Sitting of 11 February 1994

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

    Ethnic Minorities
    9.34 am
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 500 of my constituents in Cambridge. I should explain that the petition is a little unusual, in that the top page is written in English but the rest of the pages are in either Cantonese, Bengali or Gujerati. That is because of the cuts in section 11 funding, which will disadvantage my constituents and their families.
    The petition says:
    To the House of Commons. The petition of residents of Cambridge and elsewhere. Declares that the proposed Home Office cuts in section 11 funding will disadvantage our children who currently receive help at school funded by Section 11 money. Our Education Authority has no money to replace that which will no longer come from Government. This means that spending in Cambridgeshire will be cut from the current £2,000,000 for 1993–94 to only £1,000,000 in 1995/96. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Home Secretary to repeal the decision to cut Section 11 funding.
    To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

  Tobacco Advertising Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.36 am
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I wish to thank the co-sponsors of the Bill, for without their support its passage to Second Reading would have been immeasurably more difficult.
  I also wish to record the support of two friends of the House whose loss we have had to bear in recent weeks. I know that, like me, Members on both sides of the House regret their absence. Jo Richardson, the late Member of Parliament for Barking, in spite of being so ill, wrote to me on 24 January saying that she would certainly vote with me today, but would have to be nodded through the Division Lobby; and Jimmy Boyce, the late Member of Parliament for Rotherham, had pledged his support for the Bill. I hope that the House can quickly conclude the business today to allow time for many Members who are travelling to Rotherham to be in time for Jimmy's memorial service, which is being held later today.
  The Bill has been brought before the House because it is an essential public health measure, one which was first recommended to the Government in 1962 by the Royal College of Physicians, when it published its first report on the health effects of smoking. Since then, both Labour and Conservative parties have occupied the Government Benches, and we still await a total ban on tobacco advertising and promotion.
  Since 1962, according to the Royal College of Physicians, more than 4 million citizens of the Uniied Kingdom have died from lung cancer, heart diseases, stroke, emphysema and other diseases caused by smoking. The House now has a real chance to put to an end the promotion of the cause of those diseases.
  Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Member mentioned the Conservative and Labour parties. Does he think that it might be helpful if there was a register of interests of the leaders of parties who smoke? I know that the leader of the Labour party does not smoke, and we know that the Prime Minister does not smoke, but I believe that the leader of the Liberal Democrats is a smoker. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that will contribute to the debate?
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) should wait to see what the Bill is about before he makes such ill-informed comments. This is not a party political issue. Those who have died and who continue to die from diseases caused by smoking were or are supporters of all political parties. The children who are being recruited to smoking—500 every day on average—have parents who support all political parties. This is an issue of public health and, as such, should not divide the House.
  I have had several letters from interested parties suggesting that the Bill is about banning smoking or banning freedom. The Bill is not about banning smoking. Adult smokers who are properly informed of the dangers of smoking have a right to smoke, provided that they do not

  567
  cause harm to other people. However, the individual right to smoke does not extend to children, and it does not extend to the unrestricted advertising and promotion of the product.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Some 400 or 500 of my constituents are employed by Gallaghers; I have no commercial interest of my own. I do not smoke, and I have caned children for smoking because I do not believe that children should smoke—[Interruption.] Let it be noted. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) rightly says that people must have the freedom to choose whether to smoke. Why does he object to the argument of the Pre-School Playgroups Association, which talks of advertising freedom? It is an important freedom, and it must be wrong to dictate to advertisers. I wait to be convinced.
  Mr. Barron: I am coming to that point now. If the House gives me 10 minutes in which to explain what the Bill is about, I shall be more than pleased to give way to any hon. Member who wants to ask about the intention of the Bill.
  There is no fundamental right to advertise and promote products in our society. It is a commercial privilege to advertise—a privilege that carries certain responsibilities. The advertising and promotion of tobacco products is already banned on radio and television, and is further restricted by clauses in the voluntary agreement. The argument against a ban on tobacco advertising has already been conceded. It was conceded in this country in 1965 when we took cigarette advertising off television. I hope, therefore, that the House is clear what the Bill is not about.
  I now come to what the Bill is about. Clause 1 makes it an offence to publish or cause to be published an advertisement for a tobacco product. The object of the Bill is to put an end to the promotion of an addictive and dangerous drug; half-measures are not enough. The definition needs to cover not only posters and press advertisements, but publicity linked to sponsorship of events and other such devices for getting round a ban. That is the fundamental aim of the Bill.
  Under clause 1(2), some point of sale advertising is exempted. Point of sale advertising is allowed for specialist tobacconists, but it must not be visible from outside the shop. For the ordinary retailer, who also sells sweets and comics to children, the Bill states that only a notice of brands and their prices, complete with a health warning, is permissible.
  The Bill also gives a definition of what is meant by an advertisement for a tobacco product. The wide definition in clause 1(6) covers
  "any form of communication which might reasonably be considered to promote…smoking."
  Subsection (7) gives guidance on how to interpret that definition. The wide definition is vital, and experience abroad shows why. One would scarely know that there was a ban on tobacco advertising in Italy, as tens of million of pounds are spent every year on television commercials and other promotions for Marlboro shirts and Camel watches.
  One has to read the small print on television screens to see that one Marlboro advertisement is purportedly for racing helmets for grand prix drivers. I do not believe that Italy is a nation of grand prix drivers. Such advertisements are the means of getting round advertising bans.
  568
  Tobacco companies sponsor sports and arts events, not as an act of corporate generosity, but as an advertising opportunity. M. Whitehead from Gallagher International said
  "Sports sponsorship…is a form of advertising which enables us to introduce glamour and excitement."
  A Rothmans spokesman said:
  "No one hands over big cheques just to give themselves a warm fuzzy feeling."
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barron: I will give way in a minute. I want first to address some of the comments made about the Bill this week by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).
  The tobacco industry spends about £8 million a year on sponsorship. It is limited to that amount by the current voluntary agreement. That figure represents about 3 per cent. of commercial sponsorship of sport and should not be too difficult to replace. It was the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman who, in 1985, introduced the restrictions on sports advertising precisely because Gallagher International and others were using sport to promote tobacco.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members should make two points clear from the start. First, is the Bill part of Labour party policy? There seems to be some disparity of opinion between the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and his hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).
  The Labour party did not mention a ban on advertising in its manifesto or in its charter for sport. Are Labour Members now saying that it is party policy that sports promotion by tobacco companies will be banned under a future Labour Government?
  Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Interventions should, by their nature, be short. That intervention is long enough.
  Mr. Barron: It is interesting that the hon. Member for Luton, North seems to have become a custodian of Labour party policy. He seems to have stepped away from the position in party politics that I thought he held.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening earlier, because I said that the Bill was a private Member's Bill. The only people I consulted before introducing the Bill were those concerned about public health. Whether the Bill is part of Labour party policy is not a matter for me. It is an issue of public health, and I believe that that should override all party politics in the House.
  The Test and County Cricket Board has written to me recently saying that it is opposed to a ban on sports sponsorship by tobacco companies. The letter may have been prompted by a radio interview I gave a few days ago. Although the board may be opposed to a ban, it has previously said that other sponsors could be found to take the place of Benson and Hedges. Its spokesman, Peter Smith, said in an article in the Yorkshire Post in May 1971:
  "We get a number of inquiries asking when a contract comes to an end. I expect we would be able to sell the Benson and Hedges again to a new sponsor."

  Similarly, David Harrison, the chief executive of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association said in the same article:

  569
  "If we had to replace our tobacco sponsor, we believe we could do so".
  A number of other options are clearly becoming available. Perhaps the new national lottery could provide a valuable bridge. I want hon. Members to remember that only 3 per cent. of sports sponsorship is tobacco advertising. The Bill would not prejudice sport. I have been active in sport in an amateur capacity for most of my life, and I watch one of the finest football teams in Great Britain—Rotherham United. It is a non-smoking club; that is its policy. We do not need smoking to be involved in sport.
  The consequence of the wide definition of tobacco advertising, especially taken with the wide definition of the word "published" in English law, is that the Bill excludes innocent activities such as mentioning the name "Rothmans" in a conversation. That might otherwise be penalised. Clause 1(3) sets out the circumstances in which an offence will not be committed. Paragraph (a) exempts personal, unpaid endorsements of a tobacco product in conversation or letters and the like.
  Paragraph (b) exempts communications that are not paid for by the tobacco industry and do not aim to promote a specific tobacco product. That covers journalism and innocent republications of tobacco advertisements in health, educational or historical contexts and the like. Sub-paragraph (c) exempts trade advertisements. Tobacco manufacturers would still be allowed to advertise to the retail trade. Sub-paragraph (d) exempts small-scale imports of foreign publications. Sub-paragraph (e) exempts materials produced in the United Kingdom for export.
  In both sub-paragraphs (d) and (e), the limit is set at 5 per cent. of the total number of copies, or 1,000 copies, whichever is the lower. I recognise that that would be a point of debate if the Bill became law, and at some later stage I would be prepared to consider that issue.
  Mr. James Couchman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, if his Bill becomes law, it will be a devastating blow to health education? Is he aware that 17 per cent. of the space on most posters is taken up by the Government health warning and, in many cases, the message of the other 83 per cent. of the space is so obscure that one does not even know what product is advertised? He claims that £100 million a year is spent by the tobacco companies. Therefore, it could be suggested that 17 million will be lost to health education, which is 1·7 times as much as the Health Education Authority spends on preventing the promotion of tobacco.
  Mr. Barron: I shall move on to that subject, but I agree with two words of the hon. Gentleman's intervention: "so obscure".
  Paragraph (4) of clause 1 recognises a difficulty that would otherwise arise from the ban of indirect advertising using tobacco names or non-tobacco goods. As far as I see, it would affect one company only—Alfred Dunhill Ltd., which began as a luxury goods business and has remained so, but which has licensed its name to a tobacco company for many years. The paragraph will allow Alfred Dunhill Ltd. to continue to advertise its luxury goods but will not, of course, allow Rothmans International plc to advertise Dunhill cigarettes.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: On a point of clarification, would the Dunhill masters golf championships be able to continue?
  Mr. Barron: That is sports sponsorship, and it would be stopped. Did not the hon. Gentleman hear what I said earlier in relation to sports sponsorship?
  Paragraph (5) provides transitional exemptions, and would allow a year's grace for permanent structures of advertisements such as those at Piccadilly circus. Clause 1 covers the great majority of tobacco promotion, but clause 2 deals with free samples, coupon schemes, gifts and other promotions that tobacco companies use. I do not know whether any Conservative Members have ever been to Silk Cut discos, which are promoted to encourage young kids to get to know product names.
  To sum up the rest of the Bill, clause 3 provides powers for the Secretary of State to make further regulations if anybody is trying to avoid the implications of the Bill. "Clause 4 lays down the penalties and the policing of it, clause 5 gives a simple definition of a tobacco product, and clauses 6 and 7 deal with the usual formalities.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree that this is a cross-party Bill, but will the hon. Gentleman accept that, in Northern Ireland, there 17 times more victims of tobacco-related diseases than of terrorism? Is it possible that those Conservative Members who are objecting to the Bill are reflecting the view of a former Secretary of State who talked about an "acceptable level of violence"?
  Mr. Barron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It sums up the crux of the Bill and what it fundamentally attacks in public health in the United Kingdom.
  Why ban tobacco advertising? While adult smoking rates are falling, smoking rates in children are not. In 1982, according to the Office of Population, Census and Statistics, 35 per cent. of adults were regular smokers, and by 1992, the figure had fallen to 28 per cent.—a significant improvement.
  For 15-year-olds in 1982, regular smokers made up 24 per cent. of the population and 23 per cent. in 1992. There has been no real change. By the age of 15, eight out of 10 people who become regular adult smokers have begun smoking. It is clearly not a mature decision that those people reach. At a rate of 500 per day, those children are replacing the smokers who quit or die.
  Much research has been conducted on the factors that influence the uptake and maintenance of smoking by children. The major influences include smoking by parents and friends, health education, the price of tobacco, its availability and advertising and promotion. I shall take each of those in turn.
  There is a limit on what the House can do about the smoking behaviour of parents and friends of would-be smokers. The House has made appropriations to support health education on smoking, and the Government have anounced a new programme targeted at parents, which will cost £4 million each year for the next three years. Although that expenditure is welcome, it is small compared with the £100 million spent every year on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barron: In a few minutes.
  The Government's long-standing record on price policy is commendable, especially in the light of the Chancellor's latest commitment to increase tobacco duties by at least 3

  571
  per cent. a year in real terms in future. However, price policy alone will not work. It has not worked to reduce teenage smoking rates—15-year-olds smoke as much today as they did 10 years ago.
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman comes from a northern consitutency, so he will be aware of the "Reg" campaign. Does he agree that that was in breach of the voluntary code and was targeted at children? All those advertisements plastered on billboards near schools must have had an effect on children.
  Mr. Barron: Since I am from a northern constituency, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I shall be mentioning "Reg" and the Advertising Standards Authority later.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Would the hon. Gentleman address two points before he moves on? First, does he agree that his Bill is a private Member's Bill, that it is not a matter for party politics, and that the House should be clear on that? Secondly, does he agree that his Bill is sincerely aimed at reducing and stopping the take-up of smoking among 15-year-olds and those below that age? If he does agree, it is a wholly laudable, key aim to the Bill, since, if those 15-year-olds smoke for 40 years and do not die of heart disease or lung cancer, they are likely to become respiratory cripples.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman's intervention identifies the main issues of public health, especially that of young and vulnerable children, which are addressed by the Bill.
  The third reason for young people smoking concerns availability, by which I mean the illegal sales of tobacco to children under 16. That issue has been addressed and was initiated by the private Member's Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). That Bill was warmly supported by the House, and has been admirably backed by the imaginative initiatives of Parents Against Tobacco and the Health Education Authority, with the full support of the Secretary of State for Health.
  There is too much evidence for me to review of the influence that tobacco advertising has on consumption by young people. The most recent comprehensive review of the evidence was undertaken by the Department of Health and its chief economic advertiser, Dr. Clive Smee.
  The Smee report found that tobacco advertising affected total consumption, not just brand share. There were 68 statistically significant results which pointed to a connection between advertising spending and tobacco consumption and only two indicating the opposite. The report also found that countries with stronger controls on advertising for the purpose of protecting public health and not trade monopolies tended to have lower consumption of tobacco. The report found that, in individual countries, the balance of evidence based on a study of the relationship between advertising spending and consumption over time showed that advertising had a positive effect on consumption.
  When enough detailed evidence was gathered for a proper study, it was found that in four countries, advertising bans—excluding the effects of other factors—produced a significant drop in consumption. In Canada,
  572
  tobacco consumption fell by 4 per cent., in New Zealand by 5·5 per cent., in Finland by 6·7 per cent., and in Norway by 9 per cent.
  Mr. David Congdon: The hon. Gentleman rightly quotes the Smee report, which includes some of the arguments that he has advanced. Does he concede that page 15 of the Smee report states that, although some other studies have found statistically significant links between advertising and consumption, his study failed to do so? Is it not about time that proponents of an advertising ban quoted accurately from the Smee report?
  Mr. Barron: Before I end my speech, I shall quote not only from the Smee report, but from a Government publication that the hon. Gentleman received this week about the implications of the Smee report on public health.
  Other figures that I have received this week—not represented in the Smee report—showed that the drop in tobacco consumption following advertising bans in France was 5·2 per cent. and in Australia 6 per cent.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, in the conclusion to the report, Clive Smee, the Government chief health economist, said:
  "The balance of evidence thus supports the conclusion that advertising does have a positive effect on consumption."
  He reviewed the position in other countries and concluded:
  "In each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors."
  Does he agree that it is possible for Conservative Members to pick odd sentences from the report, but the key factor is to study its conclusions and those of the Government chief health economist? They conclude that there is a link between advertising and smoking.
  Mr. Barron: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We should also consider the Government view on the Smee report, and the material that they have published this week.
  It is not difficult to conclude that, if similar effects were seen in the United Kingdom following an advertising ban, between 4,400 and 9,900 premature deaths from tobacco-related diseases could be avoided each year. As the effects of an advertising ban would be expected to work with other programmes designed to reduce smoking, the reductions in deaths might be even greater.
  Critics of an advertising ban say that advertising does not influence consumption and has no effect on children. The evidence suggests otherwise. A study conducted by MORI for the Health Education Authority in 1990 found that children smoked the most heavily advertised brands at higher rates than among adults.
  In 1990, £15 million was spent advertising Benson and Hedges and 47 per cent. of 11 to 14-year-olds chose that brand compared with 21 per cent. of adult smokers. Embassy spent £10 million, and was chosen by 22 per cent. of child smokers compared with 15 per cent of adult smokers. Silk Cut spent £9·9 million and was chosen by 29 per cent. of child smokers and 12 per cent. of adult smokers. Marlboro spent £5 million and was chosen by 13 per cent. of child smokers and 4 per cent. of adult smokers. In each case, a greater proportion of child smokers than adult smokers preferred the most heavily advertised brands.

  573
  The Advertising Association sent a booklet to all Members of Parliament this week, claiming that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys had found that some of the most important factors in the uptake of smoking were, first, being a girl, secondly, having brothers or sisters who smoked, thirdly, having parents who smoked and fourthly, having relatively less negative views about smoking.
  It is understandable that children should have negative views about smoking. It would seem that the advice of parents, teachers and health education campaigns are having an effect. How does a child acquire a less negative view on smoking? What instruments exist that help to form their opinions? Clearly, advertising is important in the formation of less negative views on smoking, and the Advertising Association has been damned by its own booklet.
  A research study from Australia found that, while teacher-led education programmes can reduce the rate of smoking by up to 6 per cent., advertising encourages it in both sexes by about 15 per cent. Tobacco advertising works against education. That is obvious if one looks at the matter in any detail.
  There is unacceptable competition for the hearts and lungs of our children if tobacco advertisers spend £10 for every £1 spent by health educators. It is a disadvantage, and it should not continue. We should either increase expenditure on education on the dangers of smoking to the level spent by the tobacco industry, or we should get rid of the counter-education. If we do not, smokers will continue to be recruited from our children at the current rate.
  My constituency of Rother Valley provides a good example, as do those of other hon. Members. There are about 1,300 15-year-olds in my constituency, of whom about 300 are regular smokers. If they keep smoking and stay brand-loyal for the rest of their lives, which is what the tobacco companies want them to do, at least one in three, or about 100, will die from cancer, heart disease or other diseases caused by smoking.
  No other threat of that size, including those posed by hard drugs, alcohol and motor vehicles, faces the children in the Rother Valley or in any other constituency. For every 1 per cent. reduction in consumption in the Rother Valley, one premature death will be prevented. Across the country, a 1 per cent. fall in tobacco could be expected to prevent 1,100 premature deaths. The House should be proud to be responsible for lessening smoke-related deaths.
  Mr. David Alton: The hon. Gentleman enjoys widespread and strong support on both sides of the House. Is he aware that eight directors of health in the Mersey region have issued figures that show that of the 480,000 children, some 80,000 of them—one in six—are likely to die of smoking-related diseases? Hon. Members should take notice of those statistics, and not the blandishments of the advertising industry.
  Mr. Barron: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman said.
  Monday's Government press release on the voluntary agreement is full of inconsistencies—I hope that the Minister does not mind me saying that. In that release, the Minister referred to effective and long-standing voluntary agreements that have "served us well". It goes on to say that the agreement is to be strengthened. Why does it need
  574
  to be strengthened if it has worked so well? It does not work well, and has not. Children's smoking rates have not changed in the past 10 years.
  The voluntary agreement covers women's magazines. It prohibits cigarette advertising in magazines
  "whose primary readership is women in the age range from 15 to 24 years."
  Despite that, tobacco advertisers still promote the leading cause of lung cancer among more than 7 million female readers of other magazines. They do so at a time when female lung cancer death rates are rising and have overtaken breast cancer death rates as the no. 1 cause of cancer death in some parts of the United Kingdom. It borders on lunacy to continue to allow the promotion of a major cause of an increasing epidemic of lung cancer in women. When asked about that, the advertising industry ducks for cover and says, "We cannot possibly comment, because we are not health experts." As long as the industry can continue to advertise cigarettes, it does not care.
  Recently, there has been the appalling farce of 'Reg', a comic character used to promote Regal cigarettes in the north of England, Scotland and Wales. Despite warnings 12 months ago from Action on Smoking and Health and Campaign about Reg's popular appeal to children, the Advertising Standards Authority did nothing about the 'Reg' campaign until it was confronted with excellent research commissioned at a cost of £20,000 by the Health Education Authority. That research showed that Reg was recognised by 91 per cent. of children as promoting cigarettes, but that he was recognised by only 48 per cent. of adults. He was twice as popular with children.
  The ASA recommended that the 'Reg' campaign be withdrawn, and Imperial Tobacco, the maker of Regal, apparently obliged. In fact, at the press conference that I held to announce my intention to introduce the Bill, it was mentioned to me for the first time that 'Reg' was going to be withdrawn because of what was happening with the campaign in certain parts of Britain.
  One month later, a mother from Cardiff brought to my attention an advertisement for the 'Reg' Welsh snooker challenge. That advertisement was given to her in a busy shopping centre, when many children were present. On her behalf, I complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, and last week I was advised that that campaign was the only exemption because the promotion had commenced before the ASA's ruling in December.
  Last week, we found billboards in the same areas of Britain where 'Reg' is well known by children—that is, Scotland, the north of England and Wales—advertising "a farewell address". The advertisement is in the same colour and in the same style as the previous 'Reg' campaign.
  On Monday morning, I was involved in a discussion on Radio Leeds. The presenter of the programme, Stephen Le Fevre, questioned Caroline Crawford from the Advertising Standards Authority about the new campaign that had come about in the north. As for the farewell address, Le Fevre said:
  "It has got 'Reg' in there-are they not just making a fool of your recommendations?"
  Caroline Crawford replied:
  "Certainly, they are in a way, saying goodbye to the 'Reg' campaign."
  People are flouting a sensible interpretation of the code, or the code is so defective that all that one has to do is to remove Reg's face from a poster, and the poster falls within the voluntary agreement.

