are concerned with reliable official statistics.

Photographs and Films (Unauthorised Use) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the copyright of photographs and films to protect the privacy of individuals. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
3.4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: 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 Statutory Sick Pay 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.
Bill read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor) moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Power to make further provision as to recovery
.—(1) In Part XI of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (statutory sick pay), after section 159 insert—"Power to provide for recovery by employers of sums paid by
way of statutory sick pay.
159A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the recovery by employers, in accordance with the order, of the amount (if any) by which their payments of, or liability incurred for, statutory sick pay in any period exceeds the specified percentage of the amount of their liability for contributions payments in respect of the corresponding period.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above may include provision—

(a) as to the periods by reference to which the calculation referred to above is to be made,

(b) for amounts which would otherwise be recoverable but which do not exceed the specified minimum for recovery not to be recoverable,

(c) for the rounding up or down of any fraction of a pound which would otherwise result from a calculation made in accordance with the order, and

(d) for any deduction from contributions payments made in accordance with the order to be disregarded for such purposes as may be specified,

and may repeal sections 158 and 159 above and make any amendments of other enactments which are consequential on the repeal of those sections.
(3) In this section —
"contributions payments" means payments which a person is required by or under any enactment to
1500
make in discharge of any liability of his as an employer in respect of primary or secondary Class 1 contributions; and
"specified" means specified in or determined in
accordance with an order under subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional and consequential provision, and such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient for or in connection with the coming into force of any order under subsection (1) above.".
(2) In section 176(1) (c) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (parliamentary control: orders subject to affirmative procedure), at the appropriate place insert "section 159A(1)".
(3) The Secretary of State —

(a) shall lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order under section 159A(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (inserted by subsection (1) above) framed so as to come into force on or before 6th April 1995, and

(b) if the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, shall make the order in the form of the draft,

unless before 1st December 1994 he lays before each House of Parliament a report explaining why he does not intend to make such an order.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. These amendments give effect to the proposal persuasively argued by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, first in Committee and, in an amended form, at the Report stage of the Bill.
My noble friend made the case for a new form of compensation to help employers during periods when they were faced with an exceptionally high level of sickness in their workforce. Instead of the present system whereby small employers are fully reimbursed for the cost of statutory sick pay paid beyond a prescribed period, he would prefer compensation to be paid when statutory sick pay exceeded a specified percentage of national insurance contributions.
My noble friend accepted that I had reservations about the practicability of his idea, especially in the time available before the Bill took effect. He recast his proposal to allow time for consultation with industry before the new scheme took effect in April 1995. If, following consultation, the Government did not feel able to implement the new scheme, they would have to lay a report before Parliament explaining why not. He agreed to withdraw his amendment at Report to enable me to table the amendments we are considering today, which cover all the consequences of my noble friend's proposal.
Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to provide by order for employers to recover statutory sick pay which exceeds a specified percentage of their national insurance contributions. This power is contained in a new Section 159A to be inserted in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The new section also compels the Secretary of State to lay an order before Parliament to introduce the new scheme from 6th April 1995. The order would be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament by affirmative resolution.
As I explained at Report, we shall be consulting both sides of industry, employers' and employees' organisations, about the merits of the new scheme, including the administration costs. If, following that consultation, the Government did not wish to proceed with the new

1501
scheme, the Secretary of State would have to lay a report before Parliament explaining why he was not making an order under the new power.
The new section also allows the Secretary of State to repeal the existing small employers' relief scheme contained in Sections 158 and 159 of the Act prior to the introduction of my noble friend's scheme.
The other amendments are all consequential on the new Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 54, after ("report") insert ("for debate by both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment refers to the last two lines of government Amendment No. 1. The government amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament,
"a report explaining why he does not intend to make such an order".
There are two aspects to the issue. We touched on the matter at Report stage. If the Government do not intend to adopt the scheme in Amendment No. 1, the report will obviously be important. We are anxious to ensure that that report does not just lie on the table. We believe that the Government will welcome debate and that the amendment stiffens that resolution. We cannot imagine that the Government do not wish to have such debate in both Houses. On 1st February, the noble Viscount stated at col. 1193 of the Official Report,
"We believe that a report should be laid before Parliament without requiring formal approval".
We entirely understand that, because the Government will be laying an order. If the report does not require formal approval, we should still like to ensure that it will be debated, because it will be important that both Houses have the chance to examine the Government's reasons for rejecting the scheme. As the noble Viscount said on the same day at col. 1196 of the Official Report,
"It is important that a report is made available for Parliament, and that Parliament should be able to debate that report if it so wishes".
To be fair, I have completed the quotation to save the noble Viscount from having to do so.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is important that the Government's intentions in that respect should be in the Bill. When that important report is brought before Parliament, it should be debated. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat what I said at the end of the debate at Report stage. However, those of us who throughout the passage of the Bill supported the amendment to the scheme are immensely grateful to my noble friend, not only for the trouble that he has taken to examine the case both in the Chamber and in his department, but also for his willingness to accept that the proposed scheme is better than the Government's scheme and therefore to table the amendment. I shall not continue because otherwise my noble friend may become swelled-headed, and that would be a great pity. He has done extremely well and we are grateful to him.
1502
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to what I regard as the most important single word in the Government's amendment. In subsection (3) (a), the new clause provides that the Secretary of State,
"shall lay before each House of Parliament".
The beginning of the amendment gives the Secretary of State a power to substitute the revised scheme for the existing scheme. Subsection (3) places upon him an obligation to table the necessary statutory instrument,
"unless before 1st December 1994 he lays before each House of Parliament a report",
and so on.
I draw that to the attention of your Lordships because it is rather important. My noble friend has accepted an extremely important point; namely, that there is now an obligation on the Government either to make an order fixing the appropriate percentage of national insurance contributions and all the other ancillary and supplementary measures which would be necessary or to table the report. The Government will not be able to say, "We have a power to do that but we have decided not to". Therefore, we have built into the amendment, and the Bill, an extremely important parliamentary process.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. When I tabled the amendment on Report I provided for a debate on the report if it recommended that the Government should not proceed with the alternative substituted scheme. In his reply my noble friend indicated that he did not believe that the Government should be obliged to organise a debate on the report. I accept that. It would perhaps be taking the matter too far.
I do not believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, adds anything to the existing procedures of both Houses of Parliament. If the report is tabled, it is open to any Member of either House to use the procedures of the House in order to have a debate.
Last week we had a very good example of how that procedure works when my noble friend Lady Faithfull tabled a Motion to amend a statutory instrument. The same procedure could have been used in respect of a report. My noble friend's Motion was tabled, debated and voted upon. I accept that it may be necessary in another place for a Member who has been successful in the ballot to table such a Motion, but any Member is entitled to raise the matter at the Adjournment of the House. That would not be subject to a vote but the matter would be debated.
I have appreciated greatly the support of the both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the main substantive change that we are making. However" were Amendment No. 2 to be pressed to a Division, I am not sure that I could support it. I do not believe that it adds anything to existing procedures. I express my warm appreciation for the way in which my noble friend has handled this matter. I believe that we have made it a better Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I can express the position of these Benches with Orwellian brevity: one amendment good, two amendments better. We are deeply grateful both to the noble Viscount and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for the care that they have taken in achieving the amendment. I hope that it will go a long

1503
way towards protecting businesses which have an exceptional level of sickness. But if the noble Viscount were able to go the extra mile and accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, we should be even more pleased.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is required. Even with the Bill as it stands, we should have a right to debate the matter. It is superfluous to add that provision. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 1 seems to reflect great credit upon your Lordships' House; that it has been possible to debate the Bill and to secure quite considerable changes in it as a result of reasoned argument. It is a very good example of the way in which this House works as a revising Chamber. It also reflects great credit both on my noble friend who moved the original amendments in Committee and on Report and on the Minister for his flexibility and good sense in proceeding as he has.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary for two main reasons. Of course either House or both Houses may, if they wish, debate the report, but we should not impose a requirement to do so. Parliament can decide for itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted what I said at an earlier stage in the hope that that would help his argument. However, he was kind enough to complete the sentence in my quotation, which I thought entirely ruined his argument. Therefore, I am grateful to him.
Perhaps I may explain in a little more detail. The report, if there is one—and we must remember that there will be one only if the Government do not go ahead with the new scheme—would be preceded by extensive consultation with industry. If industry and government were satisfied that the scheme was worth while and workable, there would be no report. The Government would introduce the new scheme from April 1995. So, the laying of the report would be evidence that the scheme had been found wanting by industry or government, or both. It may be that all parties, because of some as yet unseen flaw in the new scheme, agreed that it would not work. In that event, Parliament may have little interest in debating a scheme which is agreed by all to be impracticable.
An alternative possibility is that consultation may reveal mixed views about the new scheme. Some sectors of industry might favour it because they stood to gain; others might oppose it because they stood to lose from the repeal of the existing small employers relief scheme. The Government might then conclude that it was unwise to proceed with such a controversial proposal. In these circumstances, it is likely that Parliament will be much more interested in the fate of the new scheme. But there are ample opportunities for Members of both Houses to ensure the question is fully debated. Questions can be tabled, Motions can be put and so on. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding would be the first of your Lordships to do that.
1504
For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to accept my noble friend's advice and withdraw the amendment. There is no need to require a debate. If Parliament wishes to have a debate when it sees the report, it can do so in either House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the era of open government did not last very long. It is clear that there has been a significant change since Report stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, his amendment required the approval of Parliament, whereas my amendment requires only the opportunity to debate the report. As the noble Lord said, a Motion may be tabled without the necessity of a vote on it. I was merely seeking to ensure that there would be debate in both Houses on this important report, although it would not necessarily require a vote. It would provide an opportunity to air the arguments on both sides.
It is true that the usual channels could provide time for such a debate. It may be that that could be done more easily in this House than in the other place because, who knows, at the time of the report the Government may be in a period of non-co-operation with the Opposition as regards the parliamentary timetable. We have explored the issue. We could not imagine that the Government would not wish to have such a debate and we felt that that should be placed on the face of the Bill for the avoidance of doubt. However, the Government are prepared to leave the decision to both Houses of Parliament and in the light of that I am prepared to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 3:
Line 54, at end insert ("and stating what in his view will be the likely effect of such intention on the employment of people with disabilities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 deals with the issue of disability, but I should make it absolutely clear that it is a different approach to the discussion which we had at a previous stage of the Bill; in fact, it is a different subject. Our previous discussion concerned the effects of the Bill on the employment of disabled people. Opinions clearly differed about the likely effects of the Bill on the employment of disabled people and I do not wish to cover that ground again. Indeed, the House rejected an amendment on Report to ask the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report on the effects of the legislation on people with disabilities. Therefore, this is not an attempt to return by the back-door to that subject.
This is a completely different approach. We know that as a result of the government amendment there will be a great deal of consultation with employers' and employees' organisations to see whether the scheme will work. It would be extremely helpful to the disability organisations if the Minister could give an assurance that in those consultations he will talk to the disability organisations which have a particular view about the employment of disabled people and the effect of the statutory sick pay scheme on them.

1505
If the proposed new scheme is rejected by the Government, the amendment asks for confirmation in the report to Parliament of what would be the effect of that rejection on the employment of disabled people. For example, it may be argued that the original scheme would provide better employment opportunities for disabled people than the new revised scheme. Therefore, this is merely an attempt to ensure that the Government consult the disability organisations. If they decide to reject the new scheme, they should set out their reasons for doing so in the report. Also, they should say something about the effect of that rejection on the employment opportunities for disabled people.
We are not trying to prove a point about the employment of disabled people. Opinions differ. We merely wish to ensure that the interests of disabled people in employment are taken into account in consultations on the new scheme. If the Minister feels that it would be easier to do that by redrafting the amendment which stands in my name, there is a chance to do that in the other place if the wording is not quite right now.
I emphasise that the amendment is not about the possible effects of the Bill on the employment of disabled people. It is about ensuring that proper attention is paid to that very important matter in the consultations that will take place, and if the Government decide to reject the alternative scheme, a chance to include in the report which sets out the reason for rejection their judgment on the effect of that rejection on the employment of disabled people. It may be that the Government's judgment is that the employment of disabled people is not affected by their rejection of the scheme and that their employment chances are better under the government scheme which is set out in the Bill until April 1995. We merely wish to ensure that the interests of disabled people in employment are fully taken into account in the consultations which will take place. Moreover, if the Minister is able to give an assurance that the consultation process will include discussions with the organisations which are concerned about this matter, that would be a good step forward. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not repeat the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I say only that we on these Benches are very happy to support his amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the proposed new compensation scheme in Amendment No. 1 would help employers when an exceptionally high proportion of the workforce was off sick in the same period. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that such an event has nothing to do with the number of disabled people in an employer's labour force. Your Lordships rejected, as the noble Lord said, his amendment at an earlier stage. The noble Lord has been ingenious in trying to resurrect his earlier amendment. But the report that he now tries to latch onto is on another subject entirely; namely, the small business reliefs. The connection is at best tenuous.
However, I would be happy to give the noble Lord the assurances for which in effect he asks by this
1506
amendment; namely, that when we consult employers and employees about the new scheme, we shall also be prepared to consult groups that are concerned with people with disabilities. I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that we will indeed consult those groups; and indeed, we will talk to anybody who wishes to make such representations known to us. With that assurance, which I suspect was perhaps the original intention behind the noble Lord's amendment, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment to my amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister understood what I said. He said that this is all about small employer relief. For example, an employer such as Remploy, with a high proportion of disabled people in its workforce, should have a look at the new scheme to see whether it would be better off. It is not merely the employment of disabled people. Certain employers employ a high proportion of disabled people. It could be that in the examination of the scheme such employers would have a point to make.
I was not trying to come back, as it were, on a sidewind on the previous debate. The amendment which the House rejected —and the Minister should get this matter right—involved a requirement to lay a report before Parliament about the employment of disabled people. Amendment No. 3 has nothing to do with that. It concerns a situation in which the Government may decide to reject the new scheme. If they rejected it, it would require them in their report to point out the effect of that on the employment of disabled people, and particularly in the case of employers who have a high proportion of disabled people.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not understood the main purpose of the amendment. But I am certainly pleased about and grateful for his assurance that the disability organisations will be consulted in the process of preparing the Government's reaction to the new scheme. In the light of that assurance, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No I agreed to.
Clause 3 [Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("and 2") and insert ("to (Power to make further provision as to recovery)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Citation, commencement, financial provision and extent]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Section I comes into force on 6th April 1994; and the other provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 6:
Line 3, after ("pay;") insert ("to enable the Secretary of State to make further provision by order as to the recovery of such sums;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
The Bill has provoked interesting debates. I thank the many noble Lords who have contributed to our debates, in particular my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. He has applied his wisdom and experience to great effect. I am particularly grateful to him for showing that he can temper his ingenuity with an understanding of concerns as to the timing and practicability of his suggestion. But what else would one expect from a former Secretary of State of my department?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I would also like to thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for several pertinent and very helpful contributions during the Bill's consideration. My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree deserves our thanks for expressing the views of small employers, as does my noble friend Lord Reay for making us aware of the views of the CBI and of industry generally. I am also grateful for the support from my noble friends Lord Lucas, Lord King of Wartnaby, Lady Elles and Lady Seccombe.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has entertained us with his often witty and interesting interjections. I may not always agree with his viewpoint but he seldom fails to amuse. On the Benches opposite, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for their contributions and I appreciate the very genuine anxieties that they expressed. I hope that I was able to alleviate some of them.
We should also be grateful to the organisations that provided briefing on the Bill, and particularly to Stan Mendham and Nick Goulding of the Forum for Private Business, who prompted my noble friend Lord Jenkin to make the successful effort to help us to focus on the scope for a different method of helping small employers. I also thank the Federation of Small Business, the CBI and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and, of course, my officials, who have worked extremely hard to provide a satisfactory amendment, to which noble Lords have agreed. I also thank my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Goschen, for his help and his nimble footwork at times when it was necessary.
Although I accept that some concerns remain among noble Lords opposite about employment of those with bad sickness records or those people with disabilities, I believe that this Bill and its associated measures have gained a wide measure of acceptance.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Reay: My Lords, the CBI has not sought to oppose the Bill. There is a fairly wide appreciation of the merits of the Government's central argument that absence from work through sickness is exceptionally, and indeed excessively, high in this country; that the Government have a duty to try to do something about that; and that employers have an important part to play in reducing absence rates, in particular through their
1508
ability to influence the motivation of those whom they employ. At the same time the CBI acknowledges that the Government have sought to increase the responsibility on industry in a way that imposes no extra costs in aggregate on industry by introducing compensating reductions in national insurance contributions.
The CBI had three principal concerns. The first was that the protecting mechanism for small firms should be fairer than that originally proposed in the Bill. That matter is now being taken care of thanks to the skilful and vigorous campaign waged by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the admirable judgment, flexibility and initiative displayed by my noble friend the Minister in acceding to the request contained in the amendment to write an alternative system into the Bill.
Secondly, the CBI was concerned, and still is concerned, that the reductions in national insurance contributions should prove lasting and not ephemeral. While reminding itself of the low level of employers' national insurance contributions today compared with what they were in 1979 and of the Government's often proclaimed stance of not adding unnecessarily to industry's costs, industry has no choice but to rely on the Government being true to their original purposes and seeing the importance of keeping the implicit bargain that they have made with industry.
But the principal concern of the CBI is the precedent that this Bill may be taken to set for other social costs, in particular statutory maternity pay (but not only that) which the Government may similarly seek to transfer to industry without the justification that exists in this case. Indeed, the Government have steadfastly refused to give the assurance requested by the CBI that the Government will continue to meet in full the present and future costs of statutory maternity pay when they rise, as they are expected to do later this year, to satisfy the requirements of the EC pregnant workers directive.
Such costs are purely social costs. They should be borne in their entirety by the Government. There is no useful deterrent role for management to play. Indeed, the only practice that is likely to be deterred by transferring to employers part of the cost of statutory maternity pay is the hiring of female staff, a result which many noble Lords I am sure would regard as undesirable.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will resolve not to use the Bill as a precedent for legislation or for regulations which they could argue are similar but which in reality would be entirely different and, I submit, objectionable. In passing the Bill, I trust that this House is not assenting to any proposition that concedes the right or desirability of government transferring social costs generally on to industry.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Bill offloads the costs of sick pay on to medium and larger companies. In return, those companies pay a lower national insurance percentage. But their employees, as we saw yesterday, pay a higher one. It is clear that medium and large companies find that trade-off acceptable. But from the beginning the Opposition Benches have had worries on three scores. The first

1509
concerns the effect on smaller businesses and is led by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Secondly there is the effect on chronically sick and disabled people. Thirdly, there is the effect on women. In other words, we are confident that employers have had their concerns met. We remain unconvinced that many employees have been equally favourably treated.
We are truly pleased that with regard to small companies the Government were able to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Not only will small companies now have 80 per cent. of their sick pay reimbursed after four weeks, they will also know that where sickness comes and goes within the four week period they will be entitled to claim reimbursement if their costs are abnormally high. We on this side of the House should like to give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for the agility of his drafting and to the Government for their good sense in accepting such an amendment. It gives us additional pleasure because it also ensures that the other place will have the opportunity to debate the Bill on the back of the amendment, something which it was constrained from doing adequately when the Bill was unfortunately guillotined in that House. So the Bill has done well by employers. We wish that it had done as well by employees, in particular the sick, the disabled and women.
It is clear to us on the Opposition Benches that the Bill may become a charter to sack the sick. At every stage—Committee and Report stages and again today to some extent —we have sought to move amendments to mitigate that effect. Employers are not charities. Over and above the disruption that a chronically sick employee in and out of work may bring to that company, there is now a financial penalty. The employer will have to pay 100 per cent. of the sick pay if it is not a small company. As for those who have already left work because they are chronically sick or disabled, why would any employer, even their own, re-employ them if they bring with them a negative dowry requiring 100 per cent. sick pay to be paid by their employer.
The Minister may say that there is no evidence that that has or will happen. He does not know. Disability groups and the CAB already believe that it is beginning to happen and will certainly occur more in the future. I suspect that they may be right. But they, too, do not know. To our dismay the Government do not intend to find out, preferring instead to rely on assertion, which we on this side can only counter with allegation and anecdote because the Government have refused to permit the disabled the dignity of monitoring their position in the labour market.
On behalf of these Benches I should like to make a mild protest. I understand perfectly well that it is unreasonable to expect the Government to concede any amendments that engage or depart from any significant point of policy. I accept that it is unreasonable to expect the Government to support any amendment that has significant financial implications or any amendments that are clearly party political. The Minister cannot concede such amendments and I rather doubt that we
1510
could either, were we in his position. We understand that. We must move the amendments and he must resist them. For the most part I would expect the House to support the Minister.
This House does not have the same constraints of whipping as the other place and there is real expertise, compassion and information (in my view much more so than in the other place) on the position of the sick and disabled. Therefore I regret it when amendments which ask for monitoring or reports to Parliament by the Secretary of State on behalf of the sick and disabled or of women cannot be taken on board —the more so when they are of minimum or negligible cost and have no party significance but are of real gain to groups such as the sick and disabled.
Are the Government, who reversed the poll tax in one Parliament, who are having substantially to amend their Railways Bill, who are having to scrap much of their police Bill and who may have to scrap much of their education Bill, so confident that the legislation that they pass will in future not only not need to be amended but not even monitored? That was the thrust of the amendments on the position of the disabled moved by my noble friend Lord Carter and myself and the amendments on behalf of women moved so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Turner.
The Minister, who is always most helpful and pleasant in voice, was not able to accept those amendments at any stage. Therefore, there is no way of knowing the effect that this legislation will have on some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in our society. How then can we legislate more adequately in the future if we receive no feedback from legislation of the past?
The plight of the disabled was left to your Lordships' goodwill and, on this amendment at least, I feel that it went walkabout. We are all reminded of the story of the Whig, Lord Melbourne, who, in 1833, regretted the passing of the rotten boroughs (with the 1832 Reform Act) on which Tory Governments in the past had relied to get through their legislation. One MP said to Lord Melbourne, "You can always count on my support when you are right." "Be damned to that," said Lord Melbourne, "when I am in the right, the question looks after itself. I want your support when I am in the wrong." I believe that your Lordships gave that support to the Government.
I am saddened but nonetheless, like others, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his amendment and to the Government for accepting it. I also appreciate the good humour and courtesy of the Minister, from whom, quite unreasonably, we expect nothing less by now. We thank him again for the reassurance that he has just given to my noble friend Lord Carter that there will be full consultation with disability groups on the new scheme.
We thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords who took part in the debate. Above all, we thank my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Carter who eloquently moved the amendments which we believe won the argument but, alas, not the vote.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am afraid I am too late to congratulate the noble Viscount on piloting through his first Bill for the department where he now serves. The noble Viscount broke his duck yesterday when unfortunately, because of professional duties, I was not able to be here. However, I congratulate him warmly on the way he has handled this Bill, not only in the Chamber but also at meetings in his office where the door was always open. What is more, the noble Viscount's ear was always open: for that I am extremely grateful.
This House has operated on the Bill in exactly the text book manner one would expect. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his contribution. The noble Lord is singular; and on this matter the Government side is singular. But our side is plural, and for once we have the majority. I thank also the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis of Heigham and Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and many other noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who spoke with great weight on behalf of the CBI.
The House has done itself credit. Last night I was reading, in preparation for tomorrow, the debate on the Motion that the Bill do now pass in respect of the Child Support Bill 1991. At that time I said,
"Never can so bad a Bill have been managed so weir.— [Official Report, 16/5/91; col. 1848.]
I repeat that remark now, for this Bill is fundamentally misconceived. The notion behind the Bill of reducing sickness absence is not thought through. Perhaps I may be forgiven for giving an example. I have not given it previously because it had not happened. It happened last Saturday. A supermarket cashier rang in that morning to report sick. She was violently sick when she woke up. Her employer told her not merely to come in, but to stay an extra hour. At least one of those who was talking to her is now ill herself.
Minimising sickness absence is not always sensible. I share the fears expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, in regard to the effect of the Bill on the employment prospects of those with bad sickness records. I share the fears about sacking the sick. As the Minister is well aware, I fear how regularly employers will pay statutory sick pay. But that is one of the subjects on which I said the Minister's ears are open. I am extremely grateful for that.I shall continue to monitor the subject, as I am sure he will.
I agree profoundly with what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, not only about statutory maternity pay, but also about the danger of using the Bill for similar transfers of social responsibilities from employers to industry. I was reading yesterday in the CBI News the reply of the CBI to Mr. Gordon Brown's taxation proposals, with parts of which I agree. I agree profoundly that if we are to compete in the world we should not be thinking in terms of increasing business costs. If we are to achieve that objective, we should learn to distinguish accurately between social costs and industrial costs. The costs we have here are social.
I agree profoundly too with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, put forward at an earlier stage of the Bill. While it is possible—even if, in my opinion, undesirable—for employers to police sickness absence
1512
in the way the Bill envisages, when one thinks of employers policing the incidence of maternity among their workforce, the mind boggles at the measures of enforcement which would be necessary. I hope that the noble Viscount will assure us that that is no part of the policy of back to basics.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, say that small employers will have their 80 per cent. reimbursement of SSP after four weeks, as well as compensation for exceptionally high levels of sickness. I should clarify that the new compensation scheme is an alternative to the existing scheme for small employers' relief. I am not sure whether I heard the noble Baroness correctly but I feel it right to make that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that your Lordships rejected her amendment. The noble Baroness pushed her amendments to a vote. My noble friend was perhaps ingenious and cunning—if I can put it that way—in the way that he altered his amendments to deal with the anxieties of the Government. That is probably how amendments can find their way onto the statute book.
At the beginning of the Bill's progress through the House I said that this country needs to do better in reducing unnecessary absenteeism at work. We are consistently the worst offenders in the European Community. Sickness absence costs industry between £9 billion and £13 billion a year. By abolishing the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement the Government give industry a clear incentive to tackle the problem. At the same time industry will not lose out because of the planned reduction in employers' national insurance contributions in April. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
3.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Limit on increase in non-domestic rates for 1994 financial year]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to remove special treatment that certain utilities receive under orders established mainly at the time of privatisation. Members of the Committee will be aware that the privatised utility companies—gas, electricity, water and, to come, rail—receive special treatment with regard to the business rate. That special treatment is

1513
granted to the first three by orders which were made at the time of privatisation and continued in the Non-Domestic Rating Acts of 1992 and 1993. In particular, the special treatment conferred by Article 9 of the British Gas plc (Rateable Values) Order 1989, Article 9(3) of the Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989 and Article 9(3) of the Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1989 are relevant.
The sum total of what happens is that privatised utilities, which are not known for lack of profit and whose chairmen and directors are not known for modesty in rewarding themselves with remuneration, are given special treatment under the business rate; they are not treated in a conventional manner. While it may be perfectly reasonable for such businesses to be given a short transitional period to allow them to adjust to being ordinary plc companies like every other plc in the country, there must come a time when that transitional relief ceases. We believe that it should cease now, for two reasons.
First, the profits of these organisations are growing exponentially. In the year 1992–93 British Gas made a profit of £1,054 million and its chairman, Mr. Evans, received £379,000 in remuneration for that. Its profits are still, as judged by the Office of Fair Trading, monopoly profits. There is a proposal that British Gas should be split up. The same proposition is generally. true of the power generating side of the electricity industry and also of the distributing companies, all of which made substantial profits in the past year and all of which paid their chairmen substantial sums of money. The same is true of the water undertakers. Therefore, the first result of my amendment would be to bring those companies onto the same footing as other companies. They would have to earn the profits they make and the remuneration they pay their senior executives and directors rather than being subsidised by the British taxpayer or, in this case, by other businesses.
The second result of my amendment would be to increase the amount of money going into the pool that local authorities have at their disposal in order to help businesses which approach local authorities to obtain support through Section 49 of the 1989 Act. That can do nothing but good. We support the principle that businesses should be given such relief by local authorities, not least because, under the legislation, we have to face quite properly the step of a revaluation every so often. It is therefore reasonable that local authorities—when we come to them, we shall be discussing small businesses—should be able and willing to give relief to businesses in their area. As a result of the amendment the pool would be increased.
That is the purpose of my amendment. I do not believe that utilities have not grown up. They are now privatised companies operating, as large companies should, alongside other large companies in the market place. These companies, at least in large measure, should be treated in terms of local taxation exactly like any other company with which they are competing. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to mention the market place. I am glad that he did so at the end of his speech. That, after all, must be the rationale of his amendment. If the Minister seeks to justify the provisions of the Bill, as I suspect he may, I hope that he will be able to assist the Committee as to why the provisions of the market place, to which the Government call on so many other sectors of our society to pay attention, should not apply in this situation.
The Earl of Arran: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, but I still find it very hard to see what Members of the Committee opposite think industry or the public would gain from the changes in the amendment. Having studied it carefully the Government urge the Committee to reject it.
Clause 1(4) of the Bill repeats for property with prescribed rateable values the changes made for the generality of ratepayers in Clause 1(2). Some of the industries with prescribed values had substantial increases in their rates bills in 1990 as a result of the reforms. So separate transitional arrangements were introduced for them which mirrored those applying to other ratepayers. Members of the Committee opposite wish to delete Clause 1(4) which would mean that some of the utilities could face increases of up to 20 per cent. in their bills under the transitional arrangements.
Because the industries involved are all utility services, that could have a knock-on effect to some household bills. The Government see no merit in that. The extra burden on the utilities' customers could be significant in some cases. For instance, the rates bill of the national grid company in Wales next year would be nearly £1.75 million higher if the amendment were made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Earl saying that by raising the rates bill for utilities our proposal would raise electricity prices? Is he therefore saying that the Government in this measure are subsidising electricity prices?
The Earl of Arran: I am not saying that the Government are subsidising electricity prices. I am stating that in Wales next year the rates bill of the national grid company would be nearly £1.75 million higher if the amendment were made. Equality suggests that everyone should be treated in the same way. On those grounds the Government urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very disappointed by the noble Earl's reply. The argument is as follows. There is special treatment for privatised utilities. That is contained in orders which are continued in the Bill. Privatised utilities have to operate, as they are privatised, in the market place with all other companies which pay their business rates on a conventional basis. Those utilities are exempt from that procedure. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, if the procedure were applied, their business rate would go up. He mentioned the figure of 20 per cent. in the case of South Wales electricity. How can he then deny that the Welsh

1515
electricity consumer is being subsidised by the measures contained in the Bill? If the price would go up if they were rated in the normal manner like any other large company, then clearly, by this measure, the Government are asking other businesses to subsidise the utilities.
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord should understand just a few points. First, why should we punish the utility companies unfairly? Secondly, as I said, there could be a knock-on effect on costs in the form of higher bills. Thirdly, if utility firms, why not commercial firms as well? I said that equality must reign.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Why punish other firms unfairly? They are paying the business rate; they are subsidising the utilities. Money does not grow on trees. Someone has to pay in order to provide the pool for local authorities to give the relief.
The noble Earl has not grasped the point that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were trying to make. These companies are now meant to be grown up. They have to operate in the market place alongside all other major companies which are rated on a conventional basis. By derogating from that procedure in the Bill the Government are forcing other businesses to subsidise the utilities. That is the problem. If the noble Earl says that prices will go up because the business rate for the utilities has increased, I invite him to try to introduce some competition into the electricity industry and so ensure that prices find their own market level. I had thought that that was what privatisation was all about.
The Earl of Arran: There is a fundamental difference between the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the Government. I cannot agree with what he says. Equality must be the prevalent consideration in these circumstances. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Can the noble Earl help us as to whether any utilities are not included in the list? Are any to operate in the market place in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been calling for? The noble Earl may not be able to answer that question at this moment but it might add to our understanding of the issue if we were to know the answer before the next stage of the Bill.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may just add to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. We are not particularly subsidising electricity companies. We are subsidising the rates bills of all ratepayers facing increases. The money comes from general taxation and not other businesses. As I have already said, it would be wrong to single out the utilities for worse treatment than others.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I was not aware that I was singling out the utilities for worse treatment, I was trying to get equal treatment for them operating as private companies in the private market. That is what I thought privatisation was all about. I was also trying to
1516
get greater competition and increased productivity, which would occur as a result of proper costs being charged as opposed to subsidised costs—that is to say, costs which are subsidised by businesses. If the noble Earl is absolutely resolute in saying that there is nothing he can do to change things and that the Government have decided what they are going to do, then there is not much point in having an argument in Committee. We can simply stand here and throw bricks at each other. However, that does not contribute to our understanding of what the Government are trying to do in this Bill. I say to the noble Earl that I am not at all satisfied that the Government have listened to the argument or that they have concentrated on the issue. I do not even believe that they have understood it. I should like to return to this issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Transitional relief
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the transitional relief for non-domestic ratepayers provided by this Act, the 1988 Act, the 1992 Act and regulations made under those Acts shall, so far as possible, be targeted upon businesses employing fewer than 10 people.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment which we shall not press, but will use to explore the pattern of redistribution as supported by this Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Arran, made clear at Second Reading, the Bill is necessary because business faced in 1990 both a move to UBR and on to new rateable values. The combination of both meant very substantial changes in firms' rateable bills: two-fifths of all businesses faced either increases or reductions of over 50 per cent. The changes had to be phased in. As we said at Second Reading, we did not object to that, but even the transitional arrangements of phasing in—that is, 20 per cent. of the increase plus inflation —have proved too much for business; so the Government are having to phase in the phasing in or, if one likes, give transitional relief to the transitional arrangements.
This amendment seeks to ask questions about who should be helped in this way and at what cost, and therefore picks up the theme explored by my noble friend Lord Williams in the previous amendment. At Second Reading it was pointed out that in the 1970s there were about 10,000 business failures a year; in the 1980s, there were about 20,000 and in the 1990s so far there have been about 50,000 business failures a year.
As we know, revaluation is not a matter directly for central or local government, but for the Inland Revenue. The readjustment of the relativity between properties since 1990 has moved in several directions. The revaluation of shops and offices has gone up much more sharply than for factories. Under the 1990 revaluation on average the increase for shops went up by 9.6 times and for factories by only 6.1 times. However modestly, that helps manufacturing as opposed to services and retailing, which I believe most of us would consider to be sensible.