  575
  How long will it before young people do not recognise that advertising campaign? How many others will be encouraged to smoke? It has been confirmed this week that removing the face from the poster enables the poster to be within the voluntary agreement, and that will make fools of us, the voluntary agreements and the Advertising Standards Authority for ever and a day. The campaign is also making a fool of attempted restriction.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: There is confusion among hon. Members. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the ban on radio and television advertising of cigarettes and, more recently, cigars is not voluntary, but is a Government ban?
  Mr. Barron: There is speculation in the media that, as a consequence of my Bill, there might be further Government bans. Perhaps we should go one step further.
  The essence of the cigarette code is:
  "advertisements should not encourage people, particularly the young, to start smoking. People who already smoke should not be enticed to increase their level of smoking or to smoke to excess".
  That objective is contradicted by the Government's action plan.
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I am glad that he has started to comment more fully on the 'Reg' campaign. I have just received a note from Hansard, asking what the 'Reg' campaign stands for and to confirm the 'Reg' campaign. It is clear that people in the south of England are not familiar with that campaign.
  They do not know the extent to which it is plastered over billboards, certainly in my constituency, near schools, and is clearly aimed at youngsters. There might be hon. Members who still do not understand exactly what the campaign is. It concerns a balding, somewhat absurd character who thinks—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should leave it to the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech and make it clear exactly what 'Reg' means.
  Mr. Barron: I gratefully accept that invitation. The hon. Gentleman correctly described Reg. He wants people to smoke Regal cigarettes. The first Reg advert showed a Regal cigarette packet, with Reg's finger covering the letters A and L. Reg says:
  "I smoke 'em because my name's on 'em."
  He then went on to "party politics", did our character Reg.
  He said:
  "If you drop ash on the carpet, you won't get invited again."
  We then go on to Reg on the greenhouse effect. He said:
  "My tomatoes seem to grow better under glass."
  Reg on television:
  "No, I'm not. I'm on a poster."
  Reg on train spotting:
  "There's one."
  That is Reg's schoolground humour to induce young people to recognise that as cigarette advertising, and 91 per cent. of them do. Now we have everything but Reg. An advertisement shows a suitcase with a label stating "Dunadvertisin' Bognor Regis"—some people in the north might say "Bognor Reg's"—and it flouts anything that we can do to protect young people from tobacco. That is what voluntary agreements are delivering, and it is not good enough. We must protect young children.
  576
  When I explained the cigarette code, I said that it contradicted the Government's action plan. Paragraph 4.52 of the Smee report states:
  "The review supports the Government view that there is a relationship between tobacco advertising and total tobacco consumption".
  It further states:
  "the Government believes that it would be desirable to take further steps to reduce the potential for tobacco advertising to encourage people to start smoking or to smoke more".
  It is my firm belief, given the way that the voluntary agreement has failed to protect children from Reg, that the only way to ensure that tobacco advertisements do not have any influence on our children is to get rid of them. I invite hon. Members to join me, all the royal medical colleges, the National Consumer Council and, more important, the 60 per cent. of the British public who, in every survey, have said that they want to ban tobacco advertising.
  I invite hon. Members to join me not only in the Lobby today but throughout the passage of the Bill, so that we can provide proper protection for the nation, not the half-hearted protection that we have in voluntary codes.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It must be clear that there is great interest in the Bill. Therefore, I ask succeeding speakers to be as brief as possible, so that as many hon. Members as possible may contribute.
  10.18 am
  Sir Peter Emery: I must make it clear that I am the unpaid national chairman of the National Asthma Campaign. Although that is not a declarable interest, I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension.
  Let us stop some of the cackle. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on bringing forward the Bill and on an extensive speech in which he dealt with many interruptions. In cutting the cackle, let us be in no doubt: smoking is unpleasant, it is dirty, it is physically dangerous, and now, with conclusive evidence of the effect of passive smoking, it is an anti-social habit when carried out in public.
  Those are some of the basic reasons why we want to ensure that smoke decreases. No one supporting the Bill wishes to ban smoking—that must be left to individuals to decide. However, people should not be lulled into smoking by advertising that suggests that it is socially an advantage to smoke, that smoking makes young people become members of a peer group, that it somehow enhances a person's attraction to the opposite sex or, indeed, that it relieves stress. None of those things are true and they need to be nailed immediately.
  In passing, I pay a tribute on the death of Josephine Richardson. I knew Josephine probably better than any other hon. Members in her early days because we fought our first political battle over a seat on the Hornsey borough council back in 1951. She was the thorn in my flesh when I was the chairman of the Hornsey housing committee for many years. She suffered a great deal in the latter part of her life but still gave service to the House, and hon. Members should give credit to her.
  If what I previously suggested is not true, what is true? Smoking is the largest preventable cause of death. Hundreds of people die from smoking-related diseases every day. Smoking is also a major cause of serious ill health, and it is estimated that more than 250,000

  577
  admissions to hospital every year are due to smoking-related illness. It is increasingly clear that smoking not only affects the health of those who smoke; passive smoking has become a significant public health issue. Those are not my words; they are the Government's words contained in a booklet.
  Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend has talked about passive smoking and made some very dogmatic comments about it. Did he read the article in The Times this week which suggested that medically the evidence is less strong than he is dogmatically asserting?
  Sir Peter Emery: I did not read the article in The Times. All I can say is that all the medical evidence on asthma—I can talk about that from personal experience—is that asthmatics find that passive smoking is a specific trigger for further asthma attacks. There is no doubt about that—it is factually correct.
  Mr. Tom Cox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most moving occasions in the House was about a year ago in the Jubilee room when Roy Castle, the entertainer, came here? Someone who had never smoked in his entire life had lung cancer as a direct result of passive smoking.
  Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his added support and the evidence that he has provided.
  "Smoking causes cancer". "Smoking causes heart disease". "Smoking causes fatal diseases". "Smoking kills". "Smoking when pregnant harms your baby". "Do not make children breathe your smoke". Those are not my statements, but they are fairly damaging. It has now been agreed legally that those statements will be rotated on all cigarette packets. Surely that is a sign that even tobacco companies accept that those statements have to be made and are, indeed, true.
  Mr. Robert Banks: Is not my right hon. Friend defeating his own object, as it is understood that the vast majority of people in this country understand the dangers of smoking because advertising has put across the message about smoking harming health?
  Sir Peter Emery: I like my hon. Friend very much but I find the logic of that question slightly absurd. If it is proved—as it is—that advertising must have some effect on increasing smoking, whatever the advertisements say, they are still being put forward with the intention of making people smoke more. Otherwise, why do companies advertise? I shall come to that point in a moment.
  I shall add to the important evidence in the Smee report, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. That report
  "concluded that the evidence from four countries where tobacco advertising has been banned indicated a 'significant effect' on tobacco consumption."
  That is not a fool making that assumption; it is the economic adviser to the Department of Health. At the behest of the Government, he made this report. I quote:
  "He noted that advertising could persuade children or adults to start smoking, smokers to smoke more or to continue, and quitters to start again. One study, quoted by Mr. Smee, showed that 44 per cent. of smokers agreed that 'smoking can't really be dangerous or the Government would ban cigarette smoking'.
  In a recent survey carried out by the National Asthma Campaign, 57 per cent. of people with asthma showed that passive smoking caused them difficulties. In July 1993, Dr. John Britton, of Nottingham University, working with National Asthma Campaign funding, announced his findings that women
  578
  who smoke during pregnancy are significantly more likely to produce children with asthma than women who do not. These women may unwittingly be precipitating in their unborn child the occurrence of a potentially fatal illness."
  Surely, we should look at that instance.
  The British Thoracic Society, meeting in Dublin this year, made it clear that
  "Children whose mothers smoked heavily during pregnancy, and during their child's early years, are over 30 per cent. more likely to develop asthma or experience wheezing by the time they are 16."
  The study was not small; it was carried out among 15,000 children who were born in one week in 1970. I quote:
  "Among children not exposed to cigarette smoke, 29 per cent. were reported to have asthma symptoms by the age of 16. Among children whose mothers smoked 25 or more cigarettes a day during pregnancy and early childhood, 39 per cent. had asthma symptoms—an increase of over 30 per cent. Low birth weight babies were also much more likely to develop asthma. Fifty per cent. of those in the study born under 1·5 kg had experienced wheezing illness by the age of 16."
  Those are some of the results of cigarette smoking.
  If we break down the figures for advertising, £60·4 million is spent on press advertising, £11 million on television, £16 million on posters—I am delighted that the Government are moving in this direction and we must give them credit for that; I hope that our action is hastening them along in this way—and about £14 million on other promotions. Can any hon. Member honestly put his hand on his heart and tell me that that money is being spent not to encourage people to smoke? What is it not meant to encourage—anyone to take up smoking? I am more likely to believe that the money is being given as a gift to the advertising agencies than that cigarette companies are spending the money not to encourage people to smoke.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I have a convenience store in Swansea, and I sell tobacco products.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Drug pusher.[Laughter.]
  Mr. Evans: It is a legal product. During the past 10 years, the turnover of my business of tobacco products has fallen from about two thirds to one third. That is fine, because the business has diversified into other products. There is not a monopoly of tobacco producers in this country and there are competing firms with competing brands. Is not advertising a way by which those firms include people who already smoke to switch brands, and not an inducement to non-smokers to take up tobacco?
  Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry that I gave way before my next sentence, which was to deal with that subject. I cannot accept that this immense sum is spent to fulfil brand image between different brands of cigarettes. Of course, there may be some aspect of that, but the concept that that is the main reason for spending £100 million on advertising is nonsense.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I worked for many years in the advertising and public relations business. On one occasion, I had to turn down—because I could not touch it—an account from the Freedom Association for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco. FOREST is a front organisation for the tobacco industry, and I think that it now stands for the freedom for the right to eliminate somebody else's throat.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sole reason for the industry investing such huge sums in advertising

  579
  has nothing to do with brand loyalty, but is to replace with younger people those of their customers who are dying at the upper end of the age range?
  Sir Peter Emery: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say. There is certainly a suggestion of that, although, as yet, there is no statistical proof. The House will take the point made by the hon. Gentleman from his own experience.
  It is argued that we would be interfering with the liberty of people if we limited advertising. That might be true if the Government had not already taken the steps so to do. However, the Government have taken such steps. The libertarian argument is that if something is legal, it ought to be able to be advertised. That is the type of statement that we hear from those people.
  There are a number of things that are legal but which cannot be advertised. That is not anything unusual. A barrister is legal—in more senses than one—but he is not allowed to advertise. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] If, in fact, one looks at the structure of law societies one will find that that is still discouraged. Sanitary products were initially banned, and those products are only allowed to be advertised on television only at certain times later at night. The concept that there are no controls over advertising for legal things does not hold water.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The House should examine the argument that because something is legal it is permissible. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if tobacco were a new drug coming on to the market, it would not be licensed by the Government? Does he also agree that it has been known for drugs to be taken off the market when they are found to be dangerous?
  Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
  I wish to deal with one aspect of costs about which I know personally. It is widely accepted that passive smoking and smoking have an effect on asthma. The direct cost to the NHS of drugs and admissions to hospitals is £473 million a year on asthma, the estimated amount lost to industry because of the illness is £400 million, and the social security costs of sickness and invalidity benefit are £70 million.
  That is a cost of just under £1 billion because of the problems of asthma in this country. There is positive proof that smoking is causing those difficulties to be accentuated, so surely we should take every step to discourage smoking. I am not alone in saying that—the Government are also saying it. They have produced smoking-related literature which outlines a strategy to reduce smoking. The Government have described their future action, and the effect of the price of tobacco. They have given a commitment to work with the European Community to encourage other European countries with prices lower than the United Kingdom to raise them to match our own.
  The Government have dealt with the illegal sales of tobacco, health education, banning harmful new products, action in schools, health warnings, Government support to the voluntary sector—[Interruption.] I just want to build up a case, which hon. Members may not like. This is not my case, but the Government's. I am doing the Government's job.
  580
  The Government's strategy also deals with insurance premiums. The Department of Health will provide advice to insurance companies on the health effects of smoking, and will encourage them to consider whether they should introduce or extend preferential treatment to non-smokers. The strategy contains a commitment to effective controls of advertising, smoking in public places, smoking in the workplace, action in Government Departments, action to ensure a virtually smoke-free NHS and action on a research programme.
  In all those positive moves to ensure that smoking is decreasing, the one thing that the Government have left out is advertising. They know and I know that advertising encourages people to smoke. The real problem that must be faced is the £7·5 billion which comes in tax on tobacco products.
  The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): My right hon. Friend has done a most marvellous job of reviewing the Government's strategy. In a desire to be helpful to him, I will inform him that he will find that advertising is included in that strategy.
  Sir Peter Emery: I think that I did refer to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "You said that it had been left out."] I did refer to effective controls on advertising. Hansard will tell us whether I did refer to advertising. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Seated interventions from hon. Members trying to assist another Member with a speech are not helpful.
  Sir Peter Emery: Even if they are trying to assist, they are not helpful.
  I was trying to say that the Government are building up a massive case against smoking. I do not think that the Government will actually approve the Bill, although I believe that they are willing to see that it goes to Committee. That would allow greater discussion on the matter, even among those people who are against it. We can argue the matter better in Committee than we can on the Floor of the House.
  The real reason why the Government cannot support the Bill is because £7·5 billion comes in tax. If advertising were to be banned and cigarettes were to fail absolutely, where would that money come from? Would taxes have to be increased?
  Mr. Bayley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in their "Health of the Nation" programme, the Government have set a target of reducing the number of cigarettes sold from 98 billion in 1990 to, I believe, 57 billion in 2000? The Secretary of State for Health, in setting that target, must have spoken to the Chancellor and explained to him the tax implications of the Government's policy for reducing the number of cigarettes sold. Will not the Treasury have taken account of that already?
  Sir Peter Emery: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Indeed, it is the Government's policy to attempt to reduce smoking by about 40 per cent. by the turn of the century. What I am saying to the Government is that considerable financial benefits would accrue to the Treasury from moving more quickly than the Government propose. That is why I gave the list of the costs of just asthma to the nation, amounting to almost £1 billion. The

  581
  Bill would assist in bringing at least the 40 per cent. reduction through more quickly. The financial benefits to the nation would balance the loss in taxation.
  We must consider the factors that I have listed. If we do not, we do not look at the whole picture.
  Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: No, I am sorry. I am just coming to a conclusion.
  I have set out the various factors: the difficulties, the effect on health, the moves that the Government are gladly making to discourage smoking, the difficulties in carrying those moves through, but also the benefits that would accrue from reducing smoking. I have tried to bring a balance to the problems of the finance. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. In Committee, there may be ways of making alterations to promotion or advertising only of cigarettes. We can debate all that not on the Floor of the House, but in Committee. Therefore, I hope that we can obtain a Second Reading for what is in many ways an admirable Bill.
  10.41 am
  Mr. Tom Cox: I agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir Peter Emery). I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on introducing the Bill. Despite the many interventions that he faced, he knows and the whole House knows that there is widespread agreement throughout the country among parents of young children, teachers in the schools that those children attend and, most certainly, the medical profession. There is no doubt that such agreement exists.
  Some three years ago I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). That Bill, like the Bill that we are discussing today, had massive support. It went into Committee and we had some interesting discussions. I am sure that if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will elaborate on what happened. The only way in which we could make progress on that Bill in Committee was by accepting amendments and making concessions that those of us on the Committee who supported the Bill did not want to make. Afterwards, we found that there was widespread annoyance among people outside who had been associated with the Bill, especially parents, about the concessions that had to be made so that the Bill would at least get through its Committee stage. I hope that we have learnt from those experiences.
  I take the comments that you have made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I realise that a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I do not intend to speak for long, but I want to make a few comments that are relevant to the debate. In the past few days we have all received a document from the Minister for Health entitled "Smoke-free for Health". With that document he sent a letter in which the following statement was made:
  "The voluntary agreements have served us well and the Government has no reason to believe that they will not be effective in delivering the firmer controls which are needed in
  582
  some areas, particularly in respect of exposing children to tobacco advertising. We believe that they are preferable to a statutory ban."
  We received that letter on 7 February.
  It so happens that on 2 February I received a letter from St. George's hospital in my constituency, one of the major hospitals in the United Kingdom. The letter was from Sandra Legg, the chief nurse and chairman of the smoking policy committee of St. George's hospital. What she said contradicted completely what the Minister said. Her leiter came three or four days before the letter and booklet sent to all Members of Parliament by the Minister. She said:
  "As health care providers, St. George's Healthcare is keen to support any measures which promote health. There is, I believe, evidence to support a view that imposing a ban on tobacco advertising would decrease cigarette smoking and I would therefore welcome such a move … The Trust has taken steps to reduce smoking amongst its own staff, patients and visitors. From January 1st 1994 a total ban on smoking was introduced in all Trust buildings".
  So there we have a senior member of staff in one of the major hospitals of Britain stating a view based on her and her colleagues' experience, which is contrary to the line that we have been given by the Minister for Health. The Minister says that a voluntary ban would succeed. But Sandra Legg, with the support of her colleagues, on the basis of her experience, doubts what the Minister seeks to tell us and sell to us.
  I am sure that many Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, and people outside the House will take far more notice of highly qualified people in our health service who say that the voluntary basis has been tried before and, sadly, just has not succeeded. Now is the time for the Government to give support to this Bill.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many items for sale in shops—I probably sell most of them—would damage the health of the nation, particularly youngsters, if over-consumed. I am thinking of confectionery. Over-consumption might be said to damage the health of young people. Does the hon. Gentleman th ink that it would improve the health of the nation to ban or control advertising of any other items?
  Mr. Cox: I certainly believe that there must be a much greater campaign on the effects of excessive drinking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, most certainly. I should have thought that all of us in the House know that we are repeatedly told that we should do this or that in our health service. Of course we should. The problem is the expenditure that such action would incur. That is why I believe that we are right to look at other products the consumption and use of which affects people's health. Possibly, at some future date we should deal with issues such as that named by the hon. Gentleman.
  Today, however, we are considering smoking and the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley seeks to make in introducing the Bill. There is ample evidence of the danger of smoking and, sadly, the damage that is caused to millions of people throughout Britain.
  In an intervention on the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir. P. Emery) I mentioned Roy Castle's visit. He has never smoked but throughout his life he entertained in clubs where the atmosphere was polluted by smoke. Sadly, that is how he developed cancer—through passive smoking. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members waffling on from a sedentary position. If they want me to give way, I will do so.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: (Hexham): How does the hon. Gentleman know that?
  Mr. Cox: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to my comments about Roy Castle's sad illness, he was told that that was the cause after extensive medical examinations and opinions when he was treated by the national health service. To its credit, Roy Castle's very serious illness was detected, but the cost to the health service must have been substantial. I would be shocked if the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) objected to someone who had never smoked but became very ill having the opportunity to go to hospital to find out what was wrong with him.
  Dr. Spink: Is it not true that the hon. Gentleman did not know that that was the reason, but that medical experts stated it? We cannot substitute our amateur knowledge for that of the medical experts in that case or in any other.
  Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I received a letter from the British Medical Association—I am sure that it was sent to other hon. Members—dated 8 February. The Association is no doubt about what it wants. It writes:
  "The BMA, on behalf of doctors, has always taken a very public stance in support of tobacco advertising being banned. There is overwhelming evidence which shows that advertising does attract new smokers, particularly among the young."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley outlined, there is clear evidence that advertising affects young people and we have such evidence from many different sources.
  If hon. Members listen to people outside this place, who look to us to introduce legislation that will benefit not merely their families but society, I believe that the Bill should get a Second Reading and go into Committee.
  I was here last Friday when we debated the Energy Conservation Bill. No one seems to have argued today as they did then that, although the Bill contains many good measures, we must question its cost. That sort of blue herring has not been floated during today's debate and I hope that it will not be a consideration in a vote—it would be regrettable if we were forced to divide on the Bill. The Government have the opportunity to show their concern on this important issue and to respond to requests that the general public have made. The real test of the Bill will be in Standing Committee.
  Heaven only knows how much this publication—"Smoke-Free for Health"—cost. I welcome it because there are times when Governments can say that they believe that it is essential to prepare the case and make it available for everyone to read, even though that may be expensive. I have already quoted one of the Minister for Health's comments in the document. That comment is totally denied by national health service workers.
  I warmly support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, who presented this Bill, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East three years ago. He did a great service to this country and was widely supported both by people and by organisations who understood the damage that he was seeking to overcome through the introduction of his Bill.
  I hope that this Bill will not be opposed. Hon. Members who have been in the House for some time know that Standing Committees are the real place for discussion. Even if some of us have reservations, we do not want a
  584
  good Bill to be killed off by bringing in the payroll vote who, if they were honest with themselves, would support the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister for Health will not say that the Bill is good but that the Government have reservations about it. I also hope that if there is a Division the payroll vote will not be forced into the Lobby to vote against the Bill. I want the Bill to be given an unopposed Second Reading and to go into Committee, where the main issues can be discussed properly.
  10.55 am
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I have no connection with the tobacco or advertising industries now, although I spent most of my business life in advertising and marketing, and therfore hope that I can speak with some background knowledge.
  I yield to no one in my keenness to dissuade people from smoking, in spite of the fact that I have the occasional small cigar—that applies particularly to dissuading young people from smoking. The House will know of my interest in the problems of drug misuse. There is a definite link between the propensity to smoke and the chances of being lured into taking drugs, especially those that are smoked.
  This debate is not about smoking, but about advertising and its probable effects, particularly on increasing the likelihood of people smoking cigarettes, I feel that I can make the most useful contribution by concentrating on advertising.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: Why does my hon. Friend not hang on, because he does not even know what I am going to say? I I certainly will give way later.
  The arguments against banning tobacco advertising do not rest on whether a link can be found between advertising and total consumption, although it is significant that there is no good evidence for such a link.
  Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: Please may I make some headway?
  Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: I resisted the temptation to intervene during the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Barron: Do not resist the temptation to give way.
  Mr. Rathbone: I shall do so in a moment.
  In mature markets, the role of advertising is almost always to focus on brand share—on growth among users, rather than generic market growth. That means manufacturers going after the people who use a product and want to buy it and persuading them to buy their brand. Even among market leaders, brand switching is a more common marketing objective than market building—that is an important point—whether they are marketing soap, automobiles, the use of energy, airline tickets, toothpaste or cigarettes.
  It is interesting to note that 25 per cent. of smokers change brands once a year.
  Mr. Barron: I do not wish to get into a philosophical debate about advertising in general. The Bill is about tobacco advertising. How can the hon. Gentleman stand up

  585
  and say that, when all the evidence shows the contrary? The Government's publication, which we received this week, says that the Smee review
  "supports the Government view that there is a relationship between tobacco advertising and total tobacco consumption."
  This is not a philosophical debate about advertising and take-up, but about studies directly related to advertising and the tobacco habit.
  Mr. Rathbone: I knew that I was right to resist the temptation to give way to the hon. Gentleman earlier. If the hon. Gentleman, who gets frightfully over-excited about his Bill—I do not blame him, as everybody gets over-excited about their own babies—would listen to the arguments—
  It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

  Beverly Allitt (Report)
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, I wish to make a statement about Sir Cecil Clothier's inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the murder by Beverly Allitt of four children and the injuring of nine others in the children's ward of Grantham and Kesteven general hospital in 1991.
  Following the trial and conviction of Beverly Allitt, I instructed an independent inquiry to be set up in May 1993, chaired by Sir Cecil Clothier QC, to examine the issues raised by the case and what lessons for the future could be learnt from them. I have now received Sir Cecil's report. I am today publishing it in full. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I should like to thank Sir Cecil and the two members of his inquiry team, Miss Anne MacDonald and Professor David Shaw, for the efficient and effective way in which they have conducted the inquiry and produced their report. I am sure that all who read the report will welcome it as a fair and thorough account of the events.
  From the outset, we must all acknowledge, as the report does, that the tragic events in Grantham were the product of a malevolent, deranged criminal mind. Everything must be seen in that light.
  Before saying more about the report's findings, I know that Members on both sides of the House will wish to join me in conveying our deep sympathies to all whose lives have been blighted by these tragic events, and particularly to the families of the victims of Beverly Allitt's crimes. The least we owe those families is an explanation of how Allitt's crimes went unchecked for so long and an assurance, from which I hope they will be able to take some comfort, that everything possible will be done to prevent such a tragedy ever happening again.
  I welcome the thoroughness of Sir Cecil's report and the speed with which it has been produced. What is important is that his findings and recommendations are absorbed and applied throughout the health service with equal diligence and dispatch.
  The report emphasises that the events described were extraordinary and unprecedented in this country. It considers whether prompter action could reasonably have been expected to detect Allitt and stop her doing further harm—and there are criticisms of the speed of the hospital's response. However, its main conclusion is:
  "a determined and secret criminal may defeat the best regulated organisation in the pursuit of his or her purpose".
  It goes on:
  "no measures can afford complete protection against a determined miscreant. The main lesson from our Inquiry and our principal recommendation is that the Grantham disaster should serve to heighten awareness in all those caring for children of the possibility of malevolent intervention as a cause of unexplained clinical events."
  The report makes 12 detailed recommendations to tighten procedures to safeguard children in hospital. I have instructed immediate action to be taken on the 11 that are my responsibility. The Home Secretary has accepted the recommendation concerning coroners. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a paper setting out the detailed response to each recommendation. The chief executive of the national health service, Sir Duncan Nichol, has also written today to all health authorities and trusts to draw the report to their attention.
  The work that I am now setting in hand in response to the report is in addition to the action that has already been

  587
  taken following the earlier inquiry commissioned by the Trent regional health authority. Action has been taken forward in all that report's 51 recommendations. In particular, changes were introduced to the management at Grantham and Kesteven hospital and responsibility for the provision of paediatric service at Grantham was transferred to the University hospital NHS trust at Nottingham.
  The Clothier report identifies and criticises failures of management and communications in the hospital, and it is important that lessons are learned from these throughout the service. It draws attention to the failure to take quicker action after the first evidence of possible foul play. However, it refutes any suggestion that Allitt could easily have been detected or stopped.
  There are references to the parts played by individuals, but the report concludes that the main failure was collective. It describes a
  "general lack in the qualities of leadership, energy and drive in all those most closely associated with the management of ward four".
  There have been suggestions in the press that the Clothier report makes scapegoats, particularly of individual consultants or nurses. I hope that those fears can now be allayed. The report repeatedly refers to the dangers of hindsight and the temptation to seek individuals to blame and, although it does not shrink from making criticisms where those are considered justified, it is conspicuously fair and balanced throughout.
  The report has important things to say about nursing staffing levels in the children's ward at Grantham. At the same time of the events, the specialist children's nurse staffing for ward 4 was below the standard recommended by the region at the time, and also well below the higher standard for two qualified sick children's nurses to be available, which the Department subsequently recommended to health authorities and hospitals.
  The inquiry report recommends that the Department of Health should take steps to see that the guidance is more closely observed throughout the health service than the evidence suggests it is at present. There is a steady increase in nurses qualifying as children's nurses, with a 47 per cent. increase over the four years up to 1992–93, and we expect that number to continue to increase. But, as the Audit Commission has confirmed, there is considerable variation across the country in the numbers of registered sick children's nurses working in children's wards.
  Sir Duncan Nichol has therefore today instructed district health authorities, in consultation with hospitals, to report by 1 May on the local position with regard to the standard. Further action will be based on that information. The objective needs to be considered in the light of local circumstances, particularly the number of high-dependency children on a ward. As far as the children's ward at Grantham is concerned, the number of registered sick children's nurses has more than doubled since 1991.
  Four new consultant paediatricians have been appointed to work at Grantham; three are already in post, and a fourth will take up post on 1 May. I cannot comment at this stage on the two paediatric consultants mentioned in the report, since they have appeals to me pending under paragraph 190 of the terms and conditions of service for hospital medical and dental staff.
  The circumstances surrounding Beverly Allitt's crimes have been exhaustively examined: during a three-month
  588
  trial, under the glare of publicity; during the regional health authority's own inquiry; and, in particular, by the independent inquiry chaired by Sir Cecil Clothier. A thorough job has been done to identify the facts and report them to the public.
  Ultimately, the responsibility for what happened rested with Allitt herself. If it were not for her grotesque actions, four children would be alive today and nine would be free from the injuries that she inflicted on them. It is the duty of Grantham and Kesteven hospital, and every other hospital, to read, absorb and apply the lessons which Sir Cecil Clothier and his team have so skilfully identified. We must leave nothing to chance in minimising the opportunities open to another Beverly Allitt.
  Mr. David Blunkett: I thank the Secretary of State for making the Clothier inquiry report available to me in time so that I could read it before she made her statement.
  Clearly, party-political rhetoric would not be appropriate or acceptable on this issue. I concur with the Secretary of State, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, in saying that our hearts go out to the families and parents of the children who went through the nightmare on ward 4 at the Grantham and Kesteven general hospital.
  I must deal with a number of issues that relate to the inquiry's recommendations and the Secretary of State's response. We give a partial welcome to the recommendations and her response. Given that she has rightly come to the House to make a statement and has acknowledged that there are lessons for the whole of the national health service, does she not agree that a statutory public inquiry should have been held openly, so that evidence could have been presented with representation and in a manner that gave full confidence to the parents and the public as a whole?
  I should like the Secretary of State to deal with the final area of the terms of reference of the Clothier inquiry and its wider implications. We agree that it was right for Sir Cecil Clothier not to seek scapegoats and pinpoint individuals. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned from the events that are wider than the question of a malevolent presence in the hospital. There were 26 incidents involving' 13 children over 61 days. Those incidents were not acted on in a way that would have been expected, irrespective of their cause. Something is seriously wrong when the crash team from the Queen's medical centre is called out four times in the space of two and a half weeks, when the norm is once a year.
  As well as the issues related to Grantham and Kesteven hospital, will the Secretary of State take on board the comments made in the Clothier inquiry about radiology and other co-ordination action, which were highlighted at a well-staffed professionally run centre—Queen's medical centre in Nottingham? I ask her to deal particularly with recommendation 10, about which she has spoken, in relation to staffing levels of trained registered sick children's nurses. It recommends that there should be at least two on duty on the ward. The Secretary of State asked Sir Duncan Nichol, the NHS chief executive, to examine the issue and report back. I quote her words from the statement
  "The objective needs to be considered in the light of local circumstances, particularly the number of high-dependency children on a ward".
  In responding, perhaps the Secretary of State will reflect on the fact that many of the children affected on ward 4

  589
  were not high dependency when they went into the hospital. They needed nursing and care. They needed to be brought back to health. They were not in the same position as that mentioned in the report of the British Paediatric Association on intensive care nursing facilities, which we dealt with only a few months ago.
  Will the Secretary of State reverse her response to recommendation 10 and acknowledge that well-trained nurses and well-staffed wards for children are absolute priorities for the NHS and that it will not be left to the vagaries of the market or decisions of local purchasers? The NHS is far too important for that to happen. Her recommendation and response this morning are inadequate on that point.
  Does the Secretary of State also agree that there is a need to review the whole of the occupational health strategy of the NHS to ensure not only that another Allitt could not be recruited but that there would be no necessity for one to be deployed on a ward? The truth is—I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to this—that had there been adequately trained children's nurses available, Beverly Allitt would not have got anywhere near ward 4 of the Grantham and Kesteven hospital, because a state-enrolled nurse would never have been employed in those circumstances.
  Will the Secretary of State respond to the fact that there is no recommendation in the report, or a response from her, on the need to train and retrain management to deal with situations that may not arise from a murderer but from inadequacies in procedures and practice on the ward? Does she accept the question that has been put by the parents: was Grantham different from any other hospital in Britain in terms of staffing, qualification, training and the practices and procedures that were adopted?
  Does she accept that we know that Grantham was not different? That is why the report must be taken seriously, not only to deal with a potential crisis or malevolent spirit but to put right what is wrong throughout the NHS. In that way, we can ensure that the confidence that is rightly there for all those who work in the NHS can be reinforced, and we can put this tragic incident behind us.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's response to my statement and the seriousness with which he quite rightly takes this matter.
  I shall first speak on the nature of the inquiry. It is important that the parents and others involved believe that the full facts have been revealed. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that, having myself been involved in a number of inquiries concerning child abuse, I know the way that an adversarial public inquiry, in the blaze of publicity, can frequently intimidate witnesses, maximise distress and, far from exposing the full facts, result in a report that many believe fails to get to the bottom of these sensitive matters. Debate will continue about the right form of inquiry when such tragic cases of a very sensitive nature take place.
  I commend to the hon. Gentleman and the House an editorial from the Solicitors Journal in which it is said that the adversarial system of examination of witnesses in public in such matters has major drawbacks: potential witnesses whose existence is not at present known may be reluctant to come forward if they are to endure public examination, and their evidence then will remain untold; known witnesses may be reluctant to tell the whole truth and will hold back information. The key criteria to be
  590
  satisfied should be that the inquiry team is competent and independent, that it has access to information, that witnesses are confident to come forward and give their evidence, and that the report is published in full.
  Those criteria particularly influenced me in the decision that it was the best form of inquiry to get to the bottom of those desperate facts. Sir Cecil and his team interviewed 94 witnesses, all of whom were willing to come forward. Thousands of pages of documentation were studied. There was no problem in obtaining documents. Had there been any difficulty with the powers under the inquiry, Sir Cecil would, of course, have come back and I would have been able to reconsider the basis of the inquiry. The single and only purpose in my mind as Secretary of State was to establish the facts in the most effective way. The fact that the inquiry was supported by the community health council, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and others from an authoritative position was encouraging. I believe that the report vindicates the means of the inquiry and establishes it as a good model for the future.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a series of other important matters. I shall quote from the report, which I believe is central to the issue of how 26 incidents could have taken place without being identified. Sir Cecil says:
  "The idea of a nurse deliberately taking the lives of children under her charge is almost unthinkable."
  It was as though the staff there were paralysed from looking to the area they needed to look to for the source of those crimes. Although there has been speculation about her absence record, the report also says that there was nothing to suggest that Beverly Allitt, with all her record of sickness absence, would have been a danger to those children on the ward.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about occupational health. It is an extremely important area. We will provide new guidance, but we must work with other agencies and authorities before we produce that final guidance.—particularly on the question of people with a severe personality disorder—about the appropriateness of contracting GPs to ask medical questions which may conflict with medical confidentiality about staff who work in the health service. There is more work to be done before that final guidance can go out now that the report is in the public domain. The same applies to staffing.
  There has been a 60 per cent. increase in the number of sick children's nurses in training over the past four years. That is a substantial rise. The number of registered sick children's nurses in the wards has risen from 3·5 to 8·4. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of paediatric consultants: the total number of medical staff in paediatrics has risen by more than a third in the past five years. There will be an extra 1,000 qualified children's nurses this year, an extra 1,200 next year and an extra 1,300 the following year. The challenge is to ensure that those who qualify as registered sick children's nurses stay on children's wards; if that is to be delivered in practice, more work must be done with the profession.
  Sir Cecil Clothier says:
  "No single circumstance or individual can be held responsible for what happened. But taken together, the catalogue of lapses from the high standards to which the National Health Service aspires point to lessons which need to be heeded if every effort is to be made to contain such a catastrophe should it strike again."
  The chief executive of the NHS has written to people throughout the health service, to be certain that management, nurses, doctors and all concerned study and absorb the lessons of the inquiry.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: The parents of one of the children involved are my constituents. May I echo the condolence that has been expressed so far? Let me also express the condolences of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who, although he is present, is unable, by convention, to take part in exchanges such as this because he is a senior Minister.
  It is some small comfort to know that, as soon as these dreadful incidents came to light, the health authority took prompt action to try to reassure patients, potential patients and their parents. It is also very satisfactory that four paediatric consultants from the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham—a centre of excellence in our region—are now running that department. It is hoped that that will reassure those who may wish to use Grantham and Kesteven in the future, particularly its paediatric department.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. A determined effort has been made to improve services on many fronts at Grantham and Kesteven hospital. The hospital will hold a press conference later today, at which it will report not only changes on the children's ward—my hon. Friend rightly cited the management control from Queen's medical centre in Nottingham—but improvements to services generally. In regard to waiting times and many other matters, it now leads the region.
  My hon. Friend rightly commended the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). He has been a diligent, dutiful and determined constituency Member of Parliament throughout these events, and has engaged in regular discussions with me—and with others concerned—about the deep anxiety felt by parents and many others.
  The distress felt by other staff at the hospital is formidable. The affair has been a great shock to all concerned, but the staff are determined to put it behind them, and to ensure that the hospital continues to flourish and to serve the community. Above all, I hope that the report will lay to rest parents' deep unhappiness, which has been exacerbated by the feeling of not knowing the full facts about how these events could possibly have occurred.
  Ms Liz Lynne: I, too, welcome the report, and extend my sympathies to the parents involved. I only wish that the inquiry had been public, as the parents wished it to be.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State agrees that understaffing was one of the problems. How will she address the understaffing problems that exist throughout the country? She has told us that four paediatric consultants have been engaged; will she tell us the number of hours for which they will work?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I have already made it clear that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of children's nurses being trained, partly as a result of the extremely successful Project 2000 initiative. As the hon. Lady will know, we have put £321 million into that project, which includes a component specifically for children's nurses. That has made it possible to increase substantially the number of sick children's nurses being trained: there will be a 9 per cent. increase this year alone. As I have said, in the past four years there has been a 47 per cent. increase in the number of qualified children's nurses.
  592
  As is made clear in the Audit Commission's report "Children First", we must ensure that, once children's nurses have qualified, they are encouraged to work on children's wards. It is a question not just of supply, but of recruitment and retention. On the basis of the mapping of the present position contained in Sir Duncan Nichol's inquiry report, we shall also want to talk to members of the profession about how we can encourage retention on the children's wards. Consultants are also working at Queen's medical centre, to secure the best possible standard of care and state-of-the-art help for children.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, in fairness to them, that no individual doctors can be held directly responsible for these tragic events—although, as I am sure she will agree, all doctors must learn from them?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I can indeed confirm that. I hope that there will be opportunities to read the report more fully. According to Sir Cecil,
  "There was certainly no evidence of lack of clinical skill and conscientious care on the part of the Consultants. The fact that more of the children did not suffer death or permanent injury can largely be attributed to their skill and persistence. Their failure was not to grasp with energy the problem presented by the highly unusual events that they were witnessing and to take systematic and decisive steps to elucidate their cause."
  As those matters are subject to an appeal under section 190, I cannot comment further at this stage.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The whole House will agree that this appalling tragedy is every parent's nightmare. Now that the Secretary of State has published the report in full, may I point out that the parents—who are the people of whom we should be thinking—desperately wanted a public inquiry, as did their supporters? Surely they have as much right to the upholding of their views as have the professionals, however well meaning was the advice of those professionals.
  Sometimes, the grieving process is helped if parents can go through events stage by stage. Access to a public inquiry might have provided the whole country with a lesson for the future.
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is a question of judgment, and my judgment is that, if 94 witnesses had been interviewed in the glare of publicity, the distress felt by many of the parties would have been exacerbated. Anyone who wished to make evidence public was free to do so. I have made it clear that if we want witnesses to speak freely and openly, we must ensure that they do not feel inhibited—as they frequently do—by the pressure of cross-examination, and the sense that every detail will be reported in the press, if not on television that night. Such an atmosphere is not conducive to free and open speaking.
  There had already been a lengthy trial, and all the publicity associated with it; in a public inquiry, many of those elements would have been repeated. It is important, however, that parents study the report. If they have further questions, the various parties involved will be more than happy to see them. We must find the most effective and speedy way of getting to the bottom of these events. When the hon. Lady studies the report, she will be impressed by the rigour and determination with which the inquiry team undertook its task.

  Tobacco Advertising Bill
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  11.29 am
  Mr. Rathbone: I must first apologise for not realising that you, Madam Speaker, wished to intervene in my speech.
  I was saying that advertising in mature markets, whatever the product or service, is almost always tuned to the development and capturing of market share rather than to market development.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I do not do so? If I do not make headway, I fear that I shall not say everything that I want. I am afraid that it is rather factual, heavy stuff but it deals with the thrust of the Bill.
  The Smee report, which has been mentioned, is seen by many proponents of an advertising ban as evidence of a link between developing consumption and advertising, but the opposite is true. Interestingly, the Smee report states that it is most true in the United Kingdom. It categorically states that its own statistical research exercise established that there was no such link in the United Kingdom, and it noted that independent research shows that advertising has no discernible effect on persuading children to start smoking.
  These are statements in the Smee report. It is not peculiar, therefore, that Clive Smee has stated his believe that much more work needs to be done before any link could ever be established. It is interesting that many current advertising campaigns for cigarettes are unintelligible for those other than smokers of the brand.
  Mr. Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: No, I will not.
  Mr. Tony Banks: You are chicken—that is why.
  Mr. Rathbone: If I am a chicken, it would be unparliamentary to describe what the hon. Gentleman is.
  Argument for a ban would lead to much more pressure for such a step if a link were ever established. It is unlikely that it will be, but that is purely conjecture, and it is important to keep a perspective on the issue as a whole.
  Advertising is permitted in the United Kingdom, yet cigarette consumption is declining faster here than in any other European country except Holland, where advertising is allowed. That is a considerable achievement, not least because of the positive contribution of the Health Education Authority. I defer to its efforts to improve health in this country, and to reduce the propensity to smoke. It needs our support.
  It would be sad if that achievement were put at risk by freezing the market, which would be likely to stop the decline. The Health Education Authority says:
  "all available measures which reduce smoking should be taken."
  I absolutely agree, but an advertising ban would be as likely to have the opposite effect as it would be to have a beneficial effect. That is an extremely important point to make to all hon. Members who are concerned, as I am, about smoking and its effects but who have misunderstood the Bill as making the contribution that it aims to make.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: I have to give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Sir Peter Emery: I rise to interrupt because I know that my hon. Friend would not want to mislead the House. He has quoted conclusively from the Smee report. It has been pointed out, but I must point it out to him again, that, in his conclusion on the effect of advertising on the consumption of cigarettes, Smee says:
  "The balance of evidence thus supports the conclusion that advertising does have a positive effect on consumption."
  It would not be right for my hon. Friend to advance evidence without giving the conclusion of the Smee report. I am certain that he does not wish to mislead the House.
  Mr. Rathbone: Smee has also expressed his belief that much more work needs to be done before any link can be established. Either of the statements can be interpreted in any way, and each side of the argument will do so, but Smee's belief is as true as the conclusion that my right hon. Friend quoted.
  Mr. Bayley: Could the hon. Gentleman possibly give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: No, I could not possibly.
  It is interesting that the four European Community countries with the best record on reducing smoking oppose further restrictions on cigarette advertising. It is not by chance that none of the four owns or has a monopoly in tobacco production and distribution, as is found in other countries. The power of advertising, in helping to sell a brand into a market, is clearly an insidious one as far as some countries' domestic trade is concerned. That influences their support of an advertising ban much more than any health circumstances.
  The hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) arid for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) have said that the case for health must be given priority. It is extremely important to analyse the experience of other countries where an advertising ban has been put into effect and what other influences have come into play. I say that particularly because I believe that our Chancellor of the Exchequer has applied the most serious, strongest and successful determinant in deterring people from smoking cigarettes—putting up their price.
  New Zealand was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. A partial ban on advertising was introduced there in December 1990. The British Medical Journal made much of the effect of the ban and declining consumption thereafter, but at the same time, and predating that Bill, there was a massive series of increases in excise tax.
  These figures will shock my hon. Friends who are worried about indirect taxation or taxation of any kind: excise tax was increased in July 1989 by 28 per cent. and again by 110 per cent., in September 1989 by 112 per cent, in March 1990 by 115 per cent., in September 1990 by 118 per cent., in March 1991 by 121 per cent., and in July 1991 by 146 per cent.
  Tobacco consumption had been falling since 1975—long before the increases started—but it was given added impetus by them. It is not peculiar, therefore, that the New Zealand Health Minister commented in November 1991:

  595
  "Changes in New Zealand's attitude to smoking led to a decline in tobacco consumption before the imposition of a ban and this decline has continued. At the same time economic factors such as a fall in incomes have had an effect on consumption."
  Price increases, economic recession and changes in attitudes are responsible for the decline in overall consumption, rather than a partial advertising ban.
  Let us go right the way round the world—to Canada, where there are similar circumstances. An advertising ban came into effect there in 1989. Simultaneously, excise tax was increased by more than 50 per cent. In 1990, the majority of provinces increased excise taxes by between 10 and 50 per cent. In 1991, the Federal Government increased their excise tax by another 58 per cent., and nine out of the 10 provinces increased excise tax by 20 to 40 per cent.
  It is no wonder, therefore, that a recent appraisal by the Canadian Superior Court found
  "the possibility (that advertising may affect overall consumption) goes no further than speculation and certainly does not rise to the level of probability."
  Hon. Members may say that those are instances from other parts of the world, so let us return to an instance in our continent. An analysis of consumption for the period 1973 to 1990, carried out by the Institute for Youth Research for the German Federal Office for Health Education, concluded that there is no link between advertising for cigarettes and their consumption. Indeed, smoking had been decreasing among young people even though—
  Mr. Tony Banks: That defies logic.
  Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Member might listen rather than always interjecting from a seated position.
  Smoking among young people had declined even though the weight of advertising had substantially increased. That is very important.
  I therefore remain committed to the reduction of smoking, but, contrary to popular opinion, and contrary to some of the arguments put in the House—in speeches and from a sedentary position—there is no case that will hold water that shows that the banning of tobacco advertising will contribute to that commitment. The gist of the Bill is that there is a link.
  I share with other hon. Members considerable regret that so many children smoke, but all research shows that peer group pressure and parental influence are, and always were, the predominant factors in the problem. It is completely unproven, so it should not, especially when considering legislation, be unquestioningly accepted that advertising plays any significant part.
  Of course children see advertising wherever they go—we all do—but that is because advertising is widespread in our daily life and is an expression of commercial freedom that allows our free market to operate. If ever advertising were restricted on the basis that children might see it, a peculiar foundation would have been laid for similar restrictions on all products that are inappropriate for sale to children, not always for reasons of health promotion.
  Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: No; the hon. Gentleman has already interjected enough from a sedentary position.
  596
  Seeing is not the same as being influenced to consume. Advertising's task would be much simpler if that were the case. Further, in pursuing such an argument in the case of tobacco, one should not ignore the publicity given to health risks through the advertised health warning, an argument that was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).
  One must, I believe, pay a compliment to the Government for the progress that has been made. It is well outlined in the "Smoke-free for Health" publication. I cite two items. There has been a decrease in smoking in the United Kingdom from 45 per cent. of the population in 1974 to 30 per cent. in 1990. A linear extrapolation of that line will lead to a rate of only 20 per cent. in the year 2000.
  Another item to which I draw the House's attention is the effect of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. That gives additional protection to children at the point of sale, and it is crucial that they are protected at the point of sale.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rathbone: I should like to draw the attention of the House—
  Mr. Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? It was my Bill—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  Mr. Rathbone: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the importance of that Act. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who promoted the Bill and who is trying to draw attention to the fact now.
  The freedom to communicate is what is at stake in the Bill. That must remain an extremely high priority for products that are legally and generally available. In a matter as important as that, I feel that the case for banning advertising has to be made—I believe that it has not been made in this case—before the Bill is given a Second Reading.
  11.45 am
  Ms Liz Lynne: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am extremely happy to welcome the Bill. I wish the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) every success during its passage through Parliament. I also hope that the Government will allow hon. Members to express their own views rather than trying to impose the view of a section of the Cabinet. I have been part of the campaign against tobacco advertising for many years—long before I was elected. I am sure that many other right hon. and hon. Members have waited even longer for an opportunity to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising.
  There is widespread evidence that tobacco advertising has an effect on consumption, whatever some right hon. and hon. Members may say. There is evidence that the Government themselves accept. Despite that, the Department of Health has failed to act decisively. The body of people—and organisations—who have come out in favour of a ban has been growing daily. I am sure that most hon. Members here have received information from various groups urging us to support a ban. One group in favour of a ban is the Conservative Medical Society. The patrons of that esteemed organisation are the Prime Minister and his immediate predecessor, who is not exactly