1517
It also altered regional relativity, again in ways which I believe most of us would think was fair. It raised rateable values in the South as against the North, in more prosperous cities as against declining inner city areas. Therefore, the North and North-West had the average of their rateable values fall by about 30 per cent.; in the South-West and East Anglia they were up 10 per cent.; in the South-East they were up 14 per cent. and in inner London and the City the values were up 39 per cent. where there are, of course, heavily rated offices.
But the Government delayed moving on to these new rateable values—again we understand why—by offering transitional relief: with those who stood to gain from the new rateable values complaining bitterly that they were continuing to pay over-inflated rateable values while those facing the increases in UBR were complaining equally bitterly that they could not afford to meet them. So, last year the Government promised that the gainers would gain all and the losers would be protected.
The transitional relief costs for 1992–93, which come in consequence of there no longer being a self-balancing fund in which the losers were offset by the gainers and vice versa, I understand will be £1.3 billion; additional transitional relief for 1993–94 will be a further £550 million and with this Bill there will be a further £100 million. That is a total of nearly £2 billion in revenue foregone by the Exchequer at a time when the UBR raises about £14 billion a year.
We want to know who is benefiting from these huge sums of money. There is a vast public subsidy of £2 billion which is going to business. Who needs it as we enter the next round with the looming revaluation of 1995?
What seems clear in 1995 is that the revaluation then will reverse some of the trends of the 1990 revaluation. It seems that London, the South-West, the South-East and East Anglia will benefit; but Newcastle, Manchester and Sheffield will now see their revaluations going up. We shall also see the other reversal, which will show that offices and retailing will benefit and the rateable values for industrial and business premises and factories will go up.
This Bill both limits the increase facing businesses in 1994–95 by halving the transitional increase for larger businesses from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent., and for smaller properties it will be down from 15 per cent. to 7.5 per cent., as well as empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations for 1995 onwards. That means yet again that winners will take all and the losers will be protected. Effectively, it means that all will gain whether they need to or not and at huge public expense.
In other words, the criticism which we have of transitional relief is not that it is not necessary, but that it is being thrown indiscriminately at the size of the increase and not at the need of a company to receive it. As the Government remind us so often when we are talking about social security, as we did yesterday, and as my noble friend said just a few minutes ago, it is not Treasury money which is being given away but taxpayers' money—our money. I believe that we are
1518
entitled to see that money targeted when dealing with relief to business in the same way as the Government claim it is necessary to target it when dealing with destitute and impoverished individuals receiving social security.
Hence this probing amendment on the back of which we are trying to argue that relief should be targeted. In this amendment—we may come up with variants of it at later stages—we are saying that, as a rough and ready test of need, we are talking about small businesses. We could have referred to turnover, but we are speaking here of small businesses as shorthand for an attempt to target. Why? It is because, as we all know, small businesses have been the most vulnerable during the recession. The rate of large company failures has, proportionately, been much smaller than that for small businesses. We also know, as the Forum for Small Businesses has informed us on many occasions, small businesses are relatively unfairly rated when it comes to UBR. Small workshops of 1,000 square feet, pay nearly twice as much per square foot in rates as do businesses and factories with over 10,000 square feet.
The zoning system, used for valuing retail premises, favours supermarkets (the large bodies) at the expense of corner shops. As it stands, a healthy chain of multiples with perhaps 500 stores across the country, will get both a full reduction and protection against increased costs, while immediately gaining in other areas, with no evidence of need. So transitional relief is costly—it will be £2 billion in all—and indiscriminate.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, may come back on this. We do accept that a small business with less than 10 employees is not a perfect guide to the need for transitional relief, but we believe that that, as far as is practicable, is better than throwing money at all businesses whether they need it or not, and many of them do not. After all, the equivalent rebates for houses in the council sector were targeted at individuals. We believe that the same principle of targeting public money at need should apply here. We should not throw money at companies indiscriminately. That is why we have tabled this probing amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, this may be a probing amendment but at the same time we find it a muddled amendment. I shall try to explain why. It would not only require any future transitional relief to be targeted on businesses employing fewer than 10 people but would appear to require us to rewrite history by ensuring that the current transitional arrangements are targeted in that way as well. The details of those arrangements, including the way in which relief must be targeted, are already set out in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. They have therefore already been considered and approved by Parliament. That Act cannot be altered except by specific amendment in fresh primary legislation. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to target existing reliefs in a way which would conflict with the previous rules.
We would have great difficulty in accepting this amendment even if it applied only to future transitional schemes. Targeting help according to the number of

1519
employees in a business would be quite impracticable. Neither local authorities nor valuation officers have access to this data and would need powers to collect it. A limit of 10 employees seems somewhat arbitrary. Employers might reduce or understate the number of their employees if they saw some financial advantage in doing so. And it is not clear what would happen if the number of employees later changed.
Rates are a tax on property rather than on individual businesses. Our current transitional arrangements target relief on smaller businesses by reference to the value of their property. This value is shown in the local rating list so is readily available to billing authorities. Properties with a rateable value of less than £15,000 in London or £10,000 elsewhere have lower annual increases in bills than larger properties.
There is scope for argument about where the threshold should lie and about the amount of the differential between the limits on increases for different sizes of property. These are matters which we shall certainly consider when we come to make any regulations governing future transitional schemes. But we do not start from the premise that help should be targeted only on the smallest businesses. If rate bills change significantly as a result of revaluation, there is no evidence to suggest that larger businesses will necessarily be able to absorb the full impact of the changes overnight. A duty to target only the smallest businesses would remove our ability to help larger ones. It is for those reasons that I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask him whether he accepts the principle that public subsidy should go only to those who need it?
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness that there is a wide range of ratepayers and that those who are facing the biggest increase in bills since 1990 have been concentrated mainly in London and the South East. As the noble Baroness said, the provisions have favoured shops and offices. I repeat that rates are a tax on property, not on profits.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With the leave of the Committee, I do not think that the Minister answered my question. Does he believe that public subsidy—that is, Exchequer income forgone—should be targeted at those who most need it or should it be indiscriminate?
The Earl of Arran: It should be very carefully selected, depending on the circumstances in question.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the Minister agrees that it should be carefully selected, would he care to tell me the difference between "carefully selected" and "targeted"?
The Earl of Arran: The noble Baroness is pressing me on semantics. I think that I made my case quite clear when I replied to the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is easy for the Minister to say that this is a matter of semantics. I asked for targeting, which the Minister said was unreasonable,
1520
but he believes that public money should go to carefully selected companies, principals, businesses or whatever. I think that it is important to know whether the Minister accepts the principle behind this probing amendment which is that public subsidy should go to those who deserve or who need it. If so, we can come back on Report with what I would call a second-level amendment which could consider how best to deliver that targeting. Therefore, I still need to know from the Minister whether he accepts the principle that "targeting" means the same as "carefully selected", in which case we can work together to ensure that we can deliver that more effectively, or whether he does not.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: The point that the noble Baroness cannot quite grasp is that it would be completely impracticable to do as she suggests and to target those with fewer than 10 people in their company.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Do you carefully select them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am having difficulty in engaging the noble Earl to give a straight answer to what I thought was a straight question. If I may speak to the amendment more generally, I have made it clear that this is a probing amendment. We were seeking to use it to advance the argument that public aid should be discriminating. We decided to do that by choosing small companies, their size being reflected by the fact that they have fewer than 10 employees. I accept the practical difficulties which the noble Earl has enunciated on that. We could have related the provisions to the physical size of the small company, turnover or even profitability. There are many ways in which we could have done it. After all, there are well-established principles for determining hardship relief for business rates. That is not difficult.
What I was trying to extract from the Minister was whether the Government are sympathetic in principle to the targeting of public money. If they are, we can come back to this on Report, perhaps with his support, with an amendment that would more effectively deliver the targeting that we would both like to see for the benefit of all taxpayers. If he does not accept that principle, we are in a different situation. I invite the noble Earl to comment.
The Earl of Arran: Yes, as I have already said, depending on the circumstances we are, of course, sympathetic to the principle that public money should be targeted, but we would have to decide the correct procedure, what the targets are and at whom they are aimed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that extremely helpful reply. We look forward to working with him and to ensuring that we can deliver our common objectives. I shall return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Non-domestic rating: transitional pooling]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before I call Amendment No. 3, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 3, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and myself, relates to some extent to the previous amendment. As I tried to show in relation to the previous amendment, transitional relief is very costly, but until this year the phasing in of the protection for the losers was offset by the phasing in of the gains—that is, the reduced rate bills—for the winners. It was self-balancing. Therefore, no additional costs fell on either central or local government. As I said, however, in relation to the previous amendment, winners in the hard-pressed North wanted to enjoy their benefits quickly while businesses in the South and East, where the recession was beginning to be felt, wanted their increased rate bills to be phased in more slowly. Therefore, the Government agreed that winners would move to full gains while losers would be protected and that the cost of those changes would be met by central government. That was only equitable given that local authorities faced the capping of their expenditure and problems of gearing.
Now, however, in this Bill the requirement that the Secretary of State "shall" balance funds where necessary is to be replaced by the word "may", leaving open the key questions of whether, if, when and who will pick up any deficit funding if winners are to gain immediately and losers are to be protected. On Second Reading the Minister gave this place an assurance which I am happy to quote. He said:
"I am happy to repeat the commitment given in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning that if we use our powers to reduce the burden on businesses in that way we will make up any shortfall using the pool rather than any other mechanism… We are seeking a power rather than a statutory duty because the need to top up any shortfall will occur only if the transitional arrangements are not self-financing. So that it is clear beyond doubt, let me assure the House that if a shortfall to the pool should occur after 1995 because transition was not self-financing, the pool will see that shortfall made up".—[Official Report, 27/1/94; col. 1090.]
I accept the Minister's integrity. Why then alter the wording of the Bill when his statement on Second Reading was consistent with the previous Act's formulation of "shall" and inconsistent with the new clause replacing "shall" with "may"?
I may be accused of cynicism but I remember when GREAs were introduced. Several years ago the Secretary of State assured the other place that such GREAs would merely be a formula for distributing grant and would never be a target for what should be spent or a basis for capping what could be spent. Two years later, that assurance notwithstanding, GREAs
1522
became a target for what could be spent, and two years after that a version of GREAs became the basis of capping.
With such a track record of undertakings in relation to local government finance given in all honour and then not honoured, the Minister can hardly be surprised that we should like to see his assurances on the face of the Bill. Indeed, given the commitment he made on Second Reading, the obligation is upon him to say why they cannot be. The Minister will say that it is a power and not a duty because it may not happen. If it does not happen, the duty will not be required. We need it on the face of the Bill. So do local authorities which fear that government would reduce, for example, the revenue grant to local authorities shortly before the announcement of transitional relief—it has, after all, been reduced from some 60 per cent. to 47 per cent. in the past few years—and then raise it to what it would have been, alleging that that was repayment of transitional relief.
An ingenious government will seek to export the future costs of balancing transitional relief outwards, if they can, while simultaneously claiming that they have done what they have promised. Parliament's job is not just to receive Minister's undertakings and promises, although we were given them on Second Reading; where possible, it should put those promises and undertakings on the face of the Bill, where they are transparent and where they provide a firm basis for local authorities' and businesses' future financial planning. If the Minister means what he said on Second Reading —and I am sure that he does—he can have no objection to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: It may be appropriate if I speak to this amendment, as the amendment in my name—I accept the point about pre-emption —is directed at the same issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has quoted the Minister's words on Second Reading. On Second Reading I said that I did not understand the need for the provision in the Bill changing the mandatory provision of the 1988 Act that such and such "shall" happen to a permissive provision that it "may" happen.
I tabled the amendment to delete that change so that I could ask the Minister to explain further the reasons for the word's inclusion in the Bill. I would go further than the noble Baroness, who said that it is proper that the commitment should be on the face of the Bill, and say that since the commitment exists already under the 1988 Act, there is an obligation upon the Government to explain why in the Bill they are changing the 1988 Act.
The Earl of Arran: Again I am a little surprised by the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made it clear on Second Reading that if we introduced non-self-financing transitional arrangements after 1995, she wanted any shortfall in the non-domestic rating pool made up. Clause 3(3) would enable us to do so, and we have said that we always would. But the amendment would remove that power. We would therefore be unable to make good any reduction in the amount of non-domestic rate revenue available from the pool for redistribution to authorities. We do not believe that authorities would welcome that.

1523
I would add further to the points taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there is an important distinction between the character of the provisions we are seeking for 1994–95 and for future years. For 1994–95, a specific scheme of relief has been drawn up in detail. To ensure its implementation in time we must spell out all the detail on the face of the Bill. For years beyond that we do not know yet whether transitional relief arrangements will be required, although there is a strong possibility that we shall need a scheme following the 1995 revaluation, and still less what form or variety of forms any future schemes would need to take. We are therefore seeking broad powers. The details of any scheme would be set out in regulations which would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses and which would therefore be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny at the time. I hope that I have explained satisfactorily the reasons for urging the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply which we shall obviously read with some care. It is similar to the reply given in another place which is equally baffling to the local authority people who have advised me. Perhaps I may therefore press the Minister, as I tried to do on a previous amendment: if he accepts that government will make good any shortfall in any future transitional arrangements that may be introduced—that is what I understood him to accept today and on Second Reading, and he is nodding—we invite the Government to bring back an amendment which would make that clear on the face of the Bill. That would then allay all our fears.
The Earl of Arran: Despite what the noble Baroness said, and I understand clearly what she said, I have given the assurance that she seeks. But we do not regard it as necessary to put it on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Why not, given that on previous occasions we have had similar cast-iron guarantees which have not been honoured? I am sure that the Minister intends his assurance to be honoured. I do not in the least impugn his integrity, but other Ministers will take his place in the future. If that is the Government's intention, why should it not be made transparent and stated publicly on the face of the Bill? In other words, why should legislation not embody government's intention?
The Earl of Arran: I hope and believe that I have made clear in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, why we believe that the matter should not be on the face of the Bill. I can add no more other than to say that we do not feel that it should be on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has generously said that she trusts me; she must trust what the Government say in this instance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the Minister accept that if the Bill as drafted is challenged in the courts, the courts will have regard to the text of the Bill? That is what Parliament will be deemed to have intended. The courts will probably not have any regard whatsoever to ministerial assurances. That is the tradition of our
1524
courts. I know that that has varied a little in the past few years, but the tradition of our courts is that Parliament intends what is on the face of the Bill, and ministerial assurances are worth nothing when it comes to the courts. That is why we are so emphatic that this provision should be on the face of the Bill, because when the matter comes to the courts they have only one avenue to take.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may intervene, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Since the decision in Pepper v. Hart, the argument is not quite right. The courts will have regard to the assurance given by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He reminds me of the case and he is right about it. However, the question remains: why not have it on the face of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: I hesitate to rise on a point of law when there is in some ways a contradiction to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is true that the case to which he referred in the House of Lords stated that Hansard can be referred to in order to interpret the words of the Bill and to see whether the Government had a certain intention in regard to the wording. However, nowhere have I seen in the judgment of that case that the courts will enforce an undertaking which appears in Hansard. In view of the noble Lord's serious statement, I ask him to point that out for me. If the noble Lord can quote the paragraph to which he refers I shall be grateful.
Lord Mulley: When I read the report of that case I noted the statement that exceptional circumstances had led to their Lordships' decision.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may answer briefly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Of course, it is to interpret the words of the Bill, and the assurance that has been given may be referred to in order to interpret the words of the Bill. I cannot see that there is very much more to be said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The point has been made for us very well. If, on the one hand, any commitment given by the Minister in Hansard is to be understood by judges as effectively binding —as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—there can be no reason for that commitment to be on the face of the Bill. However, if on the other hand the hesitations raised by my noble friend Lord Mishcon are right—that the courts would not necessarily regard any commitment as binding but merely an interpretive framework within which to understand the clause of the Bill—it is even more important that the Minister's commitment should be on the face of the Bill. If the Minister means what he says—that this is a firm and honourable commitment—and I am sure that he does, I invite him to come back with a more satisfactory amendment. He

1525
has the resources to draft an amendment in the technical terms that would deliver his commitment into legislation, so that we may all see it for what it is.
The Earl of Arran: I have gone as far as I can. As the noble Baroness says, I have given a firm and honourable commitment in these circumstances. The Government stick to that commitment. With regard to putting it on the face of the Bill, the noble Baroness would be pressing her case too far if she were to try to insist upon that.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may return to a point that I made on Second Reading. It is helpful for Members of the Committee—certainly for me—and for those in the world outside if legislation were to state clearly what it meant. Today we had other examples of hypotheses with commitments attached to them. I accept entirely what the Minister said about there being a need for a new provision in the Bill because the commitment to make good the shortfall out of the pool applies to circumstances which are not covered by existing legislation. However, perhaps he will take away a request to spell out clearly that new commitment in order to reproduce in the new circumstances the obligation contained in the existing legislation.
The Earl of Arran: I have given that commitment. I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I shall examine carefully the commitment that I have already given.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are still baffled about why the Minister is not willing to turn his commitment, which we respect, into an amendment to the Bill. He has simply said that he does not see it as necessary. We have said that it is necessary. The Minister has not explained why he does not believe that it is necessary and why it cannot be done. If the provision is as harmless as he says it is surely an inoffensive way of making the legislation more clear, available and get-at-able to all the parties concerned. Surely local government finance is complicated enough, as many of us know to our cost and to our peril, without making it even more opaque by having to be understood in the context of statements made in obscure references to Second Reading debates. If the provision were on the face of the Bill, matters would be simplified for all concerned.
We shall withdraw the amendment and come back on Report. We hope that the Minister and his advisers will take on board the point that if the continuing obligation is not enshrined on the face of the Bill he is adding to the opacity of local government finance rather than to its clarity. Surely that is to be regretted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
1526
("Special authority report
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by 31st March in any year lay before both Houses of Parliament a report (to be called the special authority report) on the operation of the provisions of Part II of Schedule 7 to the 1988 Act in the following financial year.
(2) The report shall consider the following matters—

(a) the effect of the provisions on businesses in the area of any special authority where the special authority's multiplier is greater than the non-domestic multiplier; and

(b) the effect on the expenditure of a special authority of any income produced by a special authority multiplier.

(3) Before making a report the Secretary of State shall consult the Corporation of the City of London and any other authority as appear to him to be concerned.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment introduces a new clause which seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State lays before both Houses of Parliament a report to be called the "special authority report" on what I call special authorities. They are authorities which, under certain provisions in the 1988 Act, are not treated in the same way as other authorities. Subsection (3) of the new clause makes it clear that the relevant authority is the Corporation of the City of London.
The corporation has been singled out regularly for special treatment by the Government and some remarkable figures appear. For instance, it is the only local authority in the country which can still levy a local business rate. That came about in 1990 when the Government realised that the introduction of the poll tax could lead to an annual poll tax of some £1,400 per resident in the City and that was felt to be excessive. That levy continued under the council tax in order to avoid a similar situation; that is, a burdensome council tax for the residents of the City of London.
In terms of the revenue support grant, the Government plan in 1994–95 to pay the corporation of the City £1,300 for each local resident. The equivalent figure in Camden is £718, in Southwark £800 and in Barking £498. Therefore, the City is considered to be infinitely more important per resident than Camden, Southwark and Barking. Furthermore, most of the corporation's housing is in neighbouring boroughs such as Islington, Southwark and Lewisham. Yet, while they receive from the Government per home £1,538, £1,611, and £1,290 per annum respectively to manage and maintain their own housing, the City corporation receives per home £2,448 per annum to manage its housing, which often stands right alongside that from the host borough. I do not believe, in any sense, that that is a fair disposition of resources. Of course, I recognise that the City has particular expenses to meet. After all, there are 132 councilmen and women.
A similar level of representation achieved by fewer than 5,000 residents and 18,000 business voters would result in 31,000 councillors in Birmingham. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Howell, is interested in that figure. There are just 18 non-residential electors in the City's Lime Street ward who elect four members. Alperton ward in Brent has 6,311 electors for just two councillors.
I recognise that the City has special expenses to bear with the number of councilmen and women. There is also the procedure for electing the Lord Mayor and the associated ceremonial activities. All that is very expensive. Nevertheless, as the noble Earl will

1527
understand, I am not trying to cut it down; I simply seek to introduce an amendment which would require the Secretary of State to make a report. Such a report would state exactly what is happening. It would also state the purpose of the funds and how they are used. Finally, before the Secretary of State makes the report, he would be required to,
"consult the Corporation of the City of London and any other authority as appear to him to be concerned".
The amendment seems to me perfectly reasonable. I hope very much that the noble Earl will accept it as such. I beg to move.
Lord Finsberg: I suppose that the speech to which we have just listened might have gone down well when the late Bernard Miles opened the Mermaid Theatre. But to adduce in support of the amendment a fatuous argument about the number of councilmen in the City merely shows that the proposal is really a front for what I have heard over the past 25 years; namely, attempts by the party opposite to abolish the City of London. It would have been much more honourable if that had been put on the face of the amendment. The speech speaks for itself.
The only special authority under the 1988 Act was the City of London. There were very special reasons for that. The City ratepayer, business or domestic, is very well served by the City, as are the inhabitants of Greater London. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made no mention of what is done for the open spaces in London; for example, Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches and Hampstead Heath.
The noble Lord compared the number of councilmen and the population in the City with the situation in Birmingham and said that he understood why the City needed special treatment. The City does not need special treatment for that; it needs special treatment because, as the noble Lord also said, the drafting of legislation for a generality would have produced an impossible situation in the City. The Government recognised that fact in what became the 1988 Act. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not spend too much time demolishing the argument put forward. It was an argument of straw.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: I listened to the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I listened with additional care to the points made by my noble friend Lord Finsberg. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year on the operation of special financial arrangements which apply to the City of London. The arrangements were introduced under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 for a very specific reason. The City of London has a very high daytime population and large expenditure needs but only a very small resident population. Unlike other authorities, it has so few domestic dwellings that, without special funding arrangements, even a small change in its spending could have a dramatic effect on the level of its council tax. Because of that, Parliament accepted in 1988 that the normal rules for equalising resources could not take account of the City's unique position. The 1988 Act therefore enabled the City to
1528
continue to set its own local business rate and to keep part of the proceeds in support of its local spending. If, within the limits imposed through the normal capping rules, the City decided to spend more than the amount supported by the special arrangements, it would have to set a local rate higher than the uniform business rate.
The City is a responsible authority and appears to have exercised sound control over its finances. Although it has the power to charge a higher business rate, it has never done so. However, like other local authorities, the City is answerable to its local electorate, not the Secretary of State, for its spending decisions. In that respect the City is again unique among authorities. Although the City has the power to levy its own business rate, City businesses retain the right to vote in local elections. The City Corporation is therefore directly accountable both to its council tax payers and to its local businesses for its expenditure decisions.
For those reasons, we believe that it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to have to account to Parliament for the City's decision on the level of its multiplier or the way in which it spends its income. I trust that Members of the Committee will feel able to reject the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. He has, at least, addressed the amendment and not talked about irrelevancies. The noble Earl said that it was not the job of the Secretary of State to be accountable for the City. I agree. Under the amendment, it is proposed that the Secretary of State should consider certain matters and report upon them. That does not seem a very onerous proposition for the Secretary of State and it does not leave him open to criticism as regards accountability.
Of course, the City Corporation has a very special role in life which has been preserved historically. The Secretary of State may well say that he is not interested in the City Corporation. I believe that that would be a mistake. I am sure that the Secretary of State would probably say that he was interested. I am not asking for the abolition of the City or any such rubbish; I am asking the Secretary of State to put down in writing to both Houses of Parliament what has happened in any particular year and to consider certain matters. That is all.
However, the noble Earl seems determined to fight against it. As always, if I may say so, we have not had a very positive response to any of the amendments which we put forward in a reasonable manner. We hoped very much that the noble Earl might concede on one or two of our amendments. Nevertheless, despite the noble Earl's blank refusal to consider any of our amendments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

British Youth Council
4.48 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the future development of the British Youth Council with particular reference to its international work.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in asking this Unstarred Question, I should like to refer to the excellent work of the British Youth Council. I must say at the outset that, at a time when we have so much youth crime and hear so much about the misdemeanours of young people, it is good to look at some of the excellent work being done by young people—work which contributes to the well-being of society at both a national and international level.
The British Youth Council is a democratic organisation representing the views of a large number of organisations affiliated to it. The interests of these organisations cover religion, education, politics and recreational and vocational activities as well as covering the activities of some of the more traditional youth organisations such as the scouts. Historically, however, the British Youth Council was established by the Foreign Office in 1948. It began life as the British National Committee of the World Assembly of Youth; that is, the British contingent to a worldwide youth body which developed out of an international conference in London in 1947. The conference brought together youth representatives from all member countries of the newly-established United Nations and was addressed by the then Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin. So in effect the British Youth Council was established primarily to represent British young people on various bodies at international level. The committee I mentioned had as its primary function this international work. It is still a major part of the work of the British Youth Council.
Since 1948 the British Youth Council has been the representative organisation for young people in the United Kingdom at world, Commonwealth and United Nations level, and since the 1970s at Council of Europe and European Community level. In the development of its international work over a period of some 50 years a range of activities have been provided. Opportunities have been provided for young people to attend seminars, conferences and language courses and to take part in international meetings. Since 1948 it has been funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I wish to ask the Government this evening why it is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has decided to discontinue the funding of this organisation and how it sees the continuation of these important international activities which have been carried out by the British Youth Council.
We are not talking about an insignificant body. We are talking about a body which has a high reputation in the international affairs of young people. The British Youth Council has been at the forefront of the development of world co-operation among young people of all nations. It has participated in the World Assembly of Youth, and other conferences, throughout the period during which it has received funding from the
1530
Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There have been bilateral exchanges with other national youth councils going back to the 1950s. The first exchange was with the Indian Youth Council. The British Youth Council has been involved in seminars and conferences around the world on themes such as human rights, anti-racism, international co-operation and development, and it has participated, and still participates, in the CSCE process; that is, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Latterly the British Youth Council has developed links with Eastern and Central European countries through the 1970s and the 1980s. Within the past year the British Youth Council has participated in no fewer than 36 youth activities at international level. That includes the World Assembly of Youth meeting in Malaysia. It has been involved in a fact-finding visit to the Ukraine. It has hosted visits from the Slovenian Youth Council and the Zambian Youth Council. There have been exchange visits with the Danish, Austrian and Portuguese Youth Councils. There have been seminars on anti-racism, in particular an important one that was held in Berlin. There have been courses on international youth structures in co-operation with the Council of Europe.
Every year, through the work of this council, a large number of young people gain new skills and experience. Throughout the past 12 months more than 140 places for activities of an educational and inter-cultural nature have been provided for young people. These have included language courses, training seminars, fact-finding visits, conferences and various political meetings. The BYC has enjoyed a high profile internationally and is now one of the most respected national youth councils in Europe. It currently holds the presidency of the council of European national youth committees and is well represented at EC and Commonwealth level. It is looked to as an international leader in the youth field and over the past 18 months it has received visits from youth ministers from New Zealand, Malta, Spain, Pakistan and Malaysia. In particular, strong links have now been established with the emerging democracies in eastern and central Europe.
All this indicates the excellent work that the British Youth Council has done in the international field. But it also has a high reputation in the national field, as many Members of your Lordships' House and Members of another place are aware, having been associated with, or members of, the British Youth Council. Currently it is funded on the following basis: 30 per cent. comes from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to cover the international activities; 30 per cent. comes from the Department for Education to cover specific projects nationally; and the remaining 40 per cent. comes from members themselves—that is, the member organisations—from trusts and from sponsorships.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant, which amounts to £42,000 a year, represents just 0.001 per cent. of the FCO's budget for the year 1993–94. That is an insignificant amount to the Foreign Office but for the British Youth Council it is a vital 30 per cent. of its total income. It is the income that finances the kind of activities I have outlined. I understand that the grant will

1531
be paid in full for the current year, 1993–94, and that in 1994–95 there will be a grant of £15,000, which is, in effect, a transitional payment.
The purpose of my Question is to ask why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is taking such a mean decision at a time when it is so important to foster international relations and so important to bring members of youth organisations together. The value of that work is recognised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, said on 3rd November 1993:
"The British Youth Council has done and continues to do admirable work".
But he went on,
"Given all the pressures on my budget, however, I have concluded that I cannot continue to support the British Youth Council with Foreign Office funds".
While the Foreign Office clearly recognises and respects the work undertaken by the British Youth Council, it seems to have no awareness of the implications of that withdrawal of funding. Without the funding the youth council's work will collapse in a number of areas.
The Foreign Office suggests that much of the work that is now undertaken internationally can be covered by reimbursement from the European Community. That is not the case. I understand that at present flight costs are paid for by the European Commission in some cases, but that amounts to only 7 per cent. of the youth council's budget for international work. The bulk of its international expenditure is on the participation of young people in the EC, the Council of Europe and other decision-making structures. Those activities are not easily fundable through sponsorship.
There is no doubt that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a responsibility to ensure that this work continues. It has indicated to the British Youth Council that the world has changed much since the 1940s and 1950s. Of course it has. We all recognise that. But what has not changed is the need for co-operation and inter-cultural learning and development between and among the young people of the world. Her Majesty's Government must take some responsibility to ensure that this work can continue.
If the Foreign and Commonwealth Office says that this is no longer to be its responsibility, there remains a responsibility on the British Government as a whole. If the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is going to shift the responsibility in the long term, I should like to know what measures it will take to ensure that the British Youth Council has the necessary means to maintain its international work until such time as an alternative arrangement has been agreed.
This is an important matter. It rests on the miserly sum of £42,000 per annum. But the end result of that expenditure is not only good will towards the United Kingdom; it is also the opportunity for the youth of this country to play a leading role in international affairs.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to support the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, in pressing this Question. Nobody would disagree that young people should be aware of the issues facing decision-makers in today's world, issues that will affect their future lives
1532
and enable them to exercise their rights with due regard for the responsibilities that those rights carry with them. That is especially true in the international field. Given ever-increasing communications, as well as our commitments under a variety of treaties and agreements, not least of which are the European Union and the Council of Europe, that means that future generations will increasingly need to know and understand their peers in other countries. Therefore, activity in this area is of great importance since we are contributing to the education and understanding of our future leaders.
The British Youth Council does a good job in raising the awareness and interest of young people. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, outlined its role more than adequately. Therefore, I need not add any great detail, except to say that on the international front I was particularly pleased to learn that, in addition to the many events and involvements outlined by the noble Baroness, in the past year the BYC was represented in the UK delegation to the first Commonwealth Youth Ministers' Conference, that it hosted a meeting of the Youth Forum of the European Communities in Manchester and has participated in a range of bilateral exchanges with other national youth councils. I was also pleased to learn that a previous vice-chairman of the British Youth Council was elected as president of the Council of European National Youth Committees. That must be a good thing and shows our commitment to international understanding and good will.
It is in terms of Europe that the British Youth Council has done a particularly commendable job as a member of the Youth Forum of the European Communities. Again, the noble Baroness outlined its functions very well.
As I know only too well from my work in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, this is an area where the world does not stand still, particularly in the new Europe, which of course includes the countries of central and eastern Europe which are struggling to meet the demands of pluralistic democratic systems and the new openness of their government systems. Therefore, it is money well spent to prepare young people for the tasks and responsibilities that face them.
It is also essential that young people in this country should make and maintain contact with their counterparts in the wider Europe, not only to be able to help them in the present but also to ensure that in the future they avoid making the mistakes that were made in the past. That is particularly important where racism and xenophobia present a danger.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, was tactful in phrasing her Question in that it refers to plans for future development. In reality, as she explained, what we are talking about is funding. The question of funding is a difficult one. No body or organisation has a right to government funding indefinitely. We all know that often successful voluntary organisations are seen to be the victims of their own success in that the Government feel that once they are up and running they should be able to find funding elsewhere. I recognise that there is a need to review existing programmes regularly and also that there are always changing priorities for any government.