  597
  well known for her anti-smoking stance. Even the Cabinet is split on the issue, with senior Ministers such as the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a former Secretary of State for Health, being reported as being in favour of a ban.
  Despite the groundswell of support, the Government have failed to act. In its recent document, "Smoke-Free for Health", the Department of Health admitted that smoking and its consequences for the health of the nation were still a major problem and that it was especially unhappy that smoking levels among 11 to 15-year-olds were not declining as much as it would like. The Government's response to the news—proposals to tax advertising or a levy on hoardings—will merely swell the Treasury coffers. Despite accepting the link between advertising and consumption, all that the Department has given us is an action plan which plans to take no effective action.
  What is the extent of the health problems related to smoking? There are some useful statistics on this, courtesy of the Department of Health. Every year, more than 100,000 people die from tobacco-related diseases, more than 1,100 of them in my constituency of Rochdale. One non-smoker dies each day from lung cancer as a result of inhaling other people's smoke.
  About 50 children under five are admitted each clay to hospital suffering from illnesses related to passive smoking. Those children also have more respiratory diseases than children from families who do not smoke. At a recent conference, it was declared that passive smoking was the biggest single factor in cot deaths. It is clear from those figures and many others that smoking is a major health hazard. Should we, therefore, be encouraging people to take up that addictive and dangerous habit? I think not.
  Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Lady has produced some figures, but she has not substantiated them. She has not explained how they have been evaluated or whether we can be sure about them. Will she enlighten us?
  Ms Lynne: I suggest that the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) contacts the Department of Health. I am sure that the Department will give him all the statistics that he needs. Nobody here today is arguing that people should not have the right to choose to smoke.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am.
  Ms Lynne: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We may in future want to consider measures such as those that the United States Government are proposing whereby smokers are limited to smoking in certain places. Today, we are simply talking about a ban on advertising tobacco products. Given that most of us agree that smoking is harmful, it must be questionable whether such activities should be advertised on that basis alone.
  I admit that the evidence on the effects of a ban is mixed. However, it is clear that in many places a ban has been successful. In Norway, smoking has decreased by 9 per cent. since the introduction of a ban. In New Zealand, it has decreased by 5·5 per cent. and in Canada by 4 per cent. Of course I accept that there are other influences that lead people to smoke, such as parental example, which may be more important. However, that alone is not an adequate excuse for not tackling the problem of tobacco advertising.
  598
  If, as many people argue, tobacco advertising is of little consequence and merely encourages people to change brands, why do tobacco companies spend about £100 million a year advertising their products? If the general public are so immune to advertising in general, why are the Government spending £12 million on an advertising and publicity campaign against smoking? Clearly, advertising does have an effect on people's behaviour. If it does not, the tobacco companies and the Department of Health are wasting an awful lot of money.
  The final argument against banning tobacco advertising is that it is a terrible affront to freedom. As a Liberal Democrat, I am naturally concerned about attacks on individual liberties. However, we should consider whether it is more important for tobacco companies to have the freedom to advertise their wares or for individual citizens to have the freedom to live long and healthy lives. To my mind, a long and healthy life is of greater importance.
  We have long had restrictions on the freedom of tobacco companies to advertise their products. Cigarette advertising, as has been mentioned, was banned on television in 1964 and the ban was extended to other tobacco products in 1991. Essentially, the theoretical argument for banning advertising was won more than 30 years ago. The Government's weak-kneed response to these arguments and to others that have been put by other hon. Members is that the voluntary controls that they have agreed with the industry are perfectly adequate. I would dispute that.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: If the argument that the advertising of tobacco was all about brands, would it not be true to say that if all brands were banned from advertising they would have nothing to lose? Does the hon. Lady agree that the reason why hon. Members are arguing against the Bill is that they want to atttract new people to smoking?
  Ms Lynne: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point with which I agree. Although the cigarette advertising code of practice says that adverts must not appeal more to the young than to the rest of the population, it is clear, as has been stated before, that the "Reg" campaign for Embassy Regal cigarettes did so. We all know that the series of advertisements was eventually withdrawn under pressure from the regulators. However, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley said, the adverts are back in a different form. The problem with regulations, voluntary or otherwise, is that advertisers will do their best to get around them and will often succeed in subtle ways which are not noticed by the regulator until it is too late.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: What would happen if we banned the advertising of tobacco products and therefore the Government health warning disappeared from magazines and billboards? What impact would that have?
  Ms Lynne: It would mean that a lot of young people especially would not take up smoking. If they could not see the tobacco advertising hoardings, we would not need the Government health warning.
  The health risks involved mean that smoking is not a habit that we should be encouraging people to take up. If tobacco had been discovered in the past 100 years, rather than in the time of Elizabeth I, it would have been declared illegal. The number of teenage smokers shows that current campaigns and regulations do not work among the group of people about which we should be most concerned. The freedom of potential smokers to live a long and healthy life

  599
  and the freedom of their children or partners to be unaffected by passive smoking for outweigh the freedom of the tobacco industry to market their products.
  I therefore urge the House to support the Bill for the sake of the health of nation.
  11.55 pm
  Sir John Hannam: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on securing a place in the ballot and also on the selection of such an important subject for his Bill. Many of us have had the opportunity to promote private Members Bills in the past, but no one has had such an opportunity to save hundreds and possibly thousands of lives through such a Bill.
  It is important for the House to remember that the Bill is an attempt not to remove an essential freedom from the individual, but to protect the susceptible individual from the dangers of addiction to a dangerous drug through subtle advertising. John Stuart Mill wrote on liberty:
  "as soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion … Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty and placed in that of morality or law".
  There are plenty of precedents for such limitations in the promotion of other goods. Prescription medicines are not allowed by law to be advertised to the general public, and under the British code of advertising practice, no advertisement to the lay public is allowed in respect of a long list of diseases and conditions including cataracts, glaucoma, kidney disease, tuberculosis, any heart disease, diabetes, cancer and a number of others. It is extremely ironic that it is illegal to advertise cures for cancer, but legal to advertise and promote the agent that causes it.
  Every year, 110,000 people die from smoking-related diseases in Britain. Smoking is the greatest preventable threat to health in the developed world. It kills 21 times as many people as road accidents and 15 times as many people as those who die of suicide, murder or manslaughter. Smoking is responsible for approximately one third of all cancers. Lung cancer kills more people than any other type of cancer, and 81 per cent. of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking.
  The younger the person when he or she begins smoking, the greater the risk of developing lung cancer. When I see young boys and girls puffing away at cigarettes, I feel a deep sense of anguish at the dangers they are facing.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: On that point, I am fortunate to have as one of my constituents Professor Baum, professor of surgery and director of clinical research at the Royal Marsden hospital. In a letter to me, he says that he was especially in favour of banning tobacco advertising, and says that it could prevent young people from developing the habit. The letter states:
  "this could lead to the saving of say 20,000 premature deaths a year. This simple expedient could achieve more than the sum total of our research efforts into cancer".
  Sir John Hannam: The hon. Lady is right to produce that evidence. All hon. Members have received a wide range of representations from medical experts that give the same message. There are other common killers in our lives, one of which is coronary heart disease. That is the leading
  600
  cause of death in the United Kingdom, and smoking is responsible for at least 20 per cent. of those 175,000 deaths.
  My father died of a coronary attack 10 years before his normal life expectation. He was a chain smoker who smoked 50 or more a day. He was encouraged to smoke during the first world war, in which he served, by the free issue of good old Woodbine cigarettes to all service men. We talked about parental influence—I grew up with my two brothers and my sister to the sound each morning of a wracking smoker's cough. The effect of my father smoking meant that none of us ever smoked a cigarette in our lives.
  In recent years, medical evidence has accumulated to the stage where any measure to prevent smoking addiction surely must have the support of anyone interested in preventive care.
  Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend has read out figures on the causes of death that are probably not in dispute. He mentioned coronary diseases and heart problems. To provide a sense of balance, he should inform us—if he knows the figures—how many diseases are alcohol-related, particularly in relation to young people. If, as I suspect, those figures are comparable with the ones that he has given on tobacco-related illness, would he follow the same course of action suggested in the Bill and ban the advertising of alcohol?
  Sir John Hannam: I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to make the points that he wants to make in his own speech. As someone who is interested in preventing illness, disease and death, I find it astonishing that people should use another activity that also causes deaths to argue against a measure that could prevent hundreds and thousands of deaths.
  We now know that unborn children are affected by their mothers smoking, just as non-smokers are affected by smokers in confined spaces. With all that evidence, I am amazed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health still defends the present position, although she is beginning to meet our wishes with the voluntary code. I am amazed that the Government oppose the European draft directive to ban tobacco advertising.
  The costs to the health service are enormous. About 10,000 hospital beds are occupied daily by people suffering from smoking-related diseases, at an annual cost to the NHS of more than £325 million. The Government have set "Health of the Nation" targets for the reduction in the morbidity and mortality patterns in heart disease, cancers, HIV and AIDS, sexual health, accidents and mental illness. Smoking has been implicated directly or indirectly—including social settings—in the epidemiology of those diseases. If there is no ban on tobacco advertising, the Government's own good intentions for health of the nation issues will be seriously undermined.
  If the Department of Health wishes to decrease the incidents and prevalence of those diseases, but stands out against banning advertisements, it sets up a contradiction. It is strange that, while the Department of Health pays lip service to the problem, I, and I expect other hon. Members, have received impassioned pleas from our constituency health organisations asking us to support the Bill.
  I have received letters from the Devon family health services authority, the Royal Devon and Exeter health care trust, the Exeter and district community health service trust, the Exeter and North Devon health authorities, the

  601
  Exeter and district branch of the National Council of Women of Great Britain and the local office of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Surely that combined call from integral parrts of our national health service should convince the Government of the need for a complete ban on tobacco advertising.
  I received a letter from the British Thoracic Society which stated:
  "In our work as respiratory physicians we are all too aware of the tragic consequences of smoking. Every year over 40,000 men and women die from lung cancer, and in 90 per cent. of these people the condition is caused by smoking. On top of this, 75 per cent. of the 22,000 people who die from chronic bronchitis and emphysema can blame their condition on smoking, and we know and see much of the long-term breathlessness and suffering which precedes death."
  This is the important bit:
  "It seems most unlikely that the Government's White Paper targets for smoking reduction among children will be achieved without a major new initiative particularly to reduce the alarming levels of children and especially young girls who continue to take up smoking. The Government's advisers, in the Smee Report, concluded after a full appraisal of the evidence that one of the most effective ways of reducing the uptake of smoking among young people would be a complete ban on all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion."
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend and take up time, but as two and a half hours have passed and only one speech has been made against the Bill, I hope that I will be allowed to make a point.
  Surely my hon. Friend, who is a reasonable man, will accept that, notwithstanding one's disapproval of smoking—I do not smoke, either—there is a fundamental civil liberties point; that never before have we banned advertising of something that was freely available over the counter, not on a prescription and not on a licence. It is truly a mark of a free society that one is prepared to tolerate other people's practices and opinions, even if one disapproves of them.
  Sir John Hannam: If that was a correct statement, I would agree with it, but it is not. There are bans on advertising in a wide range of areas.
  Mr. Leigh: Where?
  Sir John Hannam: On television and on radio. We have bans, in effect. As I have mentioned, we have bans on the promotion of all sorts of other products. My hon. Friend's argument does not apply.
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I do not want to labour the point, but does my hon. Friend accept that restrictions are different from total bans, and that there is no example of a product which has a total ban on advertising and yet is freely available? That is a crucial point.
  Sir John Hannam: There is a total ban on the advertising of cigarattes on television and radio. There is a ban, in effect. It is untrue that it does not exist—it does exist. The Bill would extend the ban to try to alleviate a grave threat to the nation's health.
  The question is whether a ban would work and effectively reduce smoking. The fact that the Government are pursuing wide-ranging controls through their voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry shows that they believe that bans work.
  602
  In any case, the chief economic adviser of the Department of Health, who has been quoted several times, in his survey on the effectiveness of such bans, reported that other countries have introduced bans on advertising and that there have been evident significant drops in consumption. He has reported on four countries, but others, such as France, Italy, Australia, Sweden and Portugal, also now have bans on advertising, so we are not treading a lone course in following the proposal.
  In this country, such a ban would replace the voluntary agreements between the Government and the tobacco industry which currently control tobacco advertising. All are agreed, I believe, that that self-regulatory system is flawed, as it regulates only the style and the media of tobacco advertising. Such advertising is banned on television and radio, but it is legal elsewhere. It is legal in streets, shops, cinemas, sponsored sports and entertainment venues. As we know, every year the tobacco industry spends more than £100 million on advertisements which help to recruit new users, usually young children arid young adults.
  If there is a problem with a loss of tax revenue, it is misplaced. The saving in health costs and in the health of the nation will more than outweigh the tax revenue lost through the introduction of the measure. In any case, the Government have power to adjust tax revenue through the tobacco duties that they apply.
  We in the all-party disablement group place at the top of the list the prevention of illness, disease and disability. Prevention is absolutely at the top of the list. I passionately believe that the House should support the measure, and I ask hon. Members to give it a Second Reading today.
  12.10 pm
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: This Bill, like the one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Faulds), is partly aimed at the rights and protection of the health of children. This is one of the areas on which I wish to concentrate.
  Hon. Members may have seen the report from the Royal College of Physicians, a "Charter for children's rights to freedom from tobacco". Essentially, the message of the royal college, which is backed by a range of organisations such as the British Cardiac Society, the British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation, the British Thoracic Society and numerous organisations concerned with health, is that they expect public health to reflect those rights.
  There has been some discussion about who is influenced by advertising. There is no doubt that young people are especially susceptible to being affected by advertising. Eighty-four per cent. of regular smokers say that they became regular smokers before the age of 20. Forty-five per cent. of male smokers and 39 per cent. of female smokers say that they became regular smokers before the age of 16—before the age below which it is now illegal for retailers to sell and supply the product.
  It has been suggested by those who speak for the advertising industry and the tobacco industry that tobacco advertising only increases the market share, not the total consumption. All the evidence points to the fact that the advertising of cigarettes has a particular effect, both in terms of total consumption and market share, on young people, especially those under the age of 16.

  603
  When we talk about this product, and whether it is right or wrong to ban specific products, we must examine the specific nature of tobacco. Can hon. Members name any other manufactured product that, if used according to the manufacturer's instructions, is likely to kill one in four of the people who use it? Tobacco must be seen in a specific light.
  We know that the largest cause of preventable ill health is smoking. Each year, 110,000 premature deaths are caused by and linked directly to smoking. A comparison has been made between deaths from smoking and deaths from other causes such as road accidents and suicides. If we add together all the deaths from road accidents, suicides, murder, manslaughter, fires, the use of illicit drugs and AIDS, we still find that there are six times more premature deaths from smoking than the total number of deaths from those other causes.
  We are talking about 300 deaths a day—that is 300 customers a day that the tobacco industry loses. To maintain its market, the industry needs to recruit 300 new smokers a day. Who are those new smokers whom the industry recruits? Are they people my age? Are they people of your age, Madam Deputy Speaker? Are they people of the age of the Minister? No. The people who are recruited daily are young people—and predominantly those under the age of 16.
  All the advertising—it may have been banned on television and radio—is geared in its imagery to appeal to young people. Tory Members say that perhaps we should leave this to the good sense and trust of the tobacco industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley showed through the "Reg" campaign how much we can trust the tobacco industry. The industry will use every method available to get round the voluntary regulations.
  In 1990, the Secretary of State said:
  "if cigarettes were introduced today, their production and sale would probably be banned".—[Official Report, 20 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 1340.]
  Tory Members have said that the sale and consumption of tobacco is not illegal. The sale of tobacco products to persons under 16 is unlawful, yet the basis of advertising campaigns is to attract people to whom it is illegal to sell the product. I do not believe that children, through advertising—
  Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman puts a persuasive case, which is widely accepted, about the health damage caused by smoking, and suggests that, if tobacco were a new product, it would not be legal in the first place. Is he therefore saying that he supports making the product illegal—and if not, why not?
  Mr. Austin-Walker: That is a wider debate. I am concerned today with getting through a Bill which will make a major contribution to saving lives, and particularly the lives of young people.
  All the advertising industry and most of the imagery in advertising is geared towards young people. I believe that that is inherently evil, and hon. Members have a responsibility to try to stop it. The Government have accepted the principle that it is right to put controls on advertising, because they have accepted that cigarettes and tobacco should be banned from advertising on radio and television.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman says emphatically that advertising is aimed specifically at young people, and he mentioned the "Reg" campaign. "Reg", as we have heard, was an old and balding man, who I hardly think would appeal to young people. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how advertisements such as the one in which a dog was cocking its leg against a bollard and other tobacco advertisements which mystify the majority of the population, including children, actually influence young people to take up cigarette smoking?
  Mr. Austin-Walker: The hon. Gentleman may find that children and young people are more adept at interpreting the messages which are concealed behind advertisements than perhaps people of his own age and generation.
  Mr. Bayley: One year ago, Kirklees council conducted research on the effects of the "Reg" campaign among young people. In a sample of young people aged between 14 and 15, 43 per cent. said that the "Reg" advertisements would make them more likely to smoke, while 5 per cent. said that the advertisements would make them less likely to smoke.
  The research was done long before the Health Education Authority research, and the tobacco companies said at the time that the research was flawed, and that it should be chucked into the waste bin and ignored. However, the HEA produced research later which was so damning, and which backed up those early findings so strongly, that the "Reg" campaign was banned.
  Mr. Austin-Walker: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, and I agree with him.
  I draw the House's attention to a resume of the academic research on the influence of advertising on children. The document is called "From the Billboard to the Playground", and was produced by the Cancer Research Campaign. It concentrated on the particular impact of advertising on young children.
  The research shows that young people more readily remember advertisements. They can identify the product with its slogan; the research shows that 83 per cent. of 11 to 14-year-olds recall seeing at least one cigarette advert, and over half remember seeing two or more. When those same children were shown examples of cigarette adverts, they were, on average, able to recognise as many as five different adverts.
  Hon. Members should look at the interviews with children themselves, when they were asked what images they see from advertising. The children replied:
  "hard men smoke this cigarette … the advert was telling you that if you smoke them you are going to be a macho he-man … it is colourful, like all cigaretts ads … trying to associate the products with glamour … glamourising cigarettes—cocktails and all that fanciness".
  There is a suggestion that advertising is directed at young people to make smoking appear smart or cool because the tobacco industry needs to recruit those 300 new smokers a day.
  Mr. Congdon: The issue of advertising and young people is clearly critical. The Smee report has been referred to by hon. Members in the debate. Although it is true that advertising increases the awareness of young people, the report suggests that it is not reliable evidence that advertising increases consumption among young people. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that?
  Mr.Austin-Walker: The hon. Gentleman ought to read some of the statements by Ministers. One of the things on which all hon. Members agree is that we must be clear in the messages we give to young peole and children. Children need clear messages. As a result of the current state of public policy, children are receiving mixed messages. The advertising from the tobacco industry contradicts the advertising of the Government's health message. A ban on cigarette and tobacco advertising would be just about the most powerful health message that the Government could give.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health came to the House to talk about health in London. She made a statement about the importance of primary care services and the prevention of ill-health. The biggest contribution she could make to combating ill-health in the nation would be to put a ban on cigarette advertising.
  Every Member of Parliament could point to the impact of cigarette smoking on their constituencies. Of the 792 people who die in Woolwich every year, one in five dies as a result of cigarette smoking. Each year, 458 residents of Woolwich go into a national health service hospital because of smoking-related illnesses. Twelve beds every day are taken up by people with smoking-related illnesses.
  The Secretary of State said yesterday that some of us in London were obsessed with beds. I can tell her one way of reducing the need for beds. It is to reduce the consumption of cigarettes. She could make a major contribution by supporting my hon. Friend's Bill.
  Mr. Sweeney: On that point, has the hon. Gentleman found, as I have, that many people who work in the health service have written pleading with us to support the Bill? They appreciate how many lives it will save and how much it will reduce the pressure on our valuable national health service resources.
  Mr. Austin-Walker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I was about to refer to the £325 million direct cost to the national health service of tobacco-related illness. I draw in aid and support the comments which consultant physicians in my area have made to me, as they have to other hon. Members. I have received a letter signed by every consultant in the department of respiratory and general medicine of the Greenwich health care trust urging me to come to the House today to support my hon. Friend's Bill.
  I have received a letter from a consultant physician at the Brook hospital. He says
  "As a Chest Physician, virtually every day I see both in my Out-patient clinics and as In-patients… the effect that smoking has had on my middle-aged and elderly patients who have gradually become incapacitated with chronic bronchitis and emphysema which has progressed to respiratory failure … In addition, I have a substantial number of young patients with asthma, many of whom have taken up smoking in their teens. These individuals as well as risking the medium and long-term consequences of smoking, already in a minor way exhibit the detrimental effects of the habit on the frequency and severity of their attacks of asthma. Like most health professionals"—
  in this case we ought to listen to those people who are involved at the sharp end in dealing with the menace of tobacco smoking—
  "I feel exasperated and frustrated by the unwillingness of the Department of Health to support proposals to ban tobacco advertising; indeed, the perception is that the Department is more interested in the promotion of the tobacco industry than good health."
  606
  If the Minister wants to show that that is not true, and end the exasperation and frustration of consultants, he should give his whole-hearted and unqualified support to my hon. Friend's Bill.
  There is concrete evidence. Some people will deny evidence, no matter how strong. If they do not believe that the evidence is absolutely foolproof, I ask them to examine the evidence on the basis of reasonableness and probability. No one who takes an objective view could come to any other conclusion than, first, that smoking kills, and secondly, that advertising tobacco increases the take-up of smoking.
  As the hon Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said, other factors may lead to an increase or decrease in smoking. Price, taxation and Government health education campaigns may all have an effect, but advertising presents smoking as an apparently normal and socially acceptable habit, and it swamps the health message that the Government are trying to convey. Will the Minister consider how many children could be saved from thinking that smoking is okay, cool and a smart habit?
  As the Smee report suggests, smokers feel that smoking cannot be as dangerous as the Government point out, if they allow the product to be advertised so freely. The Government spend an important sum on tobacco-linked health education, but it is a pittance compared to the resources of the tobacco industry against which they are competing.
  The Government report states that the existence of pro-smoking advertising dilutes the impact of the health education message. Other factors may lead to a decline in smoking, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, but Smee concludes in the Government's own report that in those countries where a ban has been imposed, taking into account all the other factors, such as price, taxation and health education,
  "the banning of advertising was followed by a fall … which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors."
  The Conservative party derives much of its income from the tobacco industry. One wonders whether some Conservative Members might be more concerned about the health of the Tory party than the health of the nation. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members believe that that is a slur on their integrity, they can prove it by voting for my hon. Friend's Bill.
  12.26 pm
  The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I have always been surprised at the convention of the House by which we congratulate an hon. Member on his success in the ballot, bearing in mind that it was a ballot, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on the way in which he introduced his Bill. As one who has introduced a private Member's Bill and seen it through to the statute book I appreciate the commitment and emotion associated with the introduction of his Bill.
  First, I shall try to make as much common cause as possible with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Rother Valley. I am sure that everyone would wish to endorse his generous comments about the late Jo Richardson and Jimmy Boyce. I did not know Jo Richardson very well, but it is one of the pleasures of this House that friendships can strike up across the Floor between Members of opposite parties. I should like to think that Jimmy Boyce and I would have considered ourselves friends and just before his death we were discussing the