1533
I know that many other voluntary youth bodies are concerned and uncertain about their future in the same way.
No doubt I shall be corrected if I have it wrong, but I believe that it was Disraeli who said that it is upon the education of our children that the future of our country depends. I hope therefore that in reaching their decision on future funding the Government will give full consideration to the record of achievement which the British Youth Council can point to, as well as to the importance of its task. I trust that the views expressed in today's debate will have an influence on government thinking. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, there is little that I can add to the eloquent and informed speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood—the House will be grateful to her for raising the issue of the future of the British Youth Council—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who has drawn on her experience of the European Union and her work in the Council of Europe and elsewhere.
I wish to make three points. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully what is said because the sums involved are tiny and, in my view at least, the return that we gain for those sums is immensely greater than the investment made.
First, the British Youth Council represents an amazingly broad spectrum of youth organisations. It involves virtually every religious organisation, including the Union of Jewish Students, the British Council of Churches, the Catholic Youth Service, the Young Christian Workers and many others. Indeed, it covers virtually the whole spectrum of religious belief in this country and draws together organisations in an interdenominational commitment to work for young people.
Secondly, it draws together the political parties. The various parties have contributed to the British Youth Council and work within it. Indeed, at the present time Members of this House and of another place, including at present at least three Ministers, have been closely associated with its work.
No one can point to the British Youth Council as representing a particular religious or political opinion as against those of other groups in the community which have something to contribute. I refer your Lordships to some of the organisations which belong to the council: the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs, the Student Christian Movement, the Student Tory Reform Group, the Union of Jewish Students and Young Christian Workers. I could go on. The organisation represents every constructive, hardworking and constitutionally minded youth organisation in the country. The remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that we ought to be supporting constructive work among young people rather than discouraging it was an extremely well taken point.
The organisation has a small budget and, as the noble Baroness pointed out, is dependent upon one third of its budget, £42,000, coming from the Foreign Office and a
1534
substantial further contribution from the Department for Education. However, one of the striking facts to underline is that the British Youth Council in most cases has access only to project related funds. The Department for Education's £50,000 in the budget is entirely for project related spending. It therefore cannot be used for the purpose of representation at international conferences or on international organisations. Only the Foreign Office money can be used at the present time for that purpose. That is why it is so important that a relatively small sum should not be withdrawn.
I believe that the Minister and the Foreign Office should carefully consider the timing of the proposal. At present we are seeing a stormy, difficult and in many ways problematic move towards democratic societies in countries as different as those in central and eastern Europe, South Africa, the Maghrieb and in other parts of the world. The striking facts about many of those countries, specifically South Africa and the Maghrieb, is that their populations are overwhelmingly young. To take the example of one country, Algeria, where a battle for democracy continues, I think I am right in saying that more than half its population is under the age of 18. The same is true of South Africa. Yet the very organisation which is accepted worldwide as representing the voice of this country, its traditions and contribution will be silenced at the moment when we are experiencing the struggle for democracy in those young countries. I cannot think of a worse time suddenly to silence a voice so representative, broad and strikingly tolerant as that of the British Youth Council.
One of the associates of the British Youth Council is the Northern Ireland Youth Council, an interdenominational body. At a time when Her Majesty's Government are involved in delicate negotiations seeking to bring about a new settlement in Northern Ireland, that body is of immense value. In all its work, that organisation represents the ability of different denominations and faiths to work together.
I hope that the Minister will listen closely to the points made in this brief debate and will recognise that it is not a partisan debate but one infused with and driven by the desire to see this country represented in the fora of the world, in particular those related to young people—the most volatile group and at the present time the most open to influence. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will reconsider the decision. I suspect that the matter may not even have reached his desk before the decision was finally made.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I put my name down to speak to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, because I was a member of Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on the European Communities in your Lordships' House at a time when we took evidence in connection with young people in the Community. We were much impressed by the evidence given by the British Youth Council.
I ask the noble Viscount one question. Why this cut? Why this cut rather than some other cut of £42,000? I have seen Her Majesty's embassies across Europe. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office sees fit to spend

1535
very large sums of money on establishing British prestige across Europe, and in my view rightly so. Surely £42,000 could be found somewhere within that budget. The sum must be less than the cost of keeping a third secretary in post. Surely there is a third secretary tucked away somewhere in Ruritania who could go so that we can keep this project which is important for the prestige of the British people, British youth and British youth work within Europe. I speak only of Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke of the work of the council in a wider context, which is equally important. It is the voice of this country in the youth councils of the world.
I can envisage only four possible reasons why the Government are considering cutting the grant. Three are good reasons and one is bad. Perhaps I may first consider the good reasons. The first is that the job is not an important one. I have tried, as others will, to contend that it is an important one. The second is that if the job is important, the British Youth Council is not doing it well. If that is the reason, I suggest that it should be told so, and, if necessary, the grant should be given to others so that they can do it well. The third reason is that, if the grant is withdrawn, the task will continue to be done. That would be a good reason, but I believe that the onus of proof is on the Minister to show that that would occur.
The fourth and bad reason is that the cut may be an example of the philosophy which runs something like this: if cuts must be made, make them at the easiest place; cut the grants to external organisations and maintain the jobs for the boys at the centre. The Government have pilloried local authorities for doing just that. I believe that it would be very wrong if they allowed that to take place in one of their own departments. Therefore, I ask the Minister to tell the House in his reply whether the reason for the cut is for one of the three good reasons or for the fourth reason.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Lockwood. In many ways, I do not have very much to add to the eloquence of many noble Lords who have spoken already in the debate.
We have heard that the British Youth Council has received support for the past 40 years. I believe that it was only in November of last year, with no warning at all, that it was told that its support was to be completely withdrawn. That was a peremptory withdrawal, although I believe that it has been reviewed to a certain extent so that the council is being given some time in which to consider obtaining alternative funding from other sources.
The transitional amounts to which my noble friend Lady Lockwood referred are sufficient only to pay the affiliation fees to the Council of Europe and will not meet any of the revenue costs; namely, the day-to-day running costs of the British Youth Council. The council is already putting in hand measures to make some of its staff redundant in the light of that impending cut.
I was amused by the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, when he referred to local
1536
councils making cuts. I have some experience of that and I must say that they are carried out in a similar manner. A local authority may say that a group is doing excellent work but that the authority itself is under pressure. That is a euphemism for saying that it needs to save money. The authority then gives no further justification for the cut. That is an extremely unsatisfactory argument. If the FCO is under pressure, then it must be making choices. I believe that it is incumbent upon the FCO to justify those choices. It is not sufficient to congratulate an organisation on the one hand and to cut its funds on the other.
I wish to conclude by quoting the words of Raja Gomez, who is a former director of the Commonwealth Youth Programme. He said:
"I hope that BYC will be able to maintain its high profile in the coming years. If not, an important part of British and Commonwealth contributions to the youth community in the world at large and Europe, in particular, could be lost".
We should think about the message that we are sending, in particular to Europe. I have heard from a number of interested parties that it is causing a certain amount of dismay on the part of our European partners that we are making that cut in funding at a time when we are supposed to be moving towards greater co-operation with Europe. I hope that the Government will see fit to review their decision about the funding for the BYC and will return to the House with the results of their deliberations.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I too rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I speak as chairman of the English Speaking Union of the Commonwealth, which is trying to promote international friendship and understanding through the use of the English language. It does that by means of scholarships, exchanges and a wide programme of events. Our youth programme in particular fosters links all over the world.
Of course I understand the Government's duty to monitor rigorously any grant that they make and I applaud their determination to get value for money. But I question their judgment in this instance.
I wish to say a few words about value for money. The sum involved is £42,000 for 1993. I understand that that would be roughly the cost of two middle-ranking secondary school teachers who between them might have an influence over, at most, 500 teenagers.
That is the money; what about value? What value does the British Youth Council give in return for its grant? It affords access to Europe and beyond to all the youth organisations-in the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, gave the names of several of those organisations. The list is endless: local groups and clubs, scouts, girl guides and boys' brigades. The council is the youth council for the United Kingdom in international fora. It has represented the UK on the youth forum of the European Union, as it now is, and the Council of Europe since the 1970s and on that of the Commonwealth and the United Nations since 1948. It is through that council that its member organisations have access to education and training opportunities that many would never have dreamt of. For example, it may well

1537
be that a member of the Boys' Brigade is more likely to be awarded a place on a course than, for example, the president of the National Union of Students.
The English Speaking Union is very grateful to the British Youth Council. The ESU is now setting up exchanges in Eastern Europe; for example, in Poland and Hungary. Last April the director of that programme was enabled, by the British Youth Council, to attend a training course on how to organise international youth events and exchanges. It took place at the European Training Centre in Strasbourg. The cost of the 10-day course and the accommodation was funded by the Council of Europe. The ESU gained access to that course through the British Youth Council.
The ESU is starting to bring over young people from Eastern Europe; for example, as a researcher for a Member in another place or to work in the BBC or an oil company. Educationists and industrialists are always talking of the need to let young people, the workforce of the future, become fluent in languages and to be aware of the world beyond. It seems incomprehensible that we should cut that small grant which provides many extremely important educational and training programmes.
As a teacher, I should like to think that what I teach in the classroom is the most important element in a pupil's education; but it usually is not. What is most important is what goes on outside the classroom. In the United Kingdom we are devoting a great deal of money, resources and legislation to giving our children the best possible education and training opportunities. Foreign travel and training are a crucial element of that and the British Youth Council gives excellent value for the small amount of money it receives from the Government.
In conclusion, I should like to read your Lordships a short excerpt from a letter that I received yesterday from Professor Gabor Fodor, who is a professor at the University of Sciences in Budapest at its department of philosophy. He is also president of its human rights committee. In this instance he is talking about the English Speaking Union exchange programme but what he says applies equally to the British Youth Council. He writes:
"I am convinced that international initiatives such as yours will greatly contribute to the formation of a more skilful and responsible political leadership of the future".
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, would it not be fun if we could wave a wand and if noble Lords and noble Baronesses who are to speak today allowed instead their eldest son—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would say, their eldest daughter, were she available—to speak for them. The Foreign Office would know what youth really thinks about a move made against continuing support that has been given for so long.
I thought at first that the sum must be £4 million; if so I could understand the Foreign Office view. But it was not. It must therefore be £400,000; it was not. It was
1538
£40,000 —which, as most noble Lords who read their newspapers know, cannot quite support four girls at Roedean. So why have the Government done this?
Perhaps the Government feel that they have done enough: that there is full employment for youth in this country; that all are adequately housed one way or another; that all are educated, particularly for Europe; and that every child can speak one or two European languages as well as its own. The Foreign Office can therefore look back with pride over the past 40 years and say, "We have done enough," and we would understand.
What in fact has happened? I shall not go into statistics on the employment side. We know that youth is often on the bottom rung. On the matter of housing, I quote:
"Clustered around the despairing aspect of urban life is a growing underclass of vagrants of whom one-third are between 14 and 29. No caring society can be content when an increasing number of its young live in such circumstances".
Those words were spoken by Mr. Heseltine in 1990 and are pretty well true today.
I turn to education. Like my noble friend Lord Northbourne, I sat on the European Communities Committee in relation to young people in Europe. The noble Lord did not say it; I shall. The more I heard about the education given in this country compared with that in Europe the more ashamed I felt. It is fantastic that among the young in the UK general awareness about Europe and its opportunities is lower than elsewhere anywhere in Europe. As for ignorance of languages, we are all aware of the friend from Denmark who can speak English so much better than we can and who can speak German and French as well. Again, we are very ashamed.
There are exchange visits. It is vitally important that our young people should know what Europe is like and what the Commonwealth is like before it breaks up. That is part of education. There is need for co-ordination. The same committee on Europe asked the Government to give evidence. Our report stated that some 15 to 20 government departments were represented. The reason for that curious figure is that sometimes one element was represented, sometimes another. There were officials from a wide range of government departments.
The report specified that 10 out of the 12 European countries have a Minister for youth. The UK and Italy do not have one. Noble Lords should not think that I am getting at the Government. At the last general election no party made any reference at all to co-ordinated policy so far as youth is concerned.
The catalogue of mistakes can only be solved, and has partly been solved, by the British Youth Council. I lost count of the arious associations embraced by the British Youth Council. I got up to 78 in its annual report and then gave up.
I make four general points. First, investment in youth is always worth it. Secondly—and I look around the Chamber as I say it—we are all getting older. It is perhaps selfish but it is also common sense to realise that we depend on our youth and will do so more the older we get. Thirdly, this is a competitive world. It is vitally important that the youth of our country should be

1539
educated and go into vocational training and also that they should be educated about Europe. Fourthly, we are in Europe and we have to make the best that we can out of it.
It is my guess that the youth of this country would never forgive the Foreign and Commonwealth Office if, having established the British Youth Council in 1948, it gave up support for it today. I do not want to exaggerate the position. I am sure that much of what the British Youth Council does in this country will continue—perhaps at a lower level, but it will continue. However, it cannot undertake the wonderful work that it has been doing unless it has support. My question to the noble Viscount is a very simple one. Would he agree with me (I do not think that he will) if I re-write the remark of the Foreign Secretary in November 1993, which has been referred to, to read, "The British Youth Council has done and continues to do admirable work. Given all the pressures on my budget I must make economies elsewhere and will continue to support the British Youth Council."
5.36 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister has any criticism at all of the work of the British Youth Council. If he does not, I assume that the sole reason for withdrawing the grant to the council is that the Government cannot afford to give such a sum. I repeat a point made many. times. We are talking about £42,000 in the current financial year. That is a tiny fraction of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget for 1993–94. We have had some splendid examples from previous speakers. We were told that a third secretary would command that sort of money, as would a couple of middle range teachers. I find it impossible to believe that we are seriously debating whether a government department can provide such a sum. I am no financial expert, but if the noble Viscount can arrange to let me loose on the FCO accounts, I guarantee that I would find £42,000 without hurting anybody at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, made a very important point about value for money. I would have thought that this Government above all would support that. But, with great respect, I say that that is not really sufficient. If, for example, we had been debating a sum of £100 million, then the Government would be bound to take that into consideration. But we are not talking about that kind of money. We are talking about what the Americans would call peanuts. That is my contribution to the various names that have been given to it. It becomes even more ludicrous when it is set in the context of the manner in which some other sums of government money are being spent. Last week, some of us questioned the Government on the expenditure on advertising for grant-maintained schools. That sum was £200,000. Some of us would say that that expenditure is on a policy which by normal criteria has failed miserably. We need not go into that matter now. But that is what many of us think. And one could give other examples.
Let us contrast such expenditure with the work done by the British Youth Council over the years. It has been
1540
comprehensively spelt out, not only by my noble friend but by other speakers, and I shall not repeat it. The British Youth Council was established by the FCO in 1948 and has received grant-in-aid since the 1950s.
At that time I was a voluntary youth worker. I had established two youth clubs and spent much of my spare time running them. At that time my colleagues and I felt that the FCO's action in establishing the BYC was not only a major step forward but far sighted and enlightened. It was certainly regarded as a great boost to the work being done in the youth service at that time. I remember that I was very proud indeed because I was very active in the Labour Party and it was a Labour Government who had introduced it. But I do not want to introduce a political element into the debate because, to their credit, the Government have continued with the splendid work that has been done since 1948.
If anything should be regarded as international in character it is surely work that is done by and for youth. It gives great satisfaction to many people that the British Youth Council is held in such high regard throughout the world. It may be said that it is looked upon as a leader in the international youth field. Previous speakers have already mentioned that in detail.
Recently I asked the council whether it was doing anything in regard to the new situation that has arisen in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. It seemed to me that this was not just a golden opportunity but an essential step to take if we were to help those emergent democracies in their very difficult task. The answer was that strong links had already been made. That was very good news indeed. But obviously such co-operation is now in jeopardy. It is a platitude to say that those young people are the adults of tomorrow but in today's dangerous world we forget it at our peril.
I had a virtually parallel experience of what we are discussing tonight when last year I led a parliamentary delegation to Mauritius. The delegation was concerned to learn that the British Government had stopped helping the young people of Mauritius to come to Britain to study. Every Minister from the Prime Minister downwards pressed us to try to have that decision reversed. They said that the value of such links to Britain—not only to their own young people but to Britain—could not be overrated. It was even more frightening to learn that the vacuum created by that withdrawal of help has been and is being filled by France, which is not even a Commonwealth country. I am a fervent supporter of the Commonwealth. If British Youth Council visits to Commonwealth countries are curtailed or even stopped, as appears will be the case if the grant is stopped, it will be a serious setback for further relations with the Commonwealth.
I should be glad if the Minister in his reply would indicate whether any representations have been received on this matter from the Commonwealth Secretariat. If not, I earnestly request that discussions take place as soon as possible. As parliamentarians, I trust that we all welcome the fact that the British Youth Council brings the issues most affecting young people onto the political agenda. The current level of youth unemployment is twice that for the over-25s and the Government's youth training guarantee is manifestly failing in some parts of