  607
  possibility of my visiting his constituency with him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not a matter for me, but I hope that it will be possible for those hon. Members who so wish to attend his memorial service later this afternoon.
  There are many areas of common cause between us. First, there is no debate about the fact that we want to reduce tobacco consumption. Our record in this country is impressive and I shall return to it. However, the Bill is not about reducing, or not reducing, tobacco consumption as that is a given.
  Secondly, I agree that it is not a party political issue and I regret the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker). In three hours, that was the first attempt to make a party political point on an issue which is not party political.
  Another issue on which we agree is that advertising is an important influence. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley pointed out, we said so ourselves on Monday in paragraph 4.52 of the document to which reference has been made. So there is no disagreement among us about whether advertising is a legitimate area of concern-we agree that it is.
  This manifestly difficult issue generates strong feelings and views, some of which have been expressed this morning. Others will no doubt be expressed before the end of the debate. The Government believe that the existing voluntary agreements, which we intend to strengthen, have been effective and have served us well, that they can achieve the necessary protection and that they are preferable to the legislative route. But I wish to deal with that matter as helpfully as I can.
  Clearly, there is no quick fix to this problem. Long-term concerted action will be more effective than just slogans, so I want to show that the Government have identified the main issues that affect tobacco consumption. We are trying to take, and believe that we are taking, effective action on all fronts. It will range from the £12 million three-year advertising programme to be launched later this year, to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley referred, to improving the material to be made available by general practitioners to people who visit their surgeries.
  Controls on advertising are one element in that picture. I shall seek to explain why we believe that our proposed course of opening negotiations with the tobacco industry to strengthen the present voluntary agreement is preferable to a ban.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: As my right hon. Friend will know, I am a sponsor of the Bill. Is he aware that, seven or eight years ago, when I was a Minister at the Department, I made speeches using exactly the same words as he is now using about the value of the voluntary ban, how the Department of Health itself would spend more money on advertising to persuade youngsters not to smoke, and how the legislative route was not the right way to proceed? Does he now agree that the seven or eight years that have elapsed and the extraordinary body of evidence that has been presented so effectively by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) show that it is now time to think again?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend that, since she was a distinguished Minister in this Department, the level of tobacco consumption has fallen considerably
  608
  under the measures which she endorsed for this House. What she advocated at the Dispatch Box has proved to be effective in the years since she stood here.
  If we depart from the voluntary approach and ban advertising for a product that is and will remain legal to sell, significant evidence would be needed to convince us that that would deliver more effective results. The element of the speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley that was significant by its absence was the fact that he did not say whether he felt comfortable about seeking to make illegal the advertising of something that is legal.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members are concerned that this could be the thin end of a rather nasty wedge? Has he seen the comment of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in which he asked the junior Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to
  "examine the possibility of promoting a ban on the advertising of alcohol products"?—[Official Report, 28 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 967.]
  Is there not a danger that a ban on tobacco advertising may be followed by a similar ban on the advertising of whisky, beer and tens of other products of which the hon. Member disapproves?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I understand that concern. It is shared by some in the House and outside, but I shall concentrate on the Bill that is before us. No doubt, when right hon. and hon. Members make their judgment at the end of the debate, they will play a number of arguments in their minds. For some, the hon. Gentleman's argument may be one that they wish to play.
  Mr. Barron: The Minister's argument about freedom and of things that are able to be bought legally could well have been argued in 1965 when the Government and subsequent Governments decided that they would not allow the advertising of cigarettes on radio and television, because of public health implications. What has altered?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I think that the hon. Gentleman made that point earlier, but I am happy to have given him the opportunity to make it again.
  It is already known—I repeated it on Monday—that we are making good progress on three of the four targets that we set out in "Health of the Nation". One target on which we are not making good progress is in young people aged 11 to 15. That is a matter of concern. I have been able to tell the House of some interesting new information. Within that age group, the children whose parents do not smoke have reached the target of 6 per cent. The percentage of children of parents who smoke has not shown any movement. I put that point to the House because no one has yet sought to make a differential advertising argument in relation to whether advertising would be effective for the children of parents who smoke compared with children of those who do not. The House will want to bear that piece of relevant information in mind.
  Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister agree that factors that dissuade people from taking up smoking tend to reinforce themselves? In families where neither parent smokes, there will be strong pressure on the children not to smoke. Therefore, those children will be less susceptible to the effects of tobacco advertising. All the evidence shows that those who are most affected by advertising are those who grow up in a smoke-filled environment. Therefore, it is

  609
  important to ban advertising, because that group are most at risk of smoking, are affected by advertising and take up smoking in greatest numbers.
  Dr. Mawhinney: When the hon. Gentleman comes to reflect on what he has just said, he will find that, in a perverse sort of way, he is reinforcing the point that I am putting to the House.
  I shall deal later with parental behaviour and attitude, about which there is common ground across the House. I have not yet heard it argued that there is some differential advertising effect. In the light of the new information, that needs to be argued. About 20 years ago, 45 per cent. of this country's population smoked. In 1990, the figure was 30 per cent. In 1992, 28 per cent. smoked.
  That is a very impressive record, not because the statistics look good or that it shines a lamp of glory on the Government, but because it has been achieved by the combined effects of many people and represents lives saved and ill health avoided. We need to examine the way in which that was achieved, and whether any improve-ments are necessary.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I do not think that there is any argument about the reduction in smoking. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, of a disturbing trend among young people? The lung cancer death rate among women under 45 is 50 per cent. higher in some parts of Yorkshire than elsewhere in the country. Many of us are worried about the number of young people, particularly girls—not even women—who are taking up smoking after seeing all the advertising.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of that problem, and I am no less concerned about it than my hon. Friend. We are all concerned. Concern about ill health is not a party political issue; all Members of Parliament feel such concern—on behalf of their constituents, and as a result of their corporate responsibility for the well-being of the country.
  The issue is not whether lung cancer is caused by smoking. I was brought up in a family of non-smokers, but my uncle died of lung cancer, having smoked about 80 cigarettes a day. As a teenager, I visited him in hospital shortly before he died. Like many hon. Members, I need no instruction about the link between lung cancer and smoking. The issue, however, is much narrower—whether the Bill would improve the existing arrangements, which we are reviewing and some of which we intend to tighten so as to reduce tobacco consumption even further.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I thank my hon. Friend for the useful statistics that he gave. Two factors, however, should be borne in mind. First, a voluntary arrangement has been working very well in the United Kingdom; it has been revised nine times, and honed down. Secondly, action is being taken in regard to advertising. The Bill is, after all, about advertising. Despite the confluence of those two factors, Opposition Members say that advertising is causing the trouble, but obviously it is not.
  Dr. Mawhinney: As I have said, I do not consider this a party political issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about it, and I respect their views.
  Smoking-related diseases still account for about 110,000 premature and avoidable deaths a year. It is estimated that some 50 million working days may be lost
  610
  annually because of smoking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) dealt with all the health issues with his customary skill.
  Evidence also suggests—it is more recent evidence, but it is important—that perhaps one non-smoker a day dies as a consequence of inhaling other people's tobacco smoke. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made that point, citing Roy Castle. Every day, about 50 children under five are admitted to hospital suffering from illnesses related to passive smoking; children that age are almost certainly inhaling smoke from their parents' cigarettes.
  There is no difference between hon. Members on this point. The White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", set out for the first time specific, quantified targets for reducing smoking, and the Government as a whole are committed to those targets. They have been widely welcomed by everyone with an interest in health. The targets are ambitious but, given the seriousness of the subject, they should be. They are not simply a forward projection of historic trends and the Government are determined to meet them.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am sure that the House will agree that the statistic of 110,000 people a year dying from smoking-related diseases is appalling. Why, then, does hardly anyone die from the smoking or using of cannabis? If we treat this as a health issue, cannot a case be made for banning nicotine and legalising cannabis?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I have a vague memory that I have heard the hon. Gentleman on this point before. However, I suspect that our agenda today is full enough without wandering down that byway.
  Mr. Thurnham: My right hon. Friend has outlined the success of the Government's voluntary policy in many respects. He will be aware that, nationally, the infant mortality rate has declined but that Bolton has a rising rate of infant mortality. It is now twice as high as the national average, which is causing concern. Will he confirm the link between maternal smoking and low birth-weight babies and that infant mortality is linked to the incidence of low birth-weight babies? Is he aware of the strength of feeling in Bolton about the "Reg" targeted advertising campaign, which without doubt is in breach of the voluntary code because of its impact on young people? Will he consider asking tobacco and advertising companies to make Bolton an oasis free of advertising and to conduct a health education campaign to see whether we can reduce diseases and the effects of tobacco smoking?
  Dr. Mawhinney: On the first of my hon. Friend's three questions, yes, there is evidence linking maternal smoking to low birth-weight babies and other problems with new-born children. Secondly, I am aware of the effects of the "Reg" campaign in Bolton, not least because he and my fellow Minister in the Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), have assiduously informed me of it on behalf of their constituents, and I pay tribute to them for doing so. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend will know, and he will be encouraged that I know, he has written to me in the past couple of days suggesting the oasis idea. I shall reflect on it and write to him.
  I am beginning to develop a problem. Let me share it with the House. It has always been my view that, especially on private Member's Bills, Ministers presenting the

  611
  Government's case should be as open and as active in the debate as it is possible to be, and I have sought to do that in the past 20 minutes. The consequence is that we shall not make as much progress and other hon. Members will not be able to make the speeches that they should like. I leave it to the House to decide. I shall seek to be as responsive and helpful as I can, but there is a price to be paid by other hon. Members and they will have to decide how they wish to handle the matter.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Recognising that 110,000 deaths a year are attributed to smoking-related diseases and that progress as a result of Government action to date has been rather slow in solving the problem, will the Minister make a dramatic gesture to show clearly today that the Government are taking this seriously, because it will become increasingly difficult for small measures to have any real impact in the future?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The difficulty is that the hon. Gentleman's point does not stand robustly against the evidence. We are not making slow progress. Other than the Netherlands, to which I shall return later, we have the best record in Europe and one of the best in the world for reducing tobacco consumption. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I am not given to dramatic gestures most of the time.
  On Monday, the Government published "Smoke-free for Health", an action plan to achieve the "Health of the Nation" targets on smoking. It shows that we are on track for three of the four main targets, which is encouraging, but we need to build on that momentum. We also need to recognise that there are sectors in which we are not making the progress that we should like to make, and that is especially so in the 11 to 15 age group. That is a key concern for hon. and right hon. Members and it has been reinforced in the debate. I want the House to know that it is a key concern of Ministers also.
  Because we recognise the need for continuing action, the plan sets out the key elements of what we believe to be a strategic and comprehensive approach to achieve the targets. That approach extends throughout Government, and comment has already been made, not least by the hon. Member for Rother Valley, about the involvement of the Treasury in that policy. Controls on tobacco advertising are one element of that strategy, but they are only one element. There are others.
  We are taking action on price because we know that there is good, solid evidence that price influences consumption. We are taking action to ensure that tobacco products are not sold to children; I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), whose Bill—which became the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991—made that possible.
  We are also taking action to tell smokers and non-smokers about the health risk and trying to put in place helplines and other forms of help to people who wish to quit smoking. We are trying to take action to protect non-smokers from passive smoking. We are trying to take action to improve scientific understanding of the risks from tobacco and to reduce the harm from tobacco products, and I was glad that several people welcomed my announcement
  612
  on Monday of the setting up of the new scientific committee. We are also taking action to ensure effective controls on advertising and promotion.
  Cutting smoking does not require action from Government only. It is a challenge for everyone. One ill-informed newspaper report accused me of passing the buck when I said that on Monday. It is a fallacy that the Government, by themselves, have the ability to reduce tobacco consumption. All of us have a part to play. I will discuss that in more detail later, but parents should realise how strong an influence they have on their children's smoking habits.
  There seems to be no argument to enable us to discount the evidence that children with parents who both smoke are two and a half times as likely to be regular smokers as children with non-smoking parents. One study has shown that children who believe that their parents strongly disapprove of them smoking are seven times less likely to become smokers than children who think that their parents do not care. Whatever else may divide the House today, as the message goes out to the country I hope that there is no ambiguity about the message that parents' behaviour and attitude to their children and to whether their children smoke is one of the most powerful ways of trying to stop that crucial 11 to 15 age group from adopting the habit.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: One of my constituents, Mr. Tim Graham, is a founder member of Parents Against Tobacco. He asks the Government to help parents to convince their children of the dangers of smoking. He says
  "It is very difficult to convince young people that we are serious about the risks of smoking, when they can see striking adverts for cigarettes on the streets where they play, in the shops where they buy their sweets, and when they watch sport on TV."
  If the Government are serious about assisting parents they should respond to that cry from parents who are fighting that battle, and ban tobacco advertising.
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady has twice made interventions that are essentially the same as her speech. I understand her point and I want her to know that my discussions at constituency level with my local Parents Against Tobacco group are constructive. Both she and I are committed in a variety of ways to trying to strengthen the influence of parents, which is crucial for this age group.
  We look to teachers and school governors to give a lead by adopting policies on smoking and by taking action on health education in schools. They are talking to the crucial 11 to 15 age group. The nation curriculum now requires children between the ages of 7 and 16 to be taught about the harmful effects of smoking. I suspect that that requirement finds broad agreement across the House.
  We expect retailers to obey the law which prevents sales of tobacco to children under 16. If they fail to do so, we expect local authorities to discharge their responsibilities. We also urge employers to introduce written policies and to restrict smoking throughout the workplace. The "Health of the Nation" working group devoted to workplace health, which includes representatives from industry, small business, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, is advising on how best to take that aspect forward.
  We are encouraging managers of public places to continue to think about the merits of introducing smoke-free areas and then to act. There has been a remarkable increase in the percentage of smoke-free public places over the past 10 years. That change has been carried

  613
  forward because people with a sense of ownership of their public places have made judgments about how they wish them to be. I continue to believe that that is an effective way forward. We want areas to cater for the interests of non-smokers. We expect health professionals to take every opportunity to use their special position to advise people about the damage done by smoking and to help them give up.
  Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend recall a written answer to me that revealed that many more youngsters are prosecuted for under-age drinking than for buying cigarettes under age? Chief constables and local authorities should address that problem. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend recognises that parental responsibility is the key factor in this equation. The major aim of the Bill must be to prevent people of 15 and younger from starting smoking.
  Is my right hon. Friend aware that even though cigarette advertisements have not been allowed on television in this country since 1965, Sir Donald Maitland, the chairman of the Health Education Authority, told us that 64 per cent. of children between nine and 14 honestly believed that they had seen advertising on television during the past week—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order
  Dr. Spink:That was because—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I call order, I expect hon. Members to resume their seats.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for his comments.
  I now turn more specifically to the policy on tobacco advertising. As the "Health of the Nation" White Paper and the action plan on smoking make clear, the Government recognise—the hon. Member for Rother Valley was right—the importance of effective controls on tobacco advertising and promotion. As has been said, the advertising of cigarettes on television has been banned since 1964. The ban was extended to all tobacco products in 1991. Other advertising and promotional activities have been controlled since 1971 under Governments of both parties through voluntary agreements between Health Ministers and the tobacco industry. The sponsorship of sport by the tobacco industry is also controlled through a separate voluntary agreement which is now the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
  The agreements already provide wide-ranging and strict controls on tobacco advertising. The main provisions of them include the stipulation that the content of all advertisements must comply with the cigarette advertising code of practice. Advertisements must not, for example, appeal more to the young than to the general population and they must not associate smoking with success of sex appeal. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Rother Valley said about the "Reg" advertising campaign and what may or may not be the re-emergence of that campaign.
  Mr. Barron: Yesterday, the Advertising Standards Authority replied to my letter about that recent advertisement and defended it. The only difference between that advertisement and the four adverts that it said in December had to be withdrawn is the absence of that
  614
  man's face. Does the Minister honestly think that we can have confidence in an authority if it polices matters in that way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I was careful to say to the hon. Gentleman that I listened carefully to the points that he made, not only about the campaign but about what he believed was its re-emergence.
  The second part of the agreement is that all press and poster advertising must carry health warnings covering 17·5 per cent. of the area and advertising is not allowed in magazines where more than 25 per cent. of the readership are women aged between 15 and 24. The number of shop-front advertisements will be reduced by 50 per cent. from the 1991 level in five years and the voluntary agreement on sport precludes tobacco companies from sponsoring activities in which the majority of participants are under 18 or which are designed to appeal mainly to the under-18 age bracket.
  The system of voluntary agreements has proved to be sufficiently flexible to respond to special concerns. One example is that when the voluntary agreement first came into effect, the area of posters which had to be covered with a health warning was 6 per cent. Now it is 17·5 per cent. The Government are concerned that the impact of the Bill would be to replace that flexible, voluntary system, based on negotiations in response to particular concerns, with a statutory ban on the advertising of that which, as I have said, it is and will remain legal to sell.
  I fully accept that the Bill is motivated by concerns over public health. We share and applaud those concerns.
  Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend' s speech is completely consistent with the case which the Government have made for some years, especially with regard to a voluntary agreement. However, many of us feel that that case has within it gross inconsistency. It must be evident to him from the many speeches that he has heard this morning, that there is strong support in the House for the Bill. We all hope very much—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No, we do not."] A clear majority of Members who have spoken have indicated their support for the Bill and we hope that it will go into Committee. If, nevertheless, some of my hon. Friends choose to divide the House on Second Reading, will my hon. Friend the Minister indicate what course he will take?
  Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend said that the overwhelming feeling is in favour of the Bill. It is because only one speech has been allowed that is against the Bill. There are a number of hon. Members who will not be called.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The longer we take on such unnecessary interventions, the fewer hon. Members I can call.
  Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has just said. It is a fact that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made a statement and was obviously waiting for the Minister to respond. There has been a desperate imbalance in argument allowed from this side of the House and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members are not criticising the Chair. I notice that the speeches have

  615
  been over-long. I am looking forward to the next speeches being short because I have a long list of Members who wish to speak and I imagine that some will speak for and some against.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I will take from that an indication that it may be better for me to get on and take fewer interventions, although I would wish to try to be as helpful as possible. It is not a matter for me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) knows, whether the House will divide or not or what the judgment of the House will be on the Bill. I am seeking to put the Government's case as clearly and as persuasively as I can. I am content that hon. Members will come to a judgment on it.
  A lot of comment has been made about the Smee report. As I was the person who asked Dr. Smee to conduct the report, perhaps I too may be permitted to say a word or two on it. In the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", the Government recognised widespread concern that controls on tobacco advertising and promotion should be strong and effective. We gave a commitment to review the effects of tobacco advertising and to consider further steps. The Smee report, as it has become called, if not known, reviewed the available evidence thoroughly.
  The Government have also considered the many comments on the report. The review supports the Government's view that there is a relationship between tobacco advertising and consumption—indeed, that is the rationale for the existing controls. We find little, however, to support the argument that a statutory ban would have a dramatic effect on further reducing smoking. That view is reinforced when we consider that other measures, such as price and parental influence, have a much greater impact than a statutory ban. We were also unconvinced by international evidence that a ban was necessary if we were to achieve our targets, which are the common ground at the heart of the debate.
  I want to consider those arguments in more detail. I fear that some supporters of an advertising ban often appear to overstate the evidence about its possible impact. We need to put that in perspective.
  Mrs. Currie: Will my right hon. Friend give way?.
  Dr. Mawhinney: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make progress.
  The studies reviewed in the Department of Health discussion document consider ban-related reductions in smoking using data collated over different periods. It is an interesting way to consider the matter and I want to bring to the attention of hon. Members the evidence from surveys in the United Kingdom.
  That evidence is clear. Dr. Smee said that, according to surveys of the time, if a ban had been imposed 30 years ago, the reduction in tobacco consumption would have been about 7 per cent. and that, if it had been introduced about 20 years ago, the reduction would have been about half that amount. But the two most recent studies in the United Kingdom both showed that there was no significant statistical link between the banning of advertising and the consumption of tobacco. People will have different interpretations of why that should be so.
  Having taught a little medical statistics in my time, my interpretation is that the increasingly stringent voluntary
  616
  ban of the past 20 years has almost certainly squeezed out of the system any benefit that a ban would be likely to produce.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: That is a misreading of the surveys.
  Dr. Mawhinney: The most recent surveys, which showed no statistically significant link, were not Government surveys, but were carried out independently and reported by Dr. Smee.
  Consumption fell from 45 to 28 per cent. in this country during the period referred to in the Smee report. Without a ban, which the evidence suggests would have had increasingly little effect with the passage of time, the consumption of tobacco dropped. To claim in the face of that evidence, as some health campaigners seem to do, that an advertising ban would have a dramatic effect in reducing smoking is not obviously supportable. It is arguable that the United Kingdom approach, which, through the voluntary system, employs a range of effective measures and places tough controls on tobacco advertising, is the most effective. It is noticeable and notable that, among European Union member states, only the Netherlands, which also relies on the voluntary approach, has a better record on reducing smoking than the United Kingdom.
  The international comparisons that have been men-tioned are also interesting. They show that a statutory ban does not guarantee success in reducing smoking. Supporters of a ban are fond of quoting the figures in the Smee report on the effects of banning advertising in other countries. Not only the hon. Member for Rother Valley but other hon. Members have quoted such figures.
  I confirm, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) did, that in Norway there was a 9 per cent. reduction in consumption associated with a ban. In Finland, there was a 7 per cent. reduction, and in Canada there was a 4 per cent. reduction. As my hon. Friend for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said, price might also have been associated with that reduction. However—this information might be new to the House—only Norway and Finland have had advertising bans in place for sufficient time to allow sensible comparisons of their changes in smoking prevalence with the changes in this country over similar periods.
  As I have said, in Norway, smoking prevalence has fallen by nine percentage points since advertising was banned in 1975. The House will wish to know that, over the same period, smoking prevalence in this country fell not by 9 per cent. but by 12 per cent. In Finland, smoking prevalence fell by three percentage points in the eight years following the ban. Over the same period in this country, it fell not by 3 per cent. but by 8 per cent. Over the same period, without a statutory ban, we have achieved a greater fall in smoking prevalence than those countries have achieved.
  Sir Peter Emery: There is no doubt that some of the Government's proposals work excellently. The policy was actually carried through in Norway and Finland. If we had an advertising ban, would we not have had a greater decrease in smoking in Britain than we achieved? We are left with a judgment, and I think that my right hon. Friend would accept that.
  Dr. Mawhinney: As is often the case, my right hon. Friend is exactly right. I was seeking to show that, when other countries are prayed in aid in support of a judgment, evidence in this country suggests that, with our own arrangements, we are doing better in percentage terms than countries which claim some success following the application of a ban.
  I am not saying whether those countries were right to introduce a ban; that is a matter for them. However, the hon. Member for Rother Valley is inviting us to impose a ban. If we are to take such a serious step and deem to be illegal advertisements for a product which itself is legal, the evidence will need to be sufficiently persuasive. I am sure that my right hon. Friend clearly understands that point.
  Mrs. Currie: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: No, I should like to make progress, if I may. I have already given way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery).
  Within the European Union, as I have said, the two countries with the best record for reducing smoking in recent years are the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which favour voluntary controls on tobacco advertising. Our consumption has dropped from 45 per cent. to 28 per cent., and in the Netherlands it has fallen from 59 per cent. of the adult population in 1970 to 34 per cent. in 1992.
  Indeed, it is instructive to examine progress in reducing smoking in the European Union generally and other countries' attitudes to advertising bans. Countries that support a ban tend to have low prices for tobacco products. We know that every 10 per cent. increase in price produces about a 3 per cent. to 6 per cent. decrease in consumption. Those countries also tend to have nationalised industries and receive European Union subsidies for growing tobacco—in some cases, huge subsidies. Italy receives £450 million and Greece receives £300 million. In contrast, the United Kingdom has the third highest cigarette prices in the EC and a further commitment to increase tobacco taxes in real terms by at least 3 per cent. Budget by Budget—a commitment that is unmatched in the European Union. That is why I say that the voluntary system has served the United Kingdom well. However, we recognise the need to ensure that the system evolves to reflect specific concerns.
  As I announced on Monday, the Government believe that it is desirable to take further steps to control some aspects of tobacco advertising. One specific concern is the exposure of children to such advertising. I have noted tobacco companies saying that they have a concern about children. They need to understand that I have a concern about children. Whatever the outcome of this debate, I am grateful to the House for reinforcing that it has a concern about children, and I shall enter the negotiations fortified by that support.
  We shall open negotiations with the tobacco industry to strengthen the existing agreement. I want hon. Members and people outside the House to understand that the negotiations are not an easy option. They will be tough because the issues that we must debate are serious, but they will also be fair. The Government have no reason to believe that voluntary agreements will not be effective in delivering further controls.
  The Government believe that this way forward is preferable to a statutory ban. It represents action on advertising and promotion which is in proportion to the
  618
  available evidence on the possible impact of advertising on smoking behaviour. What is important is reducing smoking and meeting the targets set out in "The Health of the Nation"—we agree on that much. We shall continue to focus on effective measures to ensure that we do so, arid I commend the Government's policy to the House.
  1.16 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and hon. Members on both sides of the House on sponsoring this Bill. It is not only a public health measure; it is a child protection measure. It can be targeted at and easily attributable to assisting children not to become involved with tobacco and other substance abuse. It is also a measure that will assist parents who do not smoke to encourage their children not to become involved in such abuses. The banning of advertising would reinforce that positive measure.
  Before I comment on the Bill, I must tell right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that this is the first occasion I have had since I had tuberculosis that I have spoken from the Dispatch Box. I thank all those who sent me letters, cards and telephone messages—they were much appreciated by my wife and me. I thank hon. Members for their concern and interest.
  I hope that, by the end of May, I will be fully back in action, fit and raring to tackle the Minister's activities. The Minister was more subdued than his usual boisterous attempts to defend Government policy. I am sure that all hon. Members were surprised by his low-key attempt to defend the Government's policy in this morning's debate.
  With my Glaswegian accent, I may not be associated with cricket, but I recognise a tail-end batsman being put in on a sticky wicket by the captain. He must hang around for some time in the hope that things will improve the following day. The Minister did exactly that—and he did it somewhat better than perhaps the evidence of his case suggested.
  It is clear from this debate that there is a desire and a demand for further positive action to end the scandal of the smoking epidemic. When the Minister was at the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago, he used an analogy about Wembley with regard to statistics. It was effective in terms of his case, although I did not agree with a word of it. I thought that I had better add that in case I was misquoted, in the way that the Smee report has been misquoted by Government Members in the debate.
  I thought of using the Minister's analogy to bring home in graphic terms the imbalance not only in terms of advertising, but in the resources which are being used to discourage and to encourage children to become involved in smoking. We could fill Wembley stadium one and a half times each year with the number of people who die from smoking-related diseases in Britain. If we add our European partners, we can fill Wembley seven times.
  Every time a match is played at Wembley, 20 of our fellow citizens will have died because of tobacco products, and two babies will have been admitted to hospital by the time of the final whistle.
  Most staggering of all is the £1 billion a year which is given to tobacco growers in the European Community. That is equivalent to a subsidy of £1·25 million to every single one of the 80,000 seats in Wembley. The Government are spending £5 million on publicity to

  619
  prevent children from smoking; that is equivalent to buying four seats at Wembley out of a capacity crowd of 80,000.
  The Government's announcement on Monday, which the Minister has again trumpeted, was that they were to target parents and adults during the next three years to assist in health education to prevent smoking. The figure of £12 million during three years is equivalent to 11 season tickets for Wembley over three seasons for a capacity crowd of 80,000. That shows the lack of investment and the inequality in the debate with regard to trying to prevent young people and adults from being involved in the abuse of tobacco.
  Dr. Mawhinney: We should not leave some mistaken idea in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members, much less the public. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also mention the figure of more than £30 million a year which we give to the HEA. I hope that he is also going to mention the millions of pounds which we give in health promotion payments to general practitioners to address the issue. There is a variety of other means of expenditure, which are not part of the advertising budget but which are crucial to the delivery of the aim that he and I share, which is to reduce the number of people who die from smoking.
  Mr. McCartney: I am glad that the Minister referred to the HEA. The authority, and all who work with it, support the Bill. The Government are investing that amount of money to take advice and to assist in activities to prevent smoking. I should have thought that, if they are investing that kind of money, they would support the conclusions and recommendations of the HEA. It has said that banning advertising is a positive incentive to reducing the involvement of children in smoking in the first place.
  Prevention is better than cure and there is a spirit of all-party co-operation on the issue which has been made clear by the quality of the debate. The spirit is so overwhelming that there should be no further prevarication about what we need to do.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: I will give way in a minute.
  That is not just the view of Conservative Back Benchers, or of right hon. Members who were previously in the Government but are now Back Benchers: it is also the view of members of the Cabinet.
  I will quote from a letter of 16 November from the President of the Board of Trade to the Prime Minister. The letter had this to say in respect of the Government's current policy, which was reinforced by the Minister this morning
  "I am persuaded by the medical evidence, acknowledged in Virginia's paper, that a ban on tobacco advertising would not only further reduce smoking but would contribute to the improvements in people's health and avoid the damaging economic burdens which the consequences of ill health place on business … if the Governmnent really wishes to demonstrate its commitment to achieving the Health of the Nation targets, and to inspire confidence in its actions on reducing smoking and illegal sales, an outright ban instead of some half-way house of severely constrained advertising is the credible way forward."
  That was the view of a frontline batsman, not someone sent in to defend the case between now and the close of play.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the comment of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—I hope that I quote him correctly—"There is no fundamental right to advertise; it is a privilege"? If he agrees, who will give that privilege and take it away? Does that square with the right of free speech?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman's comments are a red herring. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley were clear and specific, and I support them. He rightly said that hon. Members on both sides of the House were frustrated that, having given the privilege and freedom to the tobacco industry to act responsibly, its record shows that it has targeted children continuously, and sought to encourage them to smoke. It has targeted people in poor environments in the north of England, in areas which are already deprived of health and social facilities.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman may be an apologist for the tobacco industry, and I will not give him any further time in the debate.
  Mr. Hendry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to me as an apologist for the tobacco industry when I sought to intervene as someone whose father died of cancer when I was a teenager, and who refused to work on a tobacco account when I was asked to do so?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard the hon. Gentleman say "may be", but it is not very helpful to make any assertions.
  Mr. McCartney: I certainly said "may be": you are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time. I will try to ensure that he and others are able to do so.
  Mr. Robert Banks: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). Surely this is an occasion for an apology to be made.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House. The position is clear.
  Dr. Spink: Be generous.
  Mr. McCartney: I have been generous, and I am continuing to be generous to hon. Members on both sides of the House. But I become extremely frustrated, as other hon. Members do, when we have before us a piece of legislation that so clearly would save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives, and hon. Members make snide, quickshot remarks and points of order which are irrelevant. We are in the business of saving countless lives. Let us remember what the debate is about.
  Hon. Members will say that the Bill should be seen as an isolated measure. Yet hon. Members who support the Bill also support the concept that the Minister of State outlined earlier—that the policy on smoking is a family of measures.
  The Bill is part and parcel of a preventative health strategy designed to discourage and dissuade people from smoking and prevent people starting to smoke. It includes health education programmes to encourage those who smoke to stop. Any measure within that family of measures

  621
  clearly has a health gain. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government do not seize it with both hands and run with both Opposition and Conservative Members who support the Bill.
  We must take measures to stop people starting to smoke, and assist people to stop smoking. More importantly, if that is to succeed—this is the kernel of the argument—we must change the ethos and culture of smoking in society. The banning of advertisements changes that concept dramatically. We can then argue for a non-smoking, tobacco-free society. We can link death and ill health with tobacco, and fitness and leisure with not smoking. That is important.
  Why do tobacco companies advertise? It is simple. They have to replace the 300 customers a day that the product kills. Increasingly, mature adults recognise the dangers of smoking and, once they have given up, do not return to the habit. Therefore, the tobacco companies have to turn to the vulnerable. That vulnerable community is our children—not only 11 to 15-year-olds, but older children.
  Advertisements are designed to link smoking with sport and good images. They use peer pressure and undermine the family's messages to children about smoking. It is therefore vital for us to make it clear that advertising is about recruiting new customers for an industry which kills its customers because of the nature of the product that it sells.
  Is it not incredible that 50 million packets of cigarettes are sold each year in the United Kingdom to children between the ages of 11 and 15? Those sales raise about £96·5 million in taxation for the Treasury, but only £5 million is spent on smoking prevention work with children. Is not that an indictment of our society and of the tobacco culture that advertising continues to promote and enhance?
  Those facts cannot be disputed, but we can dispute why the Government will not give the Bill a fair wind.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion. He mentioned sports. Would he therefore give us an absolute guarantee that those Opposition Members who share his views—he has given the impression that all Members on the Opposition Front Bench fully support the Bill—will not accept the hospitality of tobacco companies at sporting events they sponsor, or at which they take a hospitality tent? Will he also guarantee that Opposition Members will not attend sporting events that are sponsored by tobacco companies?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is a master of subterfuge. I shall come to sports sponsorship in a minute, because I am chairman of the rugby group in Parliament. When I go to Wembley to watch my favourite team, I do so despite tobacco advertising. I go to watch sportspeople, as do many families. The sooner we can get rid of tobacco advertising at such wonderful events the better.
  I shall now point out a few statistics that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) failed to give the House during his many interventions. The statistics are interesting and important and concern his constituency, where 138 people died last year because of smoking; 503 people were admitted to national health service hospitals because of illnesses caused by smoking; and 12 hospital beds have to be kept vacant or used to deal with the ill effects of smoking on his constituents, at a cost of more than £0·5 million to his local NHS trust.
  622
  In the hon. Member's constituency, both male and female deaths from coronary heart disease, strokes, lung cancer, pulmonary disease and other diseases attributable to smoking are staggering. If the hon. Member for Luton, North intervenes again, he should do so on behalf of those of his constituents who have been killed by the tobacco industy that he seems so intent on protecting.
  The Minister for Health spoke in his statement on Monday about the setting up of a new scientific committee on tobacco and health. In his press statement the emphasis was on the "new"—it was in quotations and underlined. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to listen for a moment, instead of talking to his Parliamentary Private Secretary, as this is important.
  When the Minister launched the new committee on Monday, he failed to say in the press release that in fact the committee was not new. Previously, it was under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Froggatt, when it was called the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. The Government have taken out the word "Smoking" and substituted the word "Tobacco".
  The committee last met in 1988, when it recommended to the Government, in the report that I have here, the need to take further stringent measues on tobacco smoking. The Government did not announce the closure of the committee, but, when members' terms of reference ended in 1988, they did not reappoint those members or appoint new members, but allowed it to wither on the vine.
  We have lost five vital years of independent scientific evidence and advice on this issue. It is simply riot acceptable for the Minister to announce, in this debate or on Monday, a new scientific committee when he destroyed the previous committee and its work. Let us hope that the new committee—or this reinvention of the old committee—will be given a fair wind and a fair opportunity. It should be publicly accountable, its recommendations should be brought forward more quickly than the Smee report, and there should be no attempt to suppress any of its work or evidence in support of further restrictions on the use of tobacco products.
  On sports sponsorship, I am almost unique in the House, in that, as well as being party spokesman on health, I also chair the parliamentary rugby group. Indeed, I am one of the founding members of the group, whose constitution is to enhance and protect the game of rugby league. The parliamentary group unanimously supports the Bill, and I shall explain why. We think that it is an insult to the concept of sport as an effective means of maintaining mental and physical well-being to allow a product with such devastating consequences to our very being to use sport as a vehicle to hide its lethal effects.
  In an average rugby league match, players run 5,000 m, and give or take 40 tackles. A 16-stone forward can run 100 m in 11 seconds. Contrast that with the image of smoking, emphysema, bronchitis, heart disease and the emaciated 31-year-old weighing six stones at the time of his death.
  Only a few months ago, my personal friend, John Tierman, died at the age of 31 of cancer in both lungs through smoking. In his younger years, he was dedicated to sport and playing sport. He was over 6 ft tall, articulate, with a family and a future. He was interested in public life as a councillor, and was loved and respected in his community. He died an emaciated six-stone man because of smoking as a child of 13.
  We cannot allow the tobacco industry to use sport and sporting personalities as a deliberate and cynical ploy to

  623
  encourage positive images of its deadly product. The industry recruits 300 new customers a day because it has killed 300 people the previous day. Sport, especially rugby league, must never be bound hand and foot to the tobacco industry.
  My sport recognises that changes are necessary and will go along with those changes. The sport will survive but, more important, thousands of young children in Britain will survive with it. That is the biggest health gain that we could ever have in this country.
  By banning tobacco advertising, as part of a package of measures, we could save countless lives of young people and protect the well-being of their families. That goal is not only worth striving for, but is within the grasp of this House. I appeal to hon. Members to support the Bill.
  1.37 pm
  Mr. David Congdon: I have listened to this debate with great interest and do not doubt the sincerity of hon. Members who have argued for a ban on advertising. But I am worried that this could be, as other hon. Members have said, the thin end of a long wedge.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made the revealing comment that he would support any measure in favour of a health gain. I understand that, but the danger of such an approach is that it can be used to justify bans on advertising and, indeed, bans of other products in the future.
  In recent years I have watched with growing concern the amazing intolerance that people show towards smoking and smokers. I have no desire to smoke and do not find it attractive in others. We run the risk of showing a greater intolerance towards smokers than towards other parts of society. We should resist that trend. Once those who have adopted an intolerance towards smoking get their way, they will, in my view, move on to something else, whether it be alcohol, fatty foods or whatever. We should watch with great concern those who set themselves up as the health police of this country.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The reason why people—as I am—are so bitterly opposed to smoking is that it affects non-smokers. I do not care what the hon. Gentleman wants to do in private, because that has nothing to do with me, but when it starts impacting on my health and makes my clothes and hair stink, I have a right to say that I do not want someone smoking around me.
  Mr. Congdon: I am grateful for that intervention, because I was going to mention later passive smoking. I shall mention it now.
  One of the disturbing things about intolerance, I have to say with great regret, is the way in which certain members of the medical and scientific establishment are prepared in many ways to distort the evidence and present passive smoking as though it is a great certainty. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that, if one goes into a pub and everyone is smoking, it can affect one's eyes. That is an issue and I am delighted to see that some pubs and restaurants are restricting the level of smoking. But there is a difference between that and having a complete ban on smoking.
  In relation to the wider issue of passive smoking, attempts have been made to portray it as though there is a
  624
  clear and significant link between passive smoking and cancer. Indeed, the Government's own publication repeats that statement. An article by a doctor in The Times the other day casts doubt over that link. I am not a medical man, but he advised that there are two types of cancers. He said:
  "The commonest are squamous and oat cell cancers…The second are adenocarcinomas".
  The evidence shows that those who have cancer and have smoked have the first type of cancer cell present, but that non-smokers who have had cancer have the second. His view is that it is pretty unbelievable to suggest that the causes are identical.
  That needs to be borne in mind, even though I share the concern of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on the general issue of passive smoking. More research must be undertaken into exactly what the effect is. The most serious issue obviously is the individual's smoking and its impact on their health. Of course, they must be crazy to smoke. They know by now that it kills. I do not dispute that. I believe firmly in a free society and, if one wishes to smoke, the right to end up killing oneself. That is a right and a freedom that one should have.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is the promoter of the Bill. I agree with much of what he said, but he said that advertising is a privilege. I totally reject that view. In a society that depends on the marketing of goods to survive, it is crucial that advertisers have the right to advertise products unless those products are illegal or restricted.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Of course my hon. Friend is right that we should think carefully about limiting freedom of expression, but we do that in various ways. There are existing Government-imposed bans on advertising; we do not permit freedom of expression such as to incite religious or racial hatred; and we limit the freedom to breach personal confidence. The principle is not absolute.
  I put it to my hon. Friend that it is beyond the bounds of what we should tolerate in a free society that vastly powerful corporations should use all the modern techniques of advertising to pressurise the immature and the impressionable into taking up a habit that is probably lethal to themselves, injurious at least and vastly costly to society. What kind of freedom of expression allows the powerful to pressurise the vulnerable into the "unfreedom" of addiction, that allows people to suffer ill health from passive smoking? Surely the issue is not so much freedom of expression as the abuse of power.
  Mr. Congdon: I respect my hon. Friend's views, but the way in which he presented them is revealing. I do not regard the use of advertising in a free society to influence people to use a particular product—or not to—as an abuse of power; it is their decision. It is nonsense to suggest that advertising somehow forces innocent people to go out and buy a packet of cigarettes.
  Dr. Spink: While accepting the principle of freedom, my hon. Friend believes that it carries with it a certain responsibility. What action does he propose to prevent young people who do not make responsible decisions from taking up smoking in the first place?
  Mr. Congdon: An obvious answer is law enforcement. Ultimately, reducing smoking will depend on educating youngsters, but we will not succed in all respects; we cannot do so, in a free society.

  625
  I, too, am worried by the fact that young people are still smoking too much. We know that smoking kills: hon. Members have rightly paraded the statistics today. Everyone who smokes now knows the effects of what they are doing. We must ask ourselves what action would have the greatest impact of smoking. My hon. Friend the Minister said that a 10 per cent. price increase would affect consumption by between 3 per cent. and 6 per cent. I applaud the Government's decision to increase tobacco taxes each year by 3 per cent. in real terms: according to the report of the Select Committee on Health—of which I am a member—price has the most significant effect on the prevalence of smoking. I do not endorse the seductive argument that advertising in itself would have a conclusive impact.
  I question the extent to which a "voluntary code" is in fact voluntary, when the threat of possible legislation to tighten it is always present. I would support an advertising ban if it could be shown that we could not meet the health education targets in any other way; we should take all possible measures to meet those important targets.
  We have heard much evidence today about the impact of bans in other countries. One of the most revealing features of the Smee report—which was designed to come up with some conclusive evidence in one or other direction—was the inability to demonstrate a conclusive link between smoking and advertising.
  Mr. John Marshall: Tobacco consumption was very high in the former Soviet Union. Does that not suggest that communism, rather than advertising, drives people to smoking?
  Mr. Congdon: I am sure that it can. I understand that it also drives people to drink a lot of vodka.
  The Smee report is not as conclusive as some would suggest. We have been told that bans have been introduced in many countries, but the only countries that seem to be prayed in aid in favour of a ban are Finland, Norway, Canada and New Zealand. It is true that there has been an impact on tobacco consumption in those countries, but the scale of that impact has been disputed. Indeed, it is fair to say that in each of the countries other measures were introduced before or at the same time. It is difficult, therefore, to isolate the direct effect of an advertising ban.
  Mr. Bayley: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that, in his report, Dr. Smee said that, in each of the four countries,
  "the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors."
  Mr. Congdon: That must be read in the context of the whole report. I accept, unlike the tobacco industry, that there is a link between tobacco advertising and consumption.
  Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend mentioned Canada. Does he agree that one of the most difficult problems facing it is the vast amount of smuggling across its border with the United States? It took measures directly to reduce consumption, but all that that did was to increase smuggling.
  Mr. Congdon: I am happy to bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of Canada.
  I have listened at great length to the tobacco industry's argument that it is trying to affect only the market share of
  626
  its brand. I have always thought that that argument is nonsense. Other advertisers certainly try to sell more of their products and, if possible, increase their market share.
  Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend buy petrol when he does not need to do so because he has seen an Esso advert? Does his wife buy washing powder when she does not need to wash his clothes because she has seen an advertisement for Daz? Does he buy toothpaste when he does not need it because he has seen an advert for Mentadent P? Consumers of such products switch loyalty and the same applies to tobacco companies.
  Mr. Congdon: The difficulty is whether demand for the goods is, to use an economic term, elastic or inelastic. Demand for tobacco is elastic, whereas, unless one unnecessarily drives around the block 10 times, one will not buy more petrol than one needs.
  I emphasise that I believe that there is a link, but the issue is its scale and whether, in a free society, it justifies banning tobacco advertising. Experience in the four countries quoted shows that the range of reduction, even if one accepts the figures with all the qualifications, is between 4 per cent. in Canada and 9·4 per cent. in Norway. It is possible to conclude, therefore, that an advertising ban might reduce consumption by between 4 and 9 per cent. I must emphasise, however, that Smee did not attempt to estimate the effect of an advertising ban in this country.
  The figures need to be considered in the context of the reductions that we must achieve to reach the "Health of the Nation" targets, which require a reduction in consumption of 35 per cent. for men and 29 per cent. for women, and in the context of the amazing reductions that we have achieved in consumption in the past 20 years.
  I accept that we must be cautious when considering the impact of advertising on young people. I share hon. Members' concern that the reduction in tobacco consumption among young people has been lower than that among other groups. The reason for that is probably peer group pressure. I am less convinced that advertising is the key to the problem. Indeed, we have already heard that if parents smoke it is more likely that their children will smoke. The link is significant. That is obviously a cause for concern.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: One of my constituents, who is a senior child psychotherapist, has written to me, arguing that children and young people who are emotionally vulnerable are especially sensitive to the pressures that advertising places on them—rather more so than to peer pressure—because cigarette advertising presents to young, vulnerable people the image of a lifestyle that they themselves are not capable of creating. It is not peer pressure that attracts them; it is not even the cigarette. Young people are influenced by an image of sophistication, of the ability to cope with life's problems, of being themselves beautiful and attractive. Great pressure is thus exerted, solely by advertising.
  Mr. Congdon: If one follows that line of argument, where does one stop? Does one ban the advertising of alcohol? Does one ban the advertising of fatty foods? Does one ban the advertising of dangerous toys?
  Ms Jackson: Of course.
  Mr. Congdon: Does one ban the advertising of many things? That is the problem. It is possible to justify banning