1541
the country. Those are just two of the important issues which have been raised by the British Youth Council in the past year.
I would not accuse the Government of wanting to stifle the council's legitimate actions in such matters, but they must know that the reduction of an already restricted budget must inevitably affect its work. One of the strengths of the British Youth Council is that it works in close co-operation with other organisations dealing with youth issues. They have all been mentioned tonight and it is worth repeating that fact. I am sure that the Minister not only recognises that but approves of it. In that way its work has undoubtedly been made more effective.
I also hope that the Minister recognises that there is a self-help aspect in the BYC organisation. I am glad to see that the Minister nods and I assume that he agrees with me. The Government quite frequently say that people come with a begging bowl without making any efforts on their own behalf. That certainly does not apply to the British Youth Council. As he probably knows, the council undertakes a range of activities to raise money for its work. However, it is quite impossible for it to raise sufficient for even its basic needs. Nor should that be expected, because of the nature of its work. That is why it properly receives money from the Department for Education and the Prince's Trust. I understand that the noble Baroness mentioned that during her contribution.
The BYC has said that without the FCO's grant its international work will collapse—"collapse" is the BYC's word. It sounds rather dramatic but when one considers that there will be a massive reduction in worldwide opportunities, with the removal of BYC as a leading member in the international field and much lower participation in its work in western, central and eastern Europe, then perhaps collapse is not too strong a word in the context of this special activity.
I conclude by asking whether there can be anything more important than the development of our youth. Investment is a word that is frequently used in both Houses of Parliament, sometimes without having its real meaning placed upon it. That cannot be true when we refer to young people. To a considerable degree we can guarantee that there will be a return on the money and resources allocated to our youth. This debate should have been about increasing the sum granted to the BYC, but we are discussing the ending of the grant. There might have been some tiny justification for a reduction had we been discussing a very large sum of money. That is a point which I made earlier. It cannot be justified when we are talking about £42,000. I hope and plead that the FCO will think again on this matter.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I offer my credentials to speak on this subject as a former honorary president of the BYC, a job that I gave up two or three years ago. I used to say that I was the Saga Holidays' representative on the council of the BYC. I enjoyed my time there, which I found very stimulating. It was a very impressive organisation. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness,
1542
Lady Lockwood, will be extremely pleased, as will the BYC, at the support that she has received from all around the House this evening on this important subject. We, and the BYC in particular, are all grateful to her for raising it.
There cannot be much to add after having listened to people with so many different credentials from so many different parts of the House speaking on this subject. But perhaps I can just speak about my experience. I have to admit that there were good years and bad years at the BYC; but then the BYC is a democratic organisation and the people who are elected to the top of that organisation are not necessarily of the same calibre year on year. I should, however, like to pay tribute this evening to the work of the General Secretary, Mr Graham Hitchen, who has done a superb job of running the organisation since he took over a few years ago. At that time it was in considerable difficulty as a result of a reduction in funding by the Department for Education, which pulled the rug from under it in the same way that the Foreign Office is now doing, only rather more precipitately. Since then, as we heard, the Department for Education has been giving project funding; but all the core funding went at once with virtually no warning. At that time the BYC was crassly handled by that department of government.
At that time I attended a number of meetings and spoke to officials from the Foreign Office who came along to their annual or six-monthly meetings. I quizzed them and asked whether there was any suggestion that the Foreign Office would withdraw its funding. They said that there was no suggestion of that at all. They were delighted with the work that was done and said that it was very good value for money. They said that the Foreign Office had no intention of reducing its funding. It did not reduce its funding but kept it static for the next three years, which meant that there was a reduction in real terms. Nevertheless, the Foreign Office has continued to pay the kind of money that we have been discussing.
Now, suddenly, things have changed. I feel a little sorry for the Minister because it is not his department and he is being shot at from all sides. All I say is that I hope he will be able to go back to the Foreign Office and express in clear terms—as I am sure he will—the strong passions that the matter aroused in your Lordship's House this afternoon. Incidentally, he could offer £42,000 from his own defence budget, which I do not think he would miss. However, I doubt that he will do that.
What is to happen? We are told that there is to be sponsorship and we must look for sponsors. Does anybody have any idea of the kind of sponsors that should be sought? Perhaps British American Tobacco or the Honda car company could be asked. One can imagine delegations attending international conferences wearing those labels and seeking television rights for showing them. The idea of obtaining outside sponsorship for a delegation of British youth going to international conferences is bizarre.
One feels the sticky hands of the Treasury behind all this. We know that in the past there have been references from certain extreme ends of the Conservative Party,

1543
particularly the Young Conservatives, to the British Youth Council as being a rather Left-wing organisation. I should like to say that that is no longer true. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary of the Treasury still regards it as being a communist organisation when we see previous leaders include such people as the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. David Hunt—all well-known revolutionaries perhaps in the eyes of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury !
One can joke about those things, but it is a serious matter. Are the youth of this country to be represented at international meetings in the future in the way in which they have been in the past? If so, who will attend and who will pay for it? Or shall we send civil servants instead? That will be far more expensive. Shall we not send anybody? That would be even more expensive.
As has been stated throughout the length and breadth of the Chamber this afternoon, it is quite clear that this country —never mind the Government—has been receiving extremely good value for money in funding that aspect of the British Youth Council. I should like to quote a little more from the letter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, from Mr. Raja Gomez, who is now director of administration of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, although he says in his letter that he is not speaking as an official of the CPA. He says:
"I am happy to place on record a personal statement of my understanding of BYC's international work and the importance of adequate funding to the maintenance of that work. These comments are, of course, based on my close relationship with Youth Councils and similarly placed organisations during my tenure of office as Director of the Commonwealth Youth Programme (1984–1992)".
Mr. Gomez says that it is BYC's international work which took it to the front line of youth affairs. In other words, it is its international aspect that gave it its strength for what it does in this country as well as what it does abroad. He says:
"This is recognition indeed given the very great strength, especially in terms of resources backing them, which many European Youth Councils possess, especially those of Scandanavia"—
which, of course, provides huge funding compared with what comes from this country. Mr. Gomez goes on to explain some of the things that he has seen. As we heard recently, BYC's representative to the Youth Forum of the United Nations played an extremely important part in the meeting held in Vienna which he attended, and he endorses what was said earlier this afternoon. He continues:
"I am aware that BYC's position in youth affairs has resulted in [its] becoming a regular port of call for Ministers and Chief Executives from a variety of Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries".
Who will receive those visitors in the future when BYC cannot afford to buy them a cup of tea or provide offices in which to receive them? There are so many aspects to the matter. People come in from outside; people go out from here; information is passed into our youth movement. That is perhaps another important aspect that was not stressed enough in our discussions this afternoon; that is, that part of the education process is on an inward basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, probably came closest to the point. There is
1544
a lot of flow of information from the youngsters who are learning all the time what it is to be part of an international community; who are learning how to be the leaders of our youth organisations and eventually of our other organisations.
I mentioned some of the people who in the past were associated with the BYC and who are now in politics. Of course, there are others, not only in politics but in industry and the professions. They first had their taste of standing up and debating, meeting and learning, through the activities of the BYC and its international contacts. I cannot believe that the Foreign Office is so stupid as to totally cut off funding; but that is what is happening. Can the noble Viscount tell the House why? I hope that he does not come back with a collection of platitudes saying what a wonderful organisation it is but that the Government cannot afford to pay for it. That simply cannot be true.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend Lady Lockwood for introducing a debate on this important and serious topic. I had the pleasure and privilege of serving on sub-committee C of the Select Committee on the European Communities, along with several other noble Lords who have already spoken, when she was in the chair. We produced our report—Young People in the European Community— in 1991 and it was debated by your Lordships. However, the situation of young people does not seem to have improved since then. If anything it is giving rise to even more concern. I agree with everything that was said in that respect by the noble Lords, Lord Hayter and Lord Northbourne, both of whom were members of the Select Committee.
I agree also that the committee was impressed at the time by the evidence given orally by the British Youth Council. Its membership seemed to us to be very representative of young people. They made a point of the fact that it is an organisation for young people run by young people. In fact, if anything, they were rather critical of the European Youth Forum because that organisation tended to be run by professional youth workers and European politicians. The BYC is an affiliate of the European Youth Forum and at the recent meeting it was said that its delegation was the only one in which everyone was under the age of 26.
In 1991, when we asked the BYC at the oral hearing what its members thought was the major problem for young people in Europe, the answer was unequivocal: it is unemployment. During the past year the BYC has produced a publication which has been widely praised, called The Time of Your Life. In that publication the BYC sought to identify some of the problems faced by today's young people. In particular, it focused on unemployment. It told us in 1991—and things have not improved since then—that youth unemployment is twice the national average. It told us that 150,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 19 experience homelessness; that 72 per cent. of under 24 year-olds earn less than the Council of Europe's "decency

1545
threshold". Even those young people from the more disadvantaged areas of society who are employed are often in low paid, dead-end employment.
The BYC provides a forum for discussion and debate of issues concerning young people. In addition, it performs an extremely useful lobbying function through which the views of young people can be communicated to government and to Members of Parliament. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has spoken highly of the BYC, saying:
"I am well aware of the valuable work of the British Youth Council in representing our young people".
As we have heard from a number of noble Lords, the BYC has a very high profile internationally. It was clear from the submissions made on behalf of the BYC to the Select Committee that the council was well aware of the challenge of the single market. Its representatives expressed great concern that young people in the UK were under-informed about the EC compared with young people in other EC countries. They felt that our young people would lack the appropriate skills to be able to benefit from the opportunities which the EC might eventually offer. As a result, the BYC has been concentrating on training activities and has been running a series of international training and education events—run for and by young people—and has produced a series of publications aimed at providing the information and resources needed.
In 1991 the BYC identified what we on the European Communities Committee at that time came to regard as the "vicious circle" syndrome—at least as far as the most disadvantaged young people are concerned. First, there is the deprived home background, often as a result of parental break-up and/or family unemployment; then come poor levels of attainment at school; then unemployment on leaving school with low academic attainment; then homelessness if the young person has left home—sometimes willingly, sometimes because the family refuses to continue to provide a home; continued unemployment because of the lack of an address; and deprivation, from which it appears impossible to break away.
The BYC has attempted to highlight these problems and has campaigned for something special to be done to enable such young people to break out of this vicious circle. The BYC, however, is well aware of the fact that the problem is of international dimensions. It has sought through its international contacts, particularly in Europe, to develop an international strategy to try to cope with the seemingly intractable difficulties. Over the past 12 months, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the BYC has organised or participated in 36 youth activities at international level. Through the BYC more than 140 educational and other inter-cultural activities have been provided for young people in the past year. These have included language courses—which are very important, as a number of noble Lords have emphasised—training seminars, fact-finding visits, conferences and so on.
The BYC has received funding from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since 1948 but it has never been very much. At the moment the £42,000 which we are
1546
debating today is simply peanuts. In fact, it represents 30 per cent. of the BYC's income. It is a lot to the BYC but in terms of grants available from the Government it is very small indeed. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the wide range of support for the BYC from Church organisations and sports organisations. There is also the involvement of trade unions. My own trade union, MSF, is a member of the BYC. It has received support and information from the BYC which has enabled it to establish its own youth section and to bring out its own youth charter, with a good deal of emphasis on training and opportunities for young people. The BYC has a number of associate members, including Save the Children Fund, of which I am a council member. It has a great deal of support from all areas of society and from all kinds of organisations.
However, the cutting of the very tiny grant will have a devastating effect on the work of the BYC. The organisation has said that it will result in the collapse of the BYC as a leading player in the international youth field and with that a much lower profile for the UK within international youth structures. There is likely to be a far lower emphasis on European and international issues within youth work in the UK and a considerable decrease in liaison and partnership with youth organisations in eastern and central Europe. This latter point is very important. Many of the states in eastern and central Europe are currently passing through a high degree of social turmoil. It is necessary for them to build democratic structures from scratch. I have had something to do with that on the trade union side and I know just how difficult it is. Help from organisations with experience of democratic structures and organisation, such as the BYC, is very important in assisting new organisations to get off the ground. With its very long history the BYC is admirably placed to do this kind of work. Instead of being able to develop such work it is having to face a cut in its minuscule grant. This is occurring at a time when a diminution of funds is most inappropriate.
I am informed that there seems also to be a reduction of funding generally in regard to voluntary youth organisations in London. I am told that the reason is that partnership arrangements between the Department for Education and the London Boroughs Grants Committee, the development grant and the National Voluntary Youth Organisation schemes all cease or are due for review or renewal after three years. The London Council for the Voluntary Youth Service expects reductions of around 66 per cent. over the period 1993 to 1997. I raise that point in this context because, although it has nothing to do with the BYC, I wonder whether there is a general drive to reduce the amount of funding for youth work. If that is the case it is extraordinarily shortsighted. What will happen? Who will do the work? Where will the funding come from for the necessary work in the future? I await with interest the Minister's response.
6.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I want to begin by thanking the noble Baroness,

1547
Lady Lockwood, for raising this important Question and thanking all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. For the Government Front Bench spokesman it is perhaps painfully obvious that this subject concerns your Lordships very greatly. I have certainly been much struck, as so often when listening to your Lordships, by the depth of experience of this matter in this House. I think in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, my noble friend Lady Brigstocke and other noble Lords —the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, because of his past distinguished connection with the BYC and other noble Lords in the context of their connection with the work of Sub-Committee C, which reported on this and other issues.
I wish to associate Her Majesty's Government and myself with the encomiums made on the admirable work undertaken, both nationally and internationally, by the British Youth Council. That work was referred to by all noble Lords but perhaps particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and my noble friends Lady Hooper and Lady Brigstocke. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, pointed out, only recently my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs paid a similar tribute in another place.
At the outset I should like to answer directly the question addressed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. As far as I am aware, no Commonwealth representations have as yet been received on this matter by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It may well be that there are some in the post but none, so far as I am aware, has yet been received.
Perhaps I may very rapidly speak my own book. I hope that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that my department should contribute the sum of money concerned (£42,000) was no more than a joke, and in poor taste. As your Lordships will be aware, even that relatively minimal sum might be the straw that broke the camel's back of even our budget. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, acknowledged, the Government have indeed provided financial support for the international work of the British Youth Council for many years and for its predecessor, the British National Committee for the World Assembly of Youth, since 1948.
My arithmetic is certainly a victim of the British education system, but perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness that £42,000 out of £165,923, which is represented as the income of the British Youth Council in the year 1992–93—perhaps this is carping—is a little nearer a quarter than one third of the total. However, I reassure your Lordships that the decision to phase out this funding was taken clearly, after serious consideration of the issues involved. In answer to the representations made by your Lordships this evening, I should like to come back to that in a little greater detail in a moment.
There has been a particular foreign policy reason for funding the BYC's international activities in the past. We felt that it was important to ensure in particular that properly representative and democratic—this is a point which has been made many times about the nature of the
1548
BYC —youth organisations were present to exert a moderating influence in certain international youth fora. But it has perhaps become a truism to say that times have changed. The Berlin Wall has fallen and totalitarian regimes no longer hold the power which they once did in the countries of the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Happily, the BYC's role in that regard must change as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, in particular pointed out the importance of the work of youth organisations in eastern Europe under current circumstances.
The nature of the work has changed. We therefore had to conclude that to continue funding on the former basis was no longer justifiable. That at least in part addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I believe that he said something like, "We congratulated while at the same time withdrawing".
Nevertheless, there is no reason why the BYC should not be able to continue much of its activity in the European Community and in the Council of Europe youth fora. That is a part of its work to which again the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, gave considerable emphasis. After all, as I believe has been pointed out in your Lordships' House this evening, both organisations will continue in part to pay for them to do so.
The British Youth Council receives government funding through the Department for Education scheme for grants to national voluntary youth organisations to promote the personal and social education of young people. It also receives some additional and most welcome assistance from private sponsors, in particular, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, pointed out, from the Prince's Trust and the Baring Foundation, to give but two examples. Its activities cover a wide range of issues from homelessness, to unemployment, the environment, education and so on. Noble Lords who have spoken this evening know a great deal more of the detail than I do and therefore I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating something which you already know well.
The relationship between the Government and the BYC has parallels in most European Community member states, again as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out. I believe that there is a varying degree of government funding of those activities. The BYC, in common with other youth councils in member states, enjoys that support. Understandably, it jealously guards its independence and the mandate that it receives from its member organisations. Her Majesty's Government welcome the valuable work of the British Youth Council in promoting the active citizenship of young people, a role which in my view your Lordships have rightly stressed during this evening's debate.
Therefore, I believe it is right that, as part of the scheme of grants to national voluntary youth organisations, my right honourable and honourable friends in the Department for Education have awarded the BYC grants amounting to £161,585 for three years to the financial year 1995–96 for various purposes. The department has also provided a capital grant of £15,000 towards the refurbishment of the BYC headquarters.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. But does he not accept that the funding of which he has just been speaking is specifically directed to projects designed by the Department for Education and that it cannot be used for core funding —for instance, for providing staff for international activities?
Viscount Cranborne: Yes, my Lords. I hope that I made it clear to your Lordships that this funding was provided with a view to helping the national, as opposed to the international activities, of the BYC.
Therefore, I believe I can assure your Lordships that the phasing out of the government's funding for the BYC's international work in no way implies withdrawal of the government's approval of what it does, particularly domestically. I am glad that both the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, recognised that there was an element of phasing in that withdrawal.
The BYC has itself described its international work as an extension of its work at the national level. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, in particular referred to that relationship. Her Majesty's Government are indeed well aware of the range of activities which the BYC undertakes on behalf of its members in the international field, which again was referred to by a number of speakers this evening, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. We recognise that the BYC has a role to play in representing its membership in the youth fora of the EC and the Council of Europe.
As I said a moment ago—and perhaps I may quote my noble friend Lady Hooper—things do not stand still. The European Commission has recently proposed a new and considerably enlarged phase of the Youth for Europe programme, which is one of its major programmes for young people. At the moment the Government are taking part in negotiations referring to that particular programme and its increased funding. When the extent and scope of that programme become clearer, which will probably be later this year, the Government, in the form of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, plan to set in hand a review of the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies concerned, including the BYC, with a view to developing a new programme in order to avoid any unnecessary and wasteful duplication of effort, particularly when, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, there are a number of other agencies concerned with work in this field. At least in part that addresses the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who asked: why this cut?
The BYC is aware of the proposed review and I understand that it has welcomed it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, can confirm that that is true. As I understand it, the review will explore the form of relationship which may be most appropriate between the Government and the BYC, including funding. I understand that the BYC, like the Government, recognises that its financial relationship with the Government now needs to be reviewed. In that context I believe that the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady
1550
Lockwood, is particularly timely. The views of so many of your Lordships with experience in this field will be taken into account in the course of the review.
My impression is that the relationship between the Government and the BYC is extremely good. That impression has been echoed in what many of your Lordships have said. I believe that at a recent meeting with the BYC leadership it was clear that all concerned intended to work together co-operatively and constructively in the future, particularly in the context of the review to which I have just referred.
I should like once again to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for providing the opportunity for what has proved to be a most timely and useful debate. As usual, your Lordships' concern and appreciation have been eloquently and knowledgeably expressed. I hope that in at least some small measure your Lordships have been reassured that the Government most certainly continue to value and support the work of the British Youth Council. However, that does not mean that the relationship must remain set in aspic, unresponsive to the changes in the world which the BYC rightly aims to continue to serve.

London Underground
6.20 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the funding of London Underground is sufficient to maintain the system and prevent further deterioration of its physical assets.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 8th July 1992, I asked whether sufficient was being done to maintain and improve the underground railway system of London. I have no hesitation in raising the issue again some 18 months later and I am grateful to those noble Lords who will be speaking later.
When I originally raised this issue, I drew attention to the ageing of the assets of the Underground and to the accumulated lack of investment which had prevented those assets from being adequately maintained and refurbished. I took some comfort, however, from the announcement in the Autumn Statement of 1991 that higher levels of funding would be provided. I asked the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for an assurance that,
"those higher levels of funding announced for London Transport last year"
—that was in 1991—
"were more than just a pre-election boost and that they will be sustained at the level necessary to allow the essential work to be properly planned and executed over the years". —[Official Report, 8/7/92; col. 1249.]
The reply that I got was that the Government were working with the Underground to produce a strategy for the next 10 years that would bring about the decent modern metro that we all wanted to see.
The 1991 Autumn Statement provided that £634 million would be available for the core business in 1994–95. Regrettably, this was substantially modified in the 1992 Autumn Statement and the corresponding amount now likely to be available is £448 million,

1551
which represents a 30 per cent. reduction. Perhaps I should add that this issue has been referred to many times since.
The Government have maintained, in answers to Questions raised in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and others, that the funding levels now represent a record. Whether they are a record or not is not the main issue. The crucial issue is whether the funds are adequate for the task, and clearly they are not. Given its replacement value, the Underground system requires, in constant prices, £250 million per annum to keep it in a stable, non-deteriorating condition. However, over the past 30 years the average has been about £170 million at constant values. This shortfall has created a backlog that has raised the amount needed merely to maintain the existing system in its now unsatisfactory condition to an annual investment of about £600 million per annum. Thus, while grant levels are generally higher than in earlier years, they are inadequate to deal with the backlog.
As I have stated, for 30 years there has been under-investment in the assets of the London Underground. In many cases, these assets are now life-expired and increasingly unreliable. Let us consider the track situation: 30 per cent. of the track is in an unacceptable state (this is up from 22 per cent. only five years ago so it is deteriorating rapidly) and many stretches are subject to speed restrictions to protect safety. There are currently 44 times more speed restrictions on the London Underground than on the Paris Metro and 15 times more restrictions than on the New York subway, which itself is generally regarded as an ageing system. Embankment slips have doubled in the past five years and the number of broken rails is up by 85 per cent. For example, a landslip at Burnt Oak closed part of the Northern Line for two weeks last months. That is just one recent example.
Let me turn next to signals. The average age of signals on the network is 30 years and that is 10 years older than in either Paris or New York. Failure rates due to signals are 50 per cent. higher than in those cities. The number of failures is up by 30 per cent. over the past five years.
Pumps are an important part of the system. Three million gallons of water a day seep into the Underground as the water table rises. This water has to be pumped out to enable the system to work. However, half the 635 pumps need replacing. One-third of incidents causing serious delays in 1992–93 involved flooding. For example, in May 1992 the Central Line service was suspended at the line's west end for six hours and in November of that year Gants Hill was closed for seven hours. Those are random examples.
I have dealt with only some of the many categories of asset forming part of the London Underground. Many other instances of failing assets could be cited; for example, no one will have forgotten the Central Line power failure of November 1993, which was severely exacerbated by the age of the cabling.
This situation makes it abundantly clear that the present funding of the London Underground is inadequate. In 1992–93 the Underground invested £767 million in its existing network. In 1993–94 the figure
1552
was £558 million. Next year, 1994–95, it will be £470 million. These figures include government grants and sums generated by London Transport. The Autumn Statement of 1991 indicated that the Government intended investment in the Underground to be maintained at the 1992–93 level for some years. But, as I have shown, this was subject to a cut of 30 per cent. in the ensuing Autumn Statement. London Underground has done much to improve the performance of its management and staff in very difficult circumstances and should be congratulated on that. However, with inadequate levels of investment, failures of assets will increasingly cause delays to passengers, disrupting London's business life and doing much damage to London's image abroad.
A situation of this sort cannot be put right overnight. But what is certainly required is a more adequate level of funding over a period ahead—say, for at least 10 years. I have a suggestion to put to the Government. In the 1993 Autumn Statement the Government indicated that funding of £541 million would be available for the core business in 1996–97. The management of London Underground estimates that this could imply investment of £650 million (including its own resources) in the existing network. At this level of investment, the backlog of neglect could begin to be dealt with and improvements made. That would be in contrast to the present situation in which a continuing decline in the assets has to be managed to minimise disruption.
If the Government are serious about London's status as a world city, capable of attracting international investment and creating wealth for the UK economy, they should consider advancing that level of investment by one year (to 1995–96), which is a modest proposal, in order to allow a start to be made on delivering a decently modern metro, something to which they say they are committed. That level of investment in real terms should be sustained for at least 10 years. What the Underground has suffered from in the past has not just been a generally inadequate level of funding, but substantial annual variations as well. That uncertainty has prevented any form of effective planning. The Government now have an opportunity to put that right and to revert to the intentions indicated in the Autumn Statement of 1991. I hope that in replying the Minister will give us the assurance that London badly needs.
6.31 p.m.
Lady Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for letting me know that this debate was to take place as I might otherwise have missed it. I was lucky to arrive here in time because when I telephoned to ask what time the debate would start I was told that it was thought that it would be about 7 o'clock. I just made it. It is a most interesting topic. We all know that London Transport has been going now for 60 years. I agree with the noble Lord's comments that the Underground system's ageing infrastructure is worrying.
I have been actively involved in dealing with London Transport's Private Bills in your Lordships' House. There was one Bill relating to safety measures which imposed a great additional financial burden on London

1553
Transport. That was after the King's Cross fire. It had to provide easy exits from stations. We had a great debate about balancing safety against the preservation of historic buildings. Sometimes it was necessary to make an opening in an historic building that we should have preferred not to have seen touched.
I was involved also in the Jubilee Line. I am pleased that that is now going ahead. The Bill took a long time to go through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament. The project seems to have taken an eternity to get going afterwards. It is now happening. I have one great unhappiness in relation to that project: I hear that a station will not be constructed at Greenwich. I still hope that we will hear good news about that and that some means will be found to finance it. The financing of Greenwich station was the subject of an agreement between, I believe, British Gas and London Underground Limited.
I am interested not just in London's transport but in tourism in London. Greenwich is an area in which many people live and work. It is also a tremendous tourist attraction. I have no personal interest in Greenwich but I have taken my Australian visitors there repeatedly over the years. It makes no sense to have the Jubilee Line extension without a station at Greenwich. Greenwich is not an easy place to get to, but it is worth a visit and it could become a greatly enhanced tourist attraction.
London Underground Limited is always short of money. It is having to delay many schemes. It is having to delay the revitalisation of the Northern Line. The power failure which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned, and which we all read so much about, could, ironically, have happened to the most modern metro system. It was caused by a small break in a cable. The cable was 70 years old. That power failure affected 20,000 people. London Underground Limited handled the matter well at the time. No accidents occurred and no injuries were caused to people during that failure. However, a great deal of inconvenience was caused and it is estimated that LUL lost £2 million.
London Underground Limited has ideas about how its money should be spent. It has listed key projects with which it is proceeding and for which the money has been earmarked. All the existing rolling stock on the Central Line will be replaced. There will be 85 new trains by 1985. The programme is costing £750 million. Twenty of those trains are now in service. There will be new signals which will allow shorter intervals between trains. That is important at times of congestion. LUL is having a station fire safety programme; engineering works on the Metropolitan Line; station refurbishment on the southern section of the Northern Line, which is needed; the preliminary works now being undertaken on the Jubilee Line extension; the Piccadilly Line will have refurbished trains; part of the Northern Line's rolling stock will be refurbished; and there will be new escalators at Bank, Leicester Square and Green Park. However, other projects such as the new escalators at Notting Hill and other stations will have to be put on hold because there is not enough money for them.
The underground system is a little like the health service in that whatever money there is it is never
1554
enough, because the system could always be greatly improved and updated. When I visit Australia I see a brand new underground system. It is attractive and practical, and it is not carrying anything like the same number of people. Here, congestion on the Underground at peak hours is a major factor. I come in on the Piccadilly Line from where I live in London. We could often use one of those small Japanese men with a bar to push people into the train during the morning peak hours. I have seen that done in Tokyo, where the trains run almost continuously. It is a traditional practice. We, too, could use a man to push the passengers into the trains. It is difficult to carry the number of passengers that LUL does, and whose passengers are well satisfied with the system.
Of course, we would like the trains to be less congested but without flexitime and the staggering of hours of work I do not see how LUL could increase the number of passengers carried on trains that are already full to capacity. More money would be an advantage. I served on the GLC and we took over responsibility for London Transport. We never had enough money for it even though we were precepting on all the people of London. There was always a shortage of money. The system was always in deficit. LUL is to be congratulated on how well it has managed its fare structure, on the service it is providing, and on managing to put money into new projects and improvements.
I am also pleased that LUL is interested in the public's attitude to it and on what it should spend money. It has announced a consultation period which will last from February to the end of March. It had a similar consultation period in 1991 during which it received 1,700 replies. It would like many more replies this time. Among the questions it is asking are: how can Underground services be enhanced and how much of the problem is caused by congestion? In view of my earlier remarks, the question about congestion is an interesting one. It is asking also which new lines and infrastructure should be particular priorities. It is a good thing for the public to comment on such matters because it is easy for planners sitting in a remote building to decide that their priority might be project A whereas the priority of those using the service might be project B.
I do not for one moment underestimate the need for more money, but even more important than more money is the knowledge of how much money one is to receive and when, and to have that information for a longer period ahead. One of the big problems facing London Transport—I include LUL in London Transport—is that in planning major contracts, and everything it is doing is major, it has to be able to plan a long way ahead and to know that it has the money not just for today's work but for the following year and the year after that. It is essential to know that the money is guaranteed for three to five years ahead when one is planning a project of the magnitude of the London transport system. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing the subject tonight and for mentioning it to me.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for raising this crucial issue. I support his cogent case for a more adequate allocation of government funds in support of urgently needed maintenance, renewals and improvements for London Underground. The Government can no longer deny that they have made cuts. The facts and figures are on record. The allocation for the present year, which the Government laid down in 1991, was cut in 1992 by 30 per cent. In the 1993 Autumn Statement the external financial allocation for London Transport as a whole was cut from £880 million to £720 million.
It is essential to get the priorities right for transport in London. The urgent priority is to overcome the immediate arrears of maintenance and renewals on the Underground. They are causing serious and chronic delays to millions of people, mainly those travelling to and from work. Daily we are told—when we can hear the communicators on an Underground station—that a specific delay is due to a points failure, signalling faults, lack of trains or lack of drivers. Escalator failures are a particularly exasperating interlude and can be serious for the elderly or handicapped.
My memory goes back only to 1917, but I believe that delays on this scale never occurred before the Government took over London Transport in 1984–85. They did not occur to this extent in 1940 during the months of the Blitz. They are plainly due to sustained under-maintenance and under-manning during the past 10 years since this Government took control. At their worst, they can threaten safety and on one or two occasions they have done so.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that London Transport's management cannot be seriously blamed for the delays. London Transport has continuously pressed the Government for more adequate maintenance funds. One can say cautiously that, despite the shortage of funds, there have been recent signs of improvement in services. However, 2.5 million people travel every day on London Underground. Consequently, any £1 spent on eliminating such delays would achieve more than £1 spent in any other way on transport in London; indeed, on transport anywhere in the country.
There is interesting evidence of a possibly unconscious bias in the Department of Transport. In estimating the need for a motorway, high points are given for the saving of time by travellers, and even higher points if they are thought to be high-earning travellers. On the other hand, no corresponding weight is given for eliminating loss of time for the millions who travel on London Underground every day. They include many tourists, in particular during the summer months.
Of course, we shall in time need new lines, but the first priority should be to get the existing lines running properly. The main effort should be concentrated there instead of being postponed again, as we saw in the Autumn Statement. I agree that among the various proposed new lines the Jubilee Line has the strongest
1556
case. It is uneconomic to have a major Tube line terminating in central London, and many new links will be created by the line that is proposed.
CrossRail, though effective in many ways, and at least less uneconomic than the Channel Tunnel, will still be highly expensive in resources and will not carry a single passenger in the present century. We must not allow talk of wonderful future plans to divert attention or resources from the need to correct existing faults and failures. The medium-term necessity is for more adequate capital expenditure on public transport in London, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, convincingly argued this afternoon.
I hope that the Government will take this seriously and adopt the immediate step which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, proposed. They must overcome the false economies which are always involved in postponing maintenance, which merely means that it will cost a good deal more later on.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for raising the Question. In his usual efficient way he put the problem in a nutshell in the words of the Question. He asked the Government:
"whether they consider that the funding of London Underground is sufficient to maintain the system and prevent further deterioration of its physical assets".
We are aware of the problem that that could raise.
It is interesting to note that the two Ministers on the Front Bench are the only ones who do not have an intimate and long familiarity with London Transport. I am sure that since we all became Members of this House we have used the Underground frequently, and I have always had an interest from afar.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was succinct in his arguments and put forward a magnificent array of statistics to show the problems of London Transport. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's alternative statistics to show where the noble Lord went wrong. Perhaps later we can compare them to see who was more correct. I understand that there are approximately 250 miles of London Underground network. A great deal is Victorian or Edwardian; that is a fact which always fascinates me.
London Transport's spending for the coming year has been cut by £64 million. I understand that from the reduced budget it must fund the work on the Jubilee Line, which will leave even less for the vital investment in and maintenance of the existing line. Is it true that last year's underspending of about £300 million, which was caused by the delays in obtaining the go-ahead for the Jubilee Line, has not been allowed to be carried forward but has been taken away from this year's budget?
Everyone who uses the Underground complains about the state of the infrastructure, and now London Transport's budget will be short by about £350 million. It was told that this year it would receive the money that it was promised last year—and that was after the black day last November when the Central Line went dead and