  627
  anything. One can justify the ban on anything on the grounds that it might or might not affect some young person living in some constituency. We should not throw out of the window the arguments for freedom so easily and so casually.
  Mr. John Carlisle: We have heard a catalogue of opinions from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who has obviously been answering her constituency post for most of the morning—to the delight, perhaps, of some of us. She has given individual opinions. Perhaps we should take more notice of a totally unbiased, non-political census that was made by the Office—[interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) shouts at me, but I am sure that he would agree that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which I think he has quoted on previous occasions, concluded in its article "Why Children Start Smoking" that advertising was not one of the primary seven reasons, many of which have been paraded in the House. The glamour factor that the hon. Lady described—rather incongruously, I thought—was not one of the reasons that were mentioned by children in that context.
  Mr. Congdon:: I welcome that intervention. Research shows that, although advertising leads to greater awareness of tobacco among young people, the evidence in terms of consumption among them is less than conclusive.
  If at any stage we go down the road—I would not wish to do so—of banning advertising, it should be a decision for this Parliament and we should not be influenced by the suggestion of a European directive on the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If subsidiarity means anything, it must mean the right to decide whether we ban the advertising of tobacco. I emphasise the argument that was made earlier; we do not need lessons from Brussels when the European Union is subsidising tobacco to the tune of £1 billion per year.
  I know that not many hon. Members have had the opportunity this morning to speak against an advertising ban. I recognise that we are in a minority, but it is important to stand up for the freedom of people to advertise a legal product. I oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A press release was issued by the Department of Trade and Industry this morning, on which I seek your guidance because it could imperil the future of many jobs in my constituency. It was announced that an entire agency, the Accounts Services Agency, is to be put out to public tender. Those jobs are precious. They involve billions of pounds of public money and the ethics of the public service should be continued in that organisation. Has the DTI asked for a statement to be made in the House so that we can question that decision?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has had no request for any statement.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: It has been a long morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just listened to 21 turgid minutes with a number of interventions. That is an extraordinarily selfish attitude when lots of hon. Members want to get in on an important debate. I was going to
  628
  congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but I do not have time for that. It was an excellent speech and it is an excellent initiative. Let us hope that we all have the sense to support it.
  The House will remember that, three years ago, I introduced a measure designed to protect children from smoking by limiting their access to cigarettes. The Bill was called the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill. It was an excellent Bill whose intention, unfortunately, was nearly totally sabotaged by the Government. It got on the statute book, but with very little result. My Bill would have laid a clear duty on local authorities to prosecute in cases where the law on tobacco sales had been broken. That, however, was not acceptable to the Government, who seemed to be concerned about the cost of imposing such a firm duty on local authorities.
  The legislation finally passed by the House gave local authorities far too much discretion about what action, if any, they should take to curb illegal cigarette sales. The result, as the Home Office reported this week, is that only one third of local authorities in England and Wales have brought prosecutions, even though statistics prepared for the Government by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that every week, 250,000 children under 16 are sold illegally a total of 17 million cigarettes. Here we have a considerable gap between the pious hopes expressed by the Government—and I quote:
  "The Government is concerned to see that local authorities make proper and effective use of their powers"—
  and the realities of the situation. I do not think that they really meant that. The considerable gap between that and the reality of the situation was the ineffectiveness of the intentions of my Bill.
  We have the same gap between pious hopes and reality in the Government's obstinate support for the voluntary code on tobacco advertising. The Government admit the principle that bans on tobacco advertising are necessary to protect children. Why else do we have the ban on television advertising? The very existence of the voluntary code is an admission that young people must be shielded from tobacco advertising. The Government admit that further bans would be beneficial—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members would do me the courtesy of listening, as I have waited all morning.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Faulds: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman or to anyone else.
  The Government admit—I shall repeat the sentence in case it was missed by anybody—that further bans would be beneficial. The Secretary of State has suggested that at least 1,100 lives a year could be saved. The Government admit the need to improve the present position. Health Ministers say that they "see scope"—I am sure that the Minister will contradict me if I am wrong—for tackling poster advertising, shop front displays and cigarette advertise-ments in women's magazines. But then comes the fatal flaw—that gap, again, between pious hope and reality.
  The Government continue to believe that voluntary agreements with the industry are the best way in which to control tobacco advertising. What pious nonsense, and they know it is. Ministers know what sort of industry they are dealing with. It is an industry which creates death. Why are they so reluctant to try to control it? We all know the answer. It may be unpopular to make this comment, but it is a fact. The Conservatives' electoral campaigns are

  629
  funded to a considerable extent by the tobacco industry. Surprise, surprise that there should be such reluctance to do anything about restraining that industry's advertising.
  The Secretary of State, who regrettably is not here this morning—apparently she has better things to do—has been quoted as saying that the tobacco industry would find ways to "wriggle round"—her phrase—a statutory ban on advertising. But the voluntary code is negotiated between industry and the Government. Does not the Secretary of State think that the industry will wriggle even harder during those negotiations and only agree, when pushed, to something that it already plans to undermine by taking a different approach?
  What scope is there in all those secret negotiations for the views of parents and of others concerned with children's health to be heard? The voluntary code is an abject failure, and we all know it, because the public have no voice in its devising and find it almost impossible to understand once it is drawn up. Even professional trading standards officers, when approached by concerned members of the public, find it hard to tell whether an advertisement for tobacco is in breach of the code—if, of course, they can get hold of the code in the first place.
  Do hon. Members realise—I am sure that they do not. I am sure that they do not realise—
  Mr. Fabricant: Prompt.
  Mr. Faulds: I am giving a moment's contemplation—I rarely needed prompting and certainly not from that bunch. I was a real professional then and I am a real professional now. I am so relieved that I have managed to gain the attention of the House; perhaps I can retain it for a few minutes more. I do not want to hear the conversation of Conservative Members. I want them to hear my conversation.
  Do hon. Members realise that the committee set up to monitor the working of that mish-mash of a voluntary code does not even have its own telephone number? If one rings directory inquiries and asks for COMATAS—perhaps it should be more properly called comatose—the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship supposing—
  Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The annuncators are saying "Points of Order". It has seemed to be a remarkably long point of order from the hon. Gentleman, who has been speaking for the past 10 minutes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the annunciator.
  Mr. Faulds: As so often is the problem with Conservative Members, the fellow is not even numerate. He has his figure wrong. It is not surprising.
  Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you enlighten the House, as dark rumours are abounding that you may be considering allowing the motion to be moved in the not-too-distant future? There are still a number of us who are waiting to speak. Our anxiety is that, in your wisdom—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair never discloses what the Chair is thinking.
  Mr. Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No more points of order.
  Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman, if one can use the term, has made a speech about five times over this morning.
  The Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship, if one knows that mouthful of words, is not listed if one asks the telephone inquiries service. How effective it must be and how easy for the public to make their comments. In fact—
  Mr. Robert Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that there have been long speeches in the debate and a statement and that, if a closure motion were to be moved, the House would have to be reminded that only two hon. Members have spoken against the Bill? That is wholly unfair—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter of closure is nothing to do with the number of Members who speak for or against any Bill. The closure motion is a matter of judgment for the Chair.
  Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is a matter for you is to ensure that there is balanced and fair debate. I know that—[Interruption.] I know that you have a difficult task because every hon. Member who has wished to speak from the Opposition Benches has, naturally enough, wanted to support the Bill.
  That has meant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said, that there have been two speeches against the Bill and eight in favour. During my 10 years in the House, I have never attended a debate in which eight hon. Members have been allowed to speak for a Bill and only two allowed to speak against it. That is absurd. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should reflect that the Chair does his or her best when making a judgment. The Chair does not know who will speak about what—some hon. Members change their minds. Speeches have been very long today; the length of some hon. Members' speeches has meant that others have not managed to contribute to the debate. Perhaps that fact will be borne in mind on future occasions.
  Mr. Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems unlikely that the debate will continue much further in an orderly manner. Therefore, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 17.

  Division No. 120]

  [2.11 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Blair, Tony

  Alton, David

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Bates, Michael

  Burden, Richard

  Battle, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Beggs, Roy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  631

  Canavan, Dennis

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cox, Tom

  Hume, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Darling, Alistair

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Janner, Greville

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Denham, John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dobson, Frank

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dover, Den

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan

  Eastham, Ken

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Enright, Derek

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Leighton, Ron

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Terry

  Flynn, Paul

  Litherland, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Foulkes, George

  Loyden, Eddie

  Fraser, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McAllion, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCartney, Ian

  Galloway, George

  McCrea, Rev William

  Gapes, Mike

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGrady, Eddie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McKelvey, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Gunnell, John

  Maginnis, Ken

  Hain, Peter

  Mahon, Alice

  Hall, Mike

  Mallon, Seamus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Doug

  Mates, Michael

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Maxton, John

  Heppell, John

  Meacher, Michael

  632

  Michael, Alun

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Milburn, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sims, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, William

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Turner, Dennis

  Patchett, Terry

  Tyler, Paul

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wallace, James

  Pope, Greg

  Walley, Joan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Ward, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Watson, Mike

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Prescott, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wise, Audrey

  Reid, Dr John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mr. Hugh Bayley.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Watts, John

  Cash, William

  Whittingdale, John

  Couchman, James

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. Charles Hendry.

  Mills, Iain

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a second time, put accordingly and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Sale and Supply Goods Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.22 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Despite its length, the Bill is simple and, I hope, uncontroversial. It is intended to tidy and clarify one of the more antiquated corners of the law and at the same time update and strengthen consumer rights. Essentially, it will implement the recommendations of the English and Scottish Law Commissions in their report on the sale and supply of goods published in 1987.
  Hon. Members may find it convenient if I say a few words about the historical background to the Bill and then summarise some of its provisions. English and, indeed, Scottish law relating to the sale and supply of goods is of considerable antiquity. It is an area of law which to this day remains largely untouched by statute. Instead, over the centuries, certain common law principles emerged.
  Among them were the principles that goods sold by way of trade or business must be as described, must be fit for their purpose and must be of merchantable quality. Those principles were codified but not significantly altered in the Sale of Goods Act 1893. That Act was consolidated but not significantly altered in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The result is that purchasers' rights when buying goods are essentially those conferred under the common law as it developed in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is not surprising that those rights have become a little antiquated in the light of modern trading conditions.
  It was for those reasons that the Law Commissions were asked to look at the matter in 1987. While they saw no need for radical reform, they did conclude that one of the central principles of present law—the doctrine of merchantable quality—was out of date, and that the definition of what constituted acceptance of goods was both untidy and unclear. They accordingly made a number of recommendations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South-West (Mr. Jones) introduced a Bill to implement the recommendations in 1989, but for various reasons it failed to reach the statute book. I hope that I may be a little more fortunate.
  Clause 1 implements the most important of the Law Commission's recommendations, which was that the outdated phrase "merchantable quality" should be replaced by a phrase more in tune with today's trading conditions. The Law Commissions suggested "acceptable quality", but the present Bill follows its 1989 predecessor in preferring the phrase "satisfactory quality", which I think is better.
  A non-complaining buyer might decide reluctantly that goods he bought were of acceptable quality, even if by objective standards the quality was not satisfactory. The Law Commissions then went on to list some of the aspects to be taken into account in judging whether goods were of the required quality. These included fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects and safety and durability, and those are duly included in clause 1
  Clause 2 tackles the question of acceptable goods. Although it does not substantially modify the existing law in this area, it does clarify it and, in particular, makes it clear that in judging whether a buyer has accepted goods,
  634
  account must be taken of whether the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods to determine that they are in conformity with the contract. The clarification is important, as there is considerable uncertainty over the extent of a buyer's right to reject faulty goods. A tidying-up operation is overdue.
  The rest of the Bill can be dealt with quickly. Clause 3 provides that if a buyer has accepted some of a batch of goods he does not thereby lose the right to reject the rest if they are not in conformity with the contract. Clauses 4 and 5 provide that where a buyer is not acting as consumer, he may not reject goods if the breach of contract is so slight that it would be unreasonable to do so. Because English and Scots law is slightly different in that area, separate provision must be made for each country; hence the need for two clauses.
  Clause 6 provides for the introduction of provisions equivalent to part I of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 for Scotland. That was a separate recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission which was taken aboard in the two Commissions' 1987 report. It does not substantively change Scottish law in that area, but is a useful clarification and will bring Scots law relating to the supply of goods into line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Differences in terminology between English and Scottish law mean that the new law needs to be set out in full, and that is done in schedule 1.
  Finally, clause 7 calls up schedule 2 which makes a number of necessary consequential amendments to other legislation, and schedule 3, which makes some consequential repeals. Clause 8 deals with short title, commencement and extent.
  To sum up, the Bill is intended to bring about a long-awaited amendment to an area of law which, although it does not have a high public profile, nevertheless governs every transaction that we make. In a sense it is historic, in that it represents a serious attempt to modify by statute what has hitherto been, to all intents and purposes, the preserve of the common law. The Bill is not intended to bring about any major shift in the balance of rights and obligations as between a customer and a supplier, but by updating and clarifying the law I believe that it will be of benefit to both. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received any notification from the Secretary of State for Health that she intends to make a statement to the House about whether she intends to introduce an urgent review of ambulance services in the west midlands—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I shall take the hon. Lady's point of order after we finish the Bills.

  Building Conversion and Energy Conservation Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[Mr. McAllion.]
  2.29 pm
  Mr. George Kynoch: This is a most appropriate time to be discussing the Bill. It is a great pity that the House has not had the opportunity to make any comments about it. It is most important that the Bill receives sufficient debate, that any conclusions are drawn and that we move to the Committee stage.
  The Bill is to allow the insulation of dwelling units provided by the conversion of existing dwellings, and for connected purposes. It is something that we should seriously consider—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday 25 February.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS) BILL
  Order for second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 May.

  INSHORE FISHING (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 February.

  Points of Order
  2.31 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that a press release has been issued in conjunction with a review of the ambulance service across the west midlands by the summer. I recently had an Adjournment debate in the House in which I asked that the contract for patient services in north Staffordshire should be withdrawn and relet. Will you inquire whether the Secretary of State is prepared to come to the House so that the ambulance service thoughout the west midlands, including North Staffordshire, can be taken fully into account in the review that is about to take place?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not even a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Lady presumably knows.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is certainly a matter for the Chair. I seek your advice and guidance. I see that we have on the Order Paper an extraordinary business motion—an omnibus business motion. It sets out in detail the timetabling of a series of debates next week. Although I have no interest in some of the debates, I have a particular interest in the debate on the motion in paragraph (ii)(a). As you will see, it provides two hours to deal with some of the most controversial legislation that is likely to come before the House.
  I do not know how long other hon. Members may wish to speak on the matter, but it would take at least two hours to set out the case for a separate Cornish Euro-seat, let alone the case for Plymouth to have its own Euro-representative. I note that the Leader of the House is not here to listen to my comments. My difficulty, and the difficulty facing the House, is that I understand from the guidance that I have been given so far that if I objected to that specific item in the extraordinary omnibus motion, the whole business for next week would fall and we would presumably have to call the Leader of the House to come before the House again on Monday to set out a new motion.
  Is it not an insult to the House, first, that we have an omnibus motion throwing together so many important motions, secondly, that the Leader of the House is not here to listen to the comments of hon. Members and, thirdly, that such controversial legislation would be dealt with in two hours? That is an example of extraordinary contempt for the House.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter is not debatable. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) has put his point clearly. I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman, like all hon. Members, occasionally has to make a decision. He knows that, and he must make his own decision.

  Business of the House
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

  (i) at the sitting on Monday 14th February—

  (a) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Airports (Northern Ireland) Order not later than Seven o'clock;

  (b) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order not later than one and a half hours after their commencement;

  (c) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Brooke relating to Cultural Objects not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and

  (d) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang relating to Housing (Scotland) not later than half-past Eleven o'clock;

  (ii) at the sitting on Tuesday 15th February—

  (a) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Howard relating to Representation of the People not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;

  (b) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the names of Mr. Anthony Nelson relating to Financial Services, Banks and Banking and Building Societies, and of Mr. Secretary Heseltine relating to Insurance not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and

  (c) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Redwood relating to Local Government Finance (Wales) not later than half-past Eleven o'clock; and

  (iii) at the sitting on Wednesday 16th February—

  (a) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary MacGregor relating to Channel Tunnel not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and

  (b) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lilley relating to Pensions, Social Security and Terms and Conditions of Employment not later than Ten o'clock;

  and the above Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the expiry of the time for opposed business; and

  (2) at the sitting on Monday 21st February, in Committee of the whole House on new Clauses committed thereto in respect of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, the Chairman shall—

  (i) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such new Clause relating to capital punishment; and

  (ii)not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such new Clause relating to the age of consent for sexual acts between men in Great Britain, respectively, put—

  (a) the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, the Question on any Amendment to such a new Clause which has been selected by him and which may then be moved and, thereafter, the Question that the Clause, or the Clause as amended, be added to the Bill); and

  639

  (c) any Question necessary to dispose of any other new Clauses and Amendments thereto, which have been selected by him and which may then be moved.—[Mr. Conway.]

  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 25 January, the House gave me permission to introduce my Bill, which is listed No. 4 on today's Order Paper, by a majority of 222 to 69. The measure would allow people at Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, to belong to a trade union. Someone objected to my Bill. Will the identity of that Member appear in Hansard? It is wrong that an hon. Member can object to a measure without being identified in the official records.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If my memory is correct, the hon. Member is a member of the Procedure Committee, which suggested that that should not happen.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Robert Jackson be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Richard Tracey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Ellesmere Port (Explosion)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  2.35 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: This is a serious matter, but I am sure that I and other hon. Members who are detained this afternoon regret that we were unable to travel to Rotherham for the memorial service of the late Member for Rotherham, Mr. Jimmy Boyce.
  This matter affects several hon. and right hon. Members with constituencies near mine and needs to be seriously aired. At 20.40 on Tuesday 1 February, the fire brigade received a call to attend an incident at the Associated Octel plant on Oil Sites road, Ellesmere Port. The name of that road will give the House some sign of the nature of that part of my constituency.
  The first crew took six minutes to arrive. On arrival, fire crews were met by a leak of ethyl chloride. One member of Associated Octel's staff had been overcome by fumes from the substance and was promptly taken to hospital. Two crews of firefighters, dressed in chemical protection suits, attempted to isolate the leak via two valves. Although the valves were closed off successfully, a large amount of the product continued to leak. Crews withdrew and, shortly afterwards, the leaking material flashed over, causing the whole plant to catch fire.
  Attempts were made to extinguish the blaze, which was burning out of control, and at about midnight the officer in charge decided to withdraw firefighters due to the risk of failure of vessels within the plant.
  The main concern was over a container known as the slops tank, which contained up to 30 tonnes of ethyl chloride. Firefighters then regrouped and mounted a major foam attack, using two foam tankers and another foam tanker belonging to the Shell company. The attack was conducted in extremely hazardous conditions and firefighters' actions prevented a serious situation from escalating.
  Local residents in Elton, in my constituency, and in the Helsby area, which is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), were invited to stay indoors and to close windows. That was done by public address systems on fire appliances and by the local radio station. The Minister may ask his colleagues why no public address facilities are available to the police in such an area.
  Although the fire had lessened, a serious fire was still burning, which took several hours to bring under control. A total of 225,000 litres of foam were used and the Cheshire fire brigade was supported by the Clwyd and Merseyside fire and civil defence authority. The all-clear was given to residents at 6 am, and motorway and rail links were opened shortly afterwards. Throughout the incident, constant air monitoring was undertaken.
  Nearby industrial premises, including ICI Organics, Cabot Carbon, Kemira Fertiliers and the northern part of the Shell refinery were evacuated.
  The process undertaken in the plant was the mixing of ethyl chloride and hydrochloric acid, which is used to make the anti-knock compound for petrol, tetra-ethyl-lead. A number of firefighters were treated as a result of exposure to the chemicals.
  The details that I have just put on record were largely provided by the Cheshire fire brigade and are matters of

  641
  fact. I must stress that the emergency services were absolutely magnificent and I have no doubt that, had it not been for the fire crews' skill and bravery, we would be discussing a major disaster today. My rusty chemistry tells me that one of the combustion products of ethyl chloride is phosgene, so a serious risk could have ensued.
  Many lessons can be learnt from that incident. The Health and Safety Executive investigation is now under way and it would be wrong for me to speculate on the outcome of that inquiry. However, I shall make a few observations. First, should any prosecutions result from the inquiry, they would be small beer compared with the economic effect on the company, which will lose millions of pounds in income. The loss will also have a major impact on our balance of trade. Last year, the plant exported some 92,000 tonnes of tetra-ethyl and tetra-ethyl-lead worth some £240 million.
  Secondly, once the cause of the accident is known, further studies will need to be made on the plant's design and location. For instance, if it is determined that the plant can be safely located at the same site, can the slops tank be relocated away from the reactor vessel? That tank had a two-hour fire retardant in the form of an intumescent coating. The fire brigade was so concerned at the height of the fire because those two hours were up. Nobody can put his hand on his heart and say that that vessel was safe. Even the volume that it contained was unknown, as the instrumentation had been destroyed at an early stage of the fire.
  Thirdly, had the tank gone up, what would the resultant risk have been? The fire brigade was gearing up to evacuate its teams, but would it have been possible to evacuate residents down wind?
  Fourthly, did the Cheshire fire brigade and all the emergency services have sufficient resources at their disposal to combat that second eventuality? As it was, 181 firefighters were involved in the incident. Many constituents share my view that the financial allocation for emergency services in such a high-risk area is inadequate. Was the Seveso directive implemented?
  Fifthly, had a decision been taken to sound sirens in the area, would those sirens have been adequate? Why were obstacles put in the way when the fire service argued for retaining the previously Government-controlled air raid warning systems in the area, which could be used to warn the public in the event of a chemical incident?
  Sixthly, what would have happened if, at the same time, another serious incident had occurred? For example. could a house fire or chemical spillage on the M6 have been adequately covered?
  Many far-reaching issues arise from the fire. Questions must be asked and answers are needed, and the public should have access to that information. My purpose in bringing the matter to the attention of the House is to ensure that commitments which I, along with 135 other hon. Members who signed early-day motion 528, have made are met in full by the Government. Incidentally, I am horrified that one hon. Member—the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth)—has chosen not to sign the motion to date. If he disagrees with an aspect of it, he can seek to amend it, but perhaps he has better things to do with his time.
  Many of the issues to which I have referred go far beyond the remit of the HSE. They cover at least two, and possibly three, Government Departments: the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and, to an
  642
  extent, the Department of Health. In no way do I criticise the work currently undertaken by the HSE. I recognise that its statutory duties preclude the Minister from responding on any aspects of its work that may have a bearing on whether there will be prosecutions.
  To sum up, we are dealing with an area in which the petrochemical industry is an integral and extremely important part of the local economy. Many people from an extended travel-to-work area are engaged in the industry, which contributes massively to the national economy, but there is understandable disquiet as a result of the Octel incident. The need for a public inquiry is, in my view, irrefutable. I have made the Minister aware of the concern in and around my constituency. The decision lies firmly with him.
  If the Minister ignores the reasonable demands of residents in that part of the country, which contributes so much to our export capacity, his inaction will be denounced. He must agree that the public interest is best served by a public inquiry, in a format that allows the cross-examination of witnesses, investigates what went wrong at Octel and whether such accidents can be avoided in the future and, if so, how. It must also examine whether the emergency services' resources and procedures are adequate in the event of a major incident.
  Finally, in my view, the Minister has a duty to the people in my area—the residents, workers and companies who contribute so much to the export effort—to ensure that the facts are in the open in the way that I have described.
  2.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on raising this most important matter on the Adjournment and I welcome the attendance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) in the debate. I know how concerned both are about the serious incident at Associated Octel.
  I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman's concern has prevented him from being able to attend the memorial service for the hon. Member for Rotherham. Jimmy Boyce was a fellow Scot, who believed passionately in his socialism and was never happier than when giving me and my Government colleagues a hard time from the Opposition Benches. It is very sad indeed that his time here should have been cut so short so soon after becoming a Member of the House, and at such a young age.
  The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to all the emergency services. I join him in praise for all those involved in successfully containing this extremely serious incident. Thanks should also go to the Octel employees for their prompt action in implementing the emergency plan and summoning the emergency services, and to the works fire brigade.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I share, to discover the cause of the accident as soon as possible and to take steps to avoid a recurrence. As he knows, the Health and Safety Executive has started its investigation. It has two main strands: first, to establish why the leak and subsequent fire occurred and gather eye-witness statements while memories are still fresh; and, secondly, to determine how the emergency was handled in relation to the emergency plans and whether the plans were sufficient.