1557
passengers were stranded in the trains. Some had to walk along the track through the tunnels and others were trapped in lifts because of the power failure.
Unless I have misread the reports, I believe that the noble Baroness is probably wrong. I understand that there were actually two cable breakdowns. The first was put right fairly quickly; indeed, in less than half an hour one of the cables was repaired. However, at 8 a.m. a more extensive failure caused severe problems on the Central, Metropolitan and District Lines.
The Underground cables are, therefore, in a quite desperate state. No matter how much time the engineers spend on them, it is merely patching them up and something can go wrong a little further on. Some of the cables are up to 70 years old. London Underground would like to start a programme of progressive renewal but it is just not being given the resources to do so. Even after that dreadful experience for thousands of commuters and visitors, only one week later the funds promised to London Transport were cut.
The Financial Times reported that Mr. Denis Tunnicliffe, the General Manager of London Underground, said that it was quite true that modernisation of the Central Line amounted to £750 million and should be finalised by 1995—that is a good thing and something about which we should be very glad —but he also pointed out that there were 30 years of underspending to make up. As well as that, up to £800 million which was promised in 1991 has since been reduced by more than £200 million per year.
The basic infrastructure of track, rails, reliable power supply and safe tunnels is not immediately obvious to the average traveller, but when an event such as last November's breakdown occurs, the public suffers, business suffers and the visitors to Britain are shocked that we have let the world's first, and probably still the most famous, Underground railway become so neglected.
One quarter of the signalling is more than 40 years old. Some trains have been running for 25 years. One third of the escalators are more than 40 years old. Incidentally, the escalator that I use is quite often out of service. I have a slight obsession: I have counted the steps several times and there are 96 of them. Fortunately, however, the upward escalator is always working. I sometimes wonder. Perhaps it relates to one of those boyhood memories from when I used to visit London many years ago. In those days the wooden escalators did not seem to be out of order as often as the present steel and aluminium ones. Is it perhaps a question of cutting corners or being forced by spending cuts to cut the cloth in a different way?
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, train speeds have had to be reduced on some lines because of the state of the track. But even more worrying is the fact that there is in some cases a problem of metal fatigue in the trains themselves, some of which are 30 years old. That also forces a cut in travel speed.
If and when we get out of the recession and the level of rush hour commuters gets back to normal, the strain on the whole system—not least the stations themselves—could lead to greater discomfort for passengers and in
1558
some cases serious accidents. I have taken friends returning from London to Victoria Station in the early morning rush hour. It is almost impossible to move on the District Line platform. The queues are about eight people deep and the trains are absolutely laden; you can see the white faces of the passengers inside when they see the mob outside who are obviously going to try to get in. There could be a serious accident unless we do something about enlarging the platforms. I know that it is expensive, but it would help if we could have an extra carriage put on each train.
Catching up will take time and money. What London Transport needs more than anything—and this is said by almost everyone who speaks about it—is regular, reliable funds. If the funding was to come from the Government that would be the best way. London Underground could then rely on continuity. But there are other ways of raising money for urban transport. One was suggested in the Financial Times on November 29th. If the Minister has not read the article, I am sure that it will be in the files. It was entitled "A mega bond for London". It was merely a suggestion, but that was how the Bay Railway in Boston was funded, and the San Francisco railway was developed in much the same way.
It seems to many people who are closely involved in London Underground that unless an effort is made to catch up on renewal and refurbishing, we shall have the awesome prospect of a serious breakdown. I trust that the Minister is well aware of that. I hope that he will bear it in mind and be able to console us with his answers.
6.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, in my short time in your Lordships' House I have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, returns from time to time to the subject of London Underground. I suppose that this will be the first of many occasions upon which we shall discuss the matter across the Floor of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, pointed out that it was a little odd that two Members from Scotland were to wind up the debate on London Underground. Both of us are well aware of a superior underground, although slightly smaller, that exists in Glasgow. Indeed, I know that we both use it. Moreover, the noble Lord very nearly has a title which is the same as that of one of the underground stations on that line.
I believe that I can claim—as, no doubt, the noble Lord can—a certain familiarity with the London Underground. I was wondering whether to say that I know just about every tree and park on the Underground system from Heathrow or whether to say that I know just about every piece of graffiti on the walls. I have now referred to both of them. I believe that I know that part of the London Underground and, indeed, the Northern Line which, I gather, has something of a reputation, reasonably well. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that walking up the stairs is far better for you than walking down. Moreover, the health people give you a rule of thumb, "Walk upstairs and take the

1559
escalator down because it does not do you any good to walk down the stairs anyway". However, I know what the noble Lord means. I shall return to the subject of escalators.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly pointed out that London's Underground network is the oldest and, indeed, the most complex in the world. Anyone who tries to work out the Underground maps will probably be able to verify that. I often wonder what happens to people who are colour blind. How do they find their way around the complexities of all the different lines? As I said, it is a complex and old system. Therefore, it is not surprising that it should have problems.
In their 1991 response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Government acknowledged that decades of under-investment needed to be put right. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, admitted, the decades of under-investment cannot be put right overnight. We acknowledged the scale of the task ahead. That can be seen by the hugely increased scale of investment going into London Underground. I believe that any fair-minded examination of investment year on year would conclude that there was a considerable gearing up of annual investment during the second half of the 1980s and a further and very significant gearing up in the 1990s.
London Underground investment over the past three years has been at a higher level than at any time in the previous two decades. The budget settlement provides that it will be on a strongly rising trend over the next three years and, taken together with London Underground's own contribution, will be close to £700 million in 1996–97.
I have done a little arithmetic. It was inevitable that we would be told the Underground is under-funded now whereas yesteryear—the noble Lord, Lord Jay, kindly went down this road, so enabling me to use the argument—everything, I suppose like the summers, was endless sunshine from the beginning of May to the end of September. The truth is that when one looks at the record over the years, one realises that "under-investment" is a kind word to apply to the 1970s.
In the five years from 1975 to 1979—I cannot think for the life of me why I picked those five years but some noble Lords may be able to guess the reason—the total core business investment at 1993–94 prices was £561 million, an average of £112 million per annum. We should compare that with the past five years when the total figure was £2.281 billion—an average of £456 million every year. Indeed in 1992–93, in that single year, investment was £649 million. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, used that high figure, not to applaud the Government for their recognition of the needs that required to be addressed, but rather to lambast us for dropping back from that high figure. One of the difficulties that arises when government decide to give a major boost in any financial year to any item of expenditure is that that becomes the baseline on which everyone judges us thereafter instead of looking at the preceding year or the preceding two years before that baseline and noting—as one can in the case of the
1560
London Underground—that our investment today is still markedly higher than it was in the years before that great boost occurred.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I did say that I was much encouraged by the Autumn Statement of 1991, but the trouble was that in the very next year the Government cut the figure by 30 per cent. That is the whole issue. One year one receives a sum that is apparently sufficient, but the next year it is taken away. On that basis planning is very difficult.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord almost makes my point that the special boost given in that year is used as the baseline whereas I believe that one should look at the running totals and note the considerable increases in investment—I have already mentioned the figures—that have occurred over the past 15 years or so. Taking the five-year period we are in —the past two years and the next three years as detailed in the Budget—total core investment will be around £2.5 billion, which is an annual average of £505 million. That is not far off the total achieved for five years under the parties opposite, either separately or jointly.
It is easy to focus on what is not being done and to ignore the progress which is being made. In fact, a great deal of work is currently in hand, to update and upgrade the existing network. Noble Lords who have spoken mentioned many of the projects that are in hand, but I was not surprised to note that they all would have liked the projects to proceed quicker and to go further.
London Underground's single largest scheme is the £750 million Central Line modernisation, with 85 new trains, new signalling, and uprated power supplies. The scheme will deliver a 16 per cent. increase in capacity —I know that will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—and a 12 per cent. reduction in journey times. The new trains are already starting to appear on the network and the programme will be completed in 1995.
A £300 million programme to refurbish half of all Underground trains is already well under way. Refurbished trains, which many customers think are new, are already a familiar sight on the Circle Line, the Victoria Line and the Bakerloo Line. Last year, Angel station was reopened after a £72 million rebuild; Waterloo ticket hall is being upgraded in preparation for the arrival of Channel Tunnel services, and Bank station is being modernised. To a longer timescale, London Underground has in process a £1 billion programme of track replacement; signals are being updated (for example, at Edgware Road); and essential safety improvements are being implemented at stations throughout the network.
But, of course, there is much more to making the trains run on time than simply putting money into the system. Better management has an important role to play. The Underground is a cleaner, better-run system than it was 10 years ago. Of course, there is still more to be done, but on the whole it is a system that is better managed and more responsive to customers' needs than it has ever been before.

1561
The Government have played their part in facilitating this change. We have responsibility for setting London Underground quality of service objectives covering many aspects of service, such as reliability, cleanliness, information and other aspects. London Underground is currently meeting eight out of the 12 objectives which it was set in 1993. New objectives will be set in 1994.
London Underground has also taken major steps down the road of improving efficiency. Its Company Plan, a wide ranging programme of safety, quality and efficiency improvements published in 1991, was endorsed by the Government. In that plan the number of grades of Underground staff was reduced, resulting in a more flexible, skilled and customer-oriented workforce. Efficient operation is essential if the maximum possible use is to be made of the funds available for investment, so improvements on this front are very much to be welcomed.
It would be, I will admit, misleading if I were to paint too rosy a picture and I do not think your Lordships would totally believe me. On the subject of escalators, they do break down, but I hate to tell your Lordships that in the best organised societies mechanical things can fail and they need to be maintained. What we are trying to do—I believe we are succeeding—is to set targets for London Underground. In 1993–94 we set a target that 89 per cent. of escalators should be operational at any peak period. The latest available figure shows that 92 per cent. are available and operating. Therefore the target we set is being exceeded. We believe that that shows some progress has been achieved. No doubt we will set new targets as I fully appreciate the importance of escalators and lifts in the stations where they are available.
I ought to mention the power failure on the Central Line on 24th November, as that caused a great deal of disruption and anxiety for many people. We now know that the power failure was caused by two defective cables at Lots Road power station. Because the fault was intermittent in nature, and was only triggered when fully loaded trains were running over the network, it was extremely difficult to isolate. These cables have now been replaced. London Underground has been asked to provide a full report into what went wrong, what lessons it has learnt from what happened, and what further action it will be taking to ensure that this kind of problem does not occur again. We expect to receive this report in a few weeks.
I wish to mention the Jubilee Line, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred to it. She said that it was not just a case of discussing the existing lines. She said that it was the future plans for extending and expanding the system that are important. The £1.9 billion Jubilee Line extension is a considerable achievement. It will be a considerable achievement for British engineering when it is opened. It is the first major new Underground line for a generation and it will be one of the biggest construction projects in the country. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the project was to go
1562
ahead on 29th October. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister drove the first pile at a ceremony at Canary Wharf on 8th December.
I believe that the extension will constitute a major asset to parts of south and east London which are not currently well served by public transport. It will mean improvements to the existing Jubilee Line, with a completely new set of trains. Its construction will create 22,000 new jobs across the United Kingdom. Over £1.2 billion-worth of contracts have now been let by London Underground. The project has resulted in over £600 million-worth of civil engineering contracts and a similar amount of electrical and mechanical work. It is a big project and I am sure that all noble Lords who have an interest in underground railways are looking forward to 1998 when the extension is due to open and we shall all be able to ride from Waterloo to Canary Wharf in 10 minutes or from Canada Water to Bond Street in 14 minutes.
My noble friend asked me about the possibility of a station at North Greenwich. I am sure my noble friend is aware that we are currently discussing with British Gas, who are the owners of the site, the prospects for a private sector contribution to the cost of this station. I am afraid I cannot speculate how successful we will be, but certainly we are involved in discussions to assess whether we can have a station at North Greenwich.
Looking further ahead, there is the prospect of CrossRail, which is currently under discussion in another place. We are convinced that there are substantial benefits to be gained from the kind of private sector collaboration that we have had for the Jubilee Line and that we are looking forward to with CrossRail.
I acknowledge that much remains to be done on London Underground, but it is inevitable that there will always be more to be done than we can afford at any one time. Demands on the public purse are, of course, infinite and it is self evident that public expenditure must be controlled. I understand that even the party opposite accepts that that is the case, at least for the moment. It is a simple fact of life that all governments have to control their expenditure and to weigh up the various pressures on them and the various demands for expenditure, not just from one department to another but within departments and, in the case of transport, from the various methods of transport and the other parts of the country which also require investment in their transport systems.
London Underground's decently modern metro—as it calls it —is an attractive concept and a worthwhile aspiration. While we should not fool ourselves that a fully modern network is achievable overnight, we shall continue to work with London Underground to ensure that the funds which are available are put to the best possible use to make sure that we have a good service for the fare payers and that we have a good deal for the taxpayer and for the welfare of the city of London. I believe that our commitment can be seen, in that in each of the next three years, taking the core business funding as outlined by my right honourable friend the Chancellor and the funding for the Jubilee Line and for CrossRail, the Government intend to invest almost £1

1563
billion in London's Underground. By the time we reach the third year-1996–97—we shall be investing £987 million.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords who have spoken for raising the issue and introducing me to parts of London Underground beyond those parts which I have seen as a passenger. While there is much to be done, I believe that the Government have a splendid record, one which certainly easily stands comparison with the record of previous governments who have, if anybody has, penny pinched with investment in London.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down can he tell us when we will receive the final instalment of the £400 million?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure which £400 million the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am referring to the £400 million which the developers should have paid for the line from Canary Wharf.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord is referring to the Jubilee Line. The money from the private sector investors in the Jubilee Line will be paid to the Government over the next 25 years, in instalments which have been agreed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  GUINNESS PLC: INSPECTORS' FINAL REPORT
  GUINNESS PLC: INSPECTORS' FINAL REPORT
  GUINNESS PLC: INSPECTORS' TERMS OF REFERENCE
  GUINNESS PLC: INSPECTORS' TERMS OF REFERENCE
  ABORTION STATISTICS
  ABORTION STATISTICS
  HOSPITAL CHOICE: PATIENTS' RIGHTS
  HOSPITAL CHOICE: PATIENTS' RIGHTS
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY PROCEDURES
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY PROCEDURES
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME
  YOUTH COURT POWERS
  YOUTH COURT POWERS
  SCREEN VIOLENCE: RESEARCH
  SCREEN VIOLENCE: RESEARCH
  DRINK-DRIVING STATISTICS
  DRINK-DRIVING STATISTICS