  643
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is a complex technical investigation. It is still at an early stage. The cause of the leak and the source of the ignition have yet to be determined. The HSE investigators have the full range of its scientific and technical expertise at their disposal. The 14-strong team is led by Dr. Roger Nourish, who is head of the HSE's special hazards unit, and includes specialists in chemical, mechanical, electrical and process safety engineering, and scientists who specialise in fire, explosion and metallurgy.
  Dr. Nourish has already met several representatives of local residents, including a councillor, to give them the opportunity to share their concerns at an early stage of the investigation. As is its normal practice, the HSE will make its findings public. That form of technical investigation by the HSE means that any changes needed can be identified and introduced with the minimum delay. The hon. Gentleman said that he would prefer a public inquiry. I share his and my right hon. Friend's concern for those who live and work locally. They deserve to be reassured that the highest possible standards are maintained.
  However, we really must await the HSE report. That report will go to the Health and Safety Commission, which is a tripartite body and with powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to conduct a public inquiry. Ministers can set up such an inquiry and also have powers to direct the HSC to do so. The HSC has a good reputation for ensuring the highest standards of health and safety; it will want to ensure that lessons are learnt from this incident and put into practice.
  I am aware that, according to press reports, the plant was "20 minutes from disaster". That was because the intumescent coating on the vessel was designed to provide a minimum two-hour protection from a fire surrounding or engulfing it. The reports ignored the fact that the vessels were equipped with additional protective devices.
  Mr. Miller: I accept that the coating was designed to provide protection for a minimum of two hours. No doubt the Minister will agree, however, that the chief fire officer was acting on the best advice available at the time. Given his understanding that the protection was designed to last for two hours, his anxiety at about midnight—and his consequent decision—were justified.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am not criticising the chief fire officer's judgment in any way; on the contrary, I am trying to explain that reporting of the incident which suggested that, after a further 20 minutes, the vessel might have exploded arose from a misunderstanding of the nature of the intumescent coating.
  As I was saying, the reports ignored the fact that the vessels were equipped with additional protective devices, including pressure relief valves, designed to prevent a rupture and explosion. The intumescent coating was only the first line of defence. In fact, it held up well after the two hours had elapsed; and, having been brought under control, the fire was allowed to burn itself out safely.
  The HSE has advised me that "20 minutes from disaster" was a gross exaggeration; nevertheless, it is examining the vessels and samples of the intumescent coating. That investigation should provide a clearer picture of the effects of the fire on the vessels and any lessons learnt will be acted on quickly. The HSE has also told me
  644
  that, even if the vessels or the reactor had exploded, the off-site effects would have been minimal. I well understand the concern of local residents and businesses, but, according to the HSE, they were never in danger and the safety provision and plans are designed to ensure that. People downwind of the site, however, were advised to stay indoors as a precaution against smoke inhalation.
  The hon. Gentleman has suggested that local residents should have been evacuated. To be fair to him, he has not done so today, but I understand that he has done so previously; if he has not, others have. I apologise if I have misquoted the hon. Gentleman, who is now shaking his head vigorously.
  Evacuation would not have been sensible. The correct response is for residents to stay indoors with their doors and windows closed. Leaflets giving that advice had already been given to local people as part of the information required under the Control of Industrial Major Accidents Hazards Regulations—CIMAH—which are our way of complying with the Seveso directive.
  Throughout the incident, teams of Octel employees and the emergency services were touring residential areas downwind of the site, but detected no danger from hydrogen chloride fumes. I am also advised that phosgene was never released and that, even if matters had proceeded further, it is unlikely that that would have happened.
  Mr. Miller: My comments about phosgene—like my comments about the safety of the slops vessel—derived from the best advice that was available to the fire brigade at the time of the incident. The brigade was working on its own; its instruction sheets show that, in certain states of combustion, phosgene can be a product of a fire of that type. It was using the best possible judgment at the time.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Neither of us, I suspect, is particularly expert in this area. The advice that I have given has come from the Health and Safety Executive. In so far as it will provide reassurance to his constituents, I am sure that he will welcome it.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the design and location of the plant. The Health and Safety Executive requires plant to be built to the latest standards and will ensure that it is at Octel. That is the assurance which the hon. Gentleman sought. Moreover, the prohibition notice currently in force requires the firm to provide evidence that hazards have been properly assessed and appropriate precautions taken.
  The HSE does not believe that isolation of the slops tank would be either viable or desirable. The tank is an integral part of the ethyl chloride plant, but I shall ask the HSE to consider the hon. Gentleman's concerns carefully.
  On the location of the plant, the CIMAH regulations aim to minimise the rise of a major accident and to limit the effects of any accidents that occur. Clearly, even after all reasonable steps have been taken to comply with health and safety law, the risk of accident cannot be removed altogether. We must await the results of the HSE's investigation before considering what more might need to be done. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's point about whether conditions could ever arise in which phosgene is generated is addressed.
  Mr. Miller: The point on which my constituents would like clarification is whether the Minister has ruled out, in absolute terms, a public inquiry into the incident.
  Mr. Forsyth: The Health and Safety Commission has powers to call a public inquiry and Ministers have powers to direct it to set up an inquiry. We can also, off our own bat, establish a public inquiry. I should like to read the Commission's report to see how it proposes to handle the report that it will receive from the executive before reaching any view. I am not ruling out the possibility, but it would be wrong to address that matter until we have seen the results of the executive's investigation and report and of the consideration by the commission.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were sufficient resources for the fire brigade and other emergency services. As he knows, the Cheshire fire brigade classified the incident as a major fire and 263 firefighters were involved. I gather that, in future, as a result of plans to withdraw two emergency rescue tenders from service, the heavy rescue equipment formerly carried on them will be carried on 16 front-line pumping applicances. A dedicated crew will be allocated to the chemical incident unit, which will move to Crewe. That is in addition to the unit based at Ellesmere Port fire station.
  I understand that the chief fire officer of Cheshire fire brigade has said that the brigade's firefighting and rescue capability will be enhanced by those measures.
  The hon. Member may be aware that the changes require the approval of the Home Secretary. It is my right hon. and learned Friend's practice to grant such approval only where he is satisfied that nationally recognised minimum standards of fire cover will continue to be maintained. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are brought to his attention so that he can take them into account.
  I should mention how the work of emergency planning units on sites covered by the CIMAH regulations is funded. The regulations allow local authorities to charge site operators for providing such services. They are not covered by the civil defence funding arrangements.
  I shall now discuss the concerns about arrangements for warning the general public. The off-site warnings are provided for in the CIMAH arrangements. I understand that there are two sirens on the Octel complex; one is used to warn of fire and the other to warn of gas escapes. Those
  646
  sirens can be heard up to two and a half miles away. On the night of 1 February, both sirens were sounded at 20.32. The gas warning siren remained on until 01.15 on 2 February; the fire warning siren stopped at 21.00.
  In addition, a fire brigade rescue tender toured the Ellesmere Port area adjacent to the M53 to alert the public by loudhailer. Two other fire brigade vehicles were sent to Helsby and Hapsford to assess off-site effects. They reported negative effects and so local hailers were not deployed. The villagers of Ince, Elton and Helsby were warned by television and radio.
  I know that there have been complaints from residents in the area who were worried that they were not warned, but I understand that they lived in areas upwind of the incident, so there was no need to warn them.
  In the light of representations made by local people, I will ask the Health and Safety Executive to consider the adequacy of the off-site arrangements—indeed, I understand that it already plans to do so.
  The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned worries about whether the emergency services could have coped with another incident in the same area. For large incidents, plans exist for Cheshire fire brigade to supplement its front-line fire appliances with others from neighbouring brigades. On that occasion Clwyd and Merseyside assisted. The plan required the most important fire stations in Cheshire to be manned by moving other appliances from the surrounding area to backfill behind the appliances that were called in to the Octel incident. In the event of a second incident in the Cheshire fire brigade area, those supporting appliances would have been used. Cheshire is well placed to receive substantial support, if required, from Merseyside fire brigade.
  I am grateful for the positive approach that the hon. Gentleman has taken to the matter, especially in his discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself. I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to keep me in touch with developments, and will keep the hon. Gentleman informed as well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the annual official development assistance by calendar year, through the joint funding scheme for NGOs, from its inception to the latest year for which data are available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Annual official development assistance through the joint funding scheme is collated by financial year. The following table illustrates funding provided to NGOs, from the first full year of its operation:

  Financial year

  Totals (£)

  1976–77

  291,407

  1977–78

  622,234

  1978–79

  1,331,566

  1979–80

  1,556,267

  1980–81

  1,411,936

  1981–82

  2,543,199

  1982–83

  2,359,744

  1983–84

  2,381,731

  1984–85

  3,794,882

  1985–86

  4,882,584

  1986–87

  5,812,641

  1987–88

  7,954,000

  1988–89

  11,686,000

  1989–90

  16,631,000

  1990–91

  20,061,000

  1991–92

  23,159,000

  1992–93

  28,000,000

  11993–94

  29,000,000

  1 (Estimated).

  Colombia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretray of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to ensure that the aid programme to Colombia meets the declared objectives of British aid and, in particular, to ensure that the aid programme addresses the specific needs of the poorest people in Colombia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The aid programme for Colombia comprises entirely technical co-operation. We will continue to support activities aimed at aid programme priorities, including good government, renewable natural resource mangement and human resource development. The Columbia programme will therefore include projects with an indirect impact on poverty, as well as those with a more direct role, particularly those undertaken through non-governmental organisations within the joint funding scheme.
  490

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent restrictions have been placed on the supply of humanitarian aid to and movement of humanitarian aid by international aid agencies within the Sudan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In recent months, both the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army have restricted access by aid agencies to some areas of need. International non-governmental organisations and the UN have difficulty securing permission to travel which prevents needs assessments and monitoring missions from taking place. In addition, the Government of Sudan have failed to meet their pledged food aid contribution for 1993. We continue to press all parties to lift restrictions on the international aid effort.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Colombia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the question of the people called disposables in Colombia with the Government of Colombia at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  When I met the Colombia Foreign Trade Minister on 3 February, I made clear the concerns felt in Britain over this question and urged the Colombian Government to take effective measures to tackle the problem.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of communications submitted to the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee 724 on United Kingdom compliance with the United Nations embargo on arms and military equipment sales to the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has not been required to submit details of compliance to the United Nations sanctions committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 724.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the United Nations regarding the countries of design and manufacture of shells, mortars and bullets used against citizens of cities in Bosnia designated as having special protected status by the United Nations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made by Her Majesty's Government since the establishment of the European Community's embargo on arms and military equipment exports to the former Yugoslavia, of 5 July 1991, of the effectiveness of the embargo in regard to United Kingdom exports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No assessment has been made.

  We believe the embargo is being applied effectively in regard to exports from the United Kingdom. The

  491
  Department of Trade and Industry applies a rigorous export licence policy. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which are responsible for the control of exports, make a careful check on all exports destined for the former Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 724 of 15 December 1991 on the establishment of a sanctions committee to monitor the export embargo on military sales to the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 724 on 15 December 1991 a sanctions committee was established to advise on all aspects of the arms embargo against the former Republic of Yugoslavia. This committee has been empowered by subsequent resolutions to act as point of reference for all matters relating to sanctions against the former Republic of Yugoslavia. The committee meets on a weekly basis.

  EU Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to ensure close contact and liaison with the European Union Committee of the Regions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I met United Kingdom members and alternate members of the Committee on 8 December last year. We discussed the role of the EC Committee of the Regions and contacts between United Kingdom members and the Government. Our permanent representation in Brussels has already been in contact with United Kingdom members and will provide a regular contact point for them, as well as following the work of the Committee as a whole. The Cabinet Office will co-ordinate contacts between Committee members and home Departments and supervise any briefing requirements.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present United Kingdom nuclear explosive capability in its nuclear weapons inventory; and what it was in 1970.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have been asked to reply.

  1970 was a period of transition for the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons inventory, with one generation of weapons being withdrawn and a new generation introduced. We are now in another period of transition, as around half our nuclear free-fall bombs have been withdrawn from the operational inventory and the first Trident submarine will soon enter operational service. It has been the long-standing practice of successive Governments not to give details of operational warheads or yields, but in broad terms, the total explosive power of the United Kingdom's operational nuclear inventory is currently about half of what it was in 1970.
  492

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the political honours scrutiny committee.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The present members of the political honours scrutiny committee are:

  The Lord Pym MC DL (Chairman)

  The Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos CH

  The Lord Thomson of Monifieth KT DL

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Last year's White Paper on science, engineering and technology announced that a new Council for Science and Technology would replace the Advisory Council on Science and Technology. The members of the Council for Science and Technology are:

  Professor William Stewart FRS FRSE

  Professor Sushantha Bhattacharyya FEng

  Professor Sir Aaron Klug FRS

  Sir Robin Nicholson FRS FEng

  Dr. Bridget Ogilvie FBiol

  Sir Ralph Robins FEng FRAes

  Dr. Alan Rudge FRS FEng

  Professor Stewart Sutherland FBA

  Sir Richard Sykes

  Mr. John Towers

  Dr. Peter Williams CBE

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how often a review is undertaken of the names on the public appointments unit central list; and how many of these names have been on the list for(a) more than five years, (b) two to five years and (c) under two years.

  Mr. David Davies
  The public appointments unit has completed a first review of the names on the central list, and in future aims to ensure that the information held about individuals is reviewed and updated every two years. Information about the length of time that names have been held on the list is not recorded.

  Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories will be affected as a result of the planned changes to the research councils.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am currently examining the future structure and organisation of the Rutherford Appleton and Daresbury laboratories, which are at present part of the Science and Engineering Research Council. From 1 April 1994, as an interim step consequent on the splitting of SERC into the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, the two laboratories will be run as a combined operation under the auspices of the new EPSRC. In the longer term I am looking to put the two laboratories on a more indepedent footing to enable them better to serve their customers and users from the research councils, universities and industry. Given the high regard in which the Rutherford Appleton and Daresbury laboratories are
  493
  held, both nationally and internationally, it is important that we consider carefully what changes should be made to their status as a result of the reorganisation of the research council system.

  The Government have developed a standard set of tests on how Government-funded work can best be organised, known as "prior options". In the 1993 next steps review—Cm 2430—we announced new procedures to encourage those in outside organisations with innovative ideas about how such functions can best be discharged to put them forward. These procedures for "prior options" review and outside involvement apply, where appropriate, to executive non-departmental public bodies, such as the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories.

  The "prior options" tests consider whether the functions provided by the organisation continue to be needed, in whole or in part; whether responsibility for the activity needs to remain in the public sector; and whether some or all of the functions provided should be contracted out or market tested. The consultants KPMG have conducted a preliminary study of these issues. In common with the recent National Audit Office report, they found much to admire at the laboratories. They have advised that there is a need for the services which the laboratories provide, and that privatisation would not represent a sensible option. In considering this advice, I wish to take account of the widest possible range of views. I am therefore inviting organisations and individuals who may have ideas or proposals as to how the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories should be organised in future to submit them to the Director General of the Research Councils in my Department.

  The results of this review will be taken into account in the wider scrutiny of public sector research establishments which I announced to the House on 2 February, Official Report, columns 896–97.

EMPLOYMENT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to each of the industrial tribunals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A list of the lay members of the industrial tribunals was placed in the Library in January.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Appeal Tribunal consists of both judicial and lay members. The president is the Honourable Mr. Justice Mummery, a High Court judge. A judge of the Court of Session—the Honourable Lord Coulsfield—sits at the EAT in Scotland and there are also visiting judges in England and Wales. The judges are nominated in England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor from among the judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal and in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session from among the judges of that court. The lay members are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the joint recommendation of the Secretary of State for Employment and the Lord Chancellor. A list of the lay members has been placed in the Library.
  494
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no such board.

  Statutory Minimum Wage
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 548, what is the sectoral breakdown of his estimate of jobs lost as a result of a statutory minimum wage.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no sectoral breakdown of that estimate. In order to calculate such a figure, reliable information is needed about the relationship between pay and employment. Information on this relationship is available for the whole economy, but not for individual industries.

  Special Employment Measures
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list each of the main United Kingdom special employment measures since 1970; if he will give the date when the scheme came into operation and its date of closure if it is still not running, and the annual and cumulative amount of public expenditure spent on each scheme; and if he will detail the annual and total number of claimants helped under each scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cost of administering unemployment benefit in the London travel-to-work area in each of the past five years.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 11 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the cost of administering unemployment benefit in the London travel to work area in each of the past five years.
  It may be helpful if I explain that the Employment Service (ES) has responsibility for delivering a number of benefits in addition to unemployment benefit, as well as a range of other services to people seeking employment and training opportunities. Therefore, the figures t have provided relate to the costs of delivering the full range of our services in London.
  It has not been possible to provide the information you seek for the full five year period. For audit purposes, the ES retains financial records of running costs for the proceeding three financial years. Additionally, the organisation of the ES Region responsible for London, the London and South East Region, has undergone considerable re-organisation during this period. I am therefore only able to provide comparable figures for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 (projected figures). These figures relate to the ten ES areas which cover London. There are currently 15 ES areas within the London and South East Region; nine of which serve London and the remainder the Shires

  495
  surrounding it. These figures exclude fixed premises costs, ie the costs of leasing and purchasing premises and the associated running costs, as the method of collecting this information has changed considerably over the last three years.
  Given these provisions, the relevant costs, which include staff salary and other running costs such as fuel and telecommunications, are as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  89,467,057

  1992–93

  105,609,559

  1993–94

  1128,646,766

  1Projected.

  I must emphasise that these figures are not strictly comparable. As you may be aware, since 1990 the ES has been pursuing a policy of bringing together Unemployment Benefit Offices and Jobcentres with the aim of providing a more efficient and effective service to our clients. Individual ES staff are responsible for all aspects of ES work and it is not possible to provide accurate or meaningful breakdowns of the costs of specific activities.I hope this is helpful.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which trade unions have made representations to him in the last 10 years on whether campaigning on issues including pensions, health and safety, and job conditions has to be paid for out of a political fund.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am unaware of any such representations. A trade union does not need a political fund unless it wishes to spend money on electoral or other party political activities.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers have been prosecuted, since April 1986, under each of the regulations identified as candidates for revocation in his press notice 154/93 of 20 July 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The number of employers prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division's inspectors, since April 1986, under each of the regulations identified as candidates for revocation in the Employment Department press notice of 20 July are set out in the following tables. The aim of any repeals or revocations will be to increase the effectiveness of the regulatory regime, which will include continuing to prosecute employers who fall below acceptable standards of health and safety.

  Regulations

  Number of employers prosecuted

  The Flax and Tow Spinning and Weaving Regulations 1906

  1None

  The Hemp Spinning and Weaving Regulations 1907

  1None

  The Cotton Cloth Factories Regulations 1929

  1None

  The Cotton Cloth (Record of Humidity) Regulation 1964

  None

  The Homework Order 1911

  None

  The Homework Order 1912

  None

  The Homework Order 1913

  None

  The Homework (Lampshades) Order 1929

  None

  The Homework Orders Variation Order 1938

  None

  The Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952

  None

  496

  Regulations

  Number of employers prosecuted

  The Agriculture (Ladders) Regulations 1957

  5

  The Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) (Extension) Order 1965

  None

  The Agriculture (Poisonous Substance) (Extension) Order 1966

  None

  The Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1975

  None

  The Breathing Apparatus etc. (Report on Examination) Order 1961

  None

  The Shipbuilding (Reports on Breathing Apparatus) Order 1961

  None

  The Dangerous Machines (Training of Young Persons) Order 1961

  None

  The Prescribed Dangerous Machines Order 1964

  None

  The Agriculture (Circular Saws) Regulations 1959

  232

  The Abrasive Wheels Regulations 1970

  2311

  The Factories Act 1961:

  Section 21

  328

  Section 30

  441

  Section 68

  1

  Section 133

  None

  The Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Regulations 1960:

  Regulations 48–52

  41

  Regulations 60–65

  None

  The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963:

  Section 19

  3None

  The Construction (General Provisions) Regulations

  1961: regulation 21

  4None

  The Docks Regulations 1988: regulation 18

  4None

  Notes:

  1 These regulations were largely revoked by the Workplaces (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. The latter apply to new workplaces immediately and to existing workplaces from 1 January 1996.

  2 These regulations were largely revoked by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992. The revocations are effective for new equipment immediately and for existing work equipment from 1 January 1997. It is not possible to identify how many prosecutions have been taken under the parts of the Regulations that are revoked by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations.

  3The remaining provisions relate the training of operators. Proposals for their consolidation into one set of training requirements under more modern legislation are currently being considered by the Health and Safety Commission.

  4 These provisions cover entry into confined spaces. Proposals for their consolidation into one set of requirements for confined spaces under more modern legislation are currently being considered by the Health and Safety Commission.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Top Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the members currently appointed to the Top Salaries Review Body.

  Mr. Portillo
  As announced in the Official Report, 26 July 1993, column 559, the Top Salaries Review Body was renamed the Senior Salaries Review Body last year. Its current members are:

  Sir David Nickson KBE DL (Chairman)

  Professor George Bain

  Mrs. Louise Botting CBE

  Ms Ann Burdus

  Sir Peter Cazalet

  Sir Cecil Clothier KCB QC

  Mr. Gordon Hourston

  Mr. Hugh Pigott

  Sir Anthony Wilson

  Members are appointed by, and the review body reports to, the Prime Minister.
  497

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) who are the members currently appointed to each of the child support appeal tribunals;

  (2) who are the members currently appointed to each of the medical appeal tribunals;

  (3) who are the members currently appointed to each of the disability appeal tribunals;

  (4) who are the members currently appointed to each of the social security appeal tribunals;

  (5) who are the members currently appointed to each of the vaccine damage tribunals.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The appointment of members of all the appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the President of the Independent Tribunal Service, His Honour Judge Thorpe. The hon. Member may wish to write to him direct.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who are the members currently appointed to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply. The members currently appointed to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee are:

  Chairman

  Bob Taylor Esq. OBE

  Director

  Birmingham International Airport

  Members

  Mrs. Jill Allen-King MBE

  National Federation of the Blind

  Mrs. Jean Ashcroft MBE

  Arthritis Care

  Peter Barker Esq.

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Tony Briggs Esq.

  Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers

  Bill Buchanan Esq. LVO

  British Rail Advisory Group

  Lewis Carter-Jones Esq.

  Cliff Dallinger Esq.

  Passenger Transport Executive

  Mrs. Claudia Flanders OBE JP

  Stanley Flett Esq.

  Royal National Institute for the Blind—Scotland

  Richard Gregory Esq.

  Margaret Blackwood

  Housing Association Ltd.

  Edinburgh

  Sir John Hannam Esq. MP

  All-party Disablement Group

  Joe Hennessy Esq. OBE

  Muscular Dystrophy Group of GB

  Mr. T. Kennan Esq.

  Northumbria Motor Services Ltd.

  Miss Valerie Lang MBE

  The Spastics Society

  498

  Sir Peter Large Esq. CBE

  Joint Council on Mobility for Disabled People

  Bert Massie OBE

  Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation

  Brian McGinnis Esq.

  MENCAP

  Mrs. Dorothy Rhodes

  Age Concern

  Mrs. Jean Williams

  Welsh Council on Disability

  Mrs. Jane Wilmot

  Royal National Institute for Deaf People

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the industrial diseases which are under review by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council or its research working group.

  Mr. Scott
  The council is currently investigating hand/arm vibration syndrome, process injuries, disorders of the knee, osteoarthritis of the hip and occupational rhinitis and keeps scientific evidence on all other industrial diseases under review on an ongoing basis.

  Benefits Tourism
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the current scale and volume of benefits tourism.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not held centrally on the number of foreign nationals who are in receipt of benefits without having contributed either taxes or national insurance contributions.

  War Pensions
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the hospitals where medical examinations are carried out for the purpose of assessing entitlement to war pension.

  Mr. Hague
  The majority of examinations are carried out by medical boards or medical specialists at local medical boarding centres or consulting rooms. In such instances hospital referral is not necessary.

  Where examinations are to be carried out at hospitals all attempts are made to have this done at a hospital convenient for the claimant.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many assessments have been made by the Child Support Agency up to 2 February.

  Mr. Burt
  Figures for the latest period available, to the end of December, are already in the Library and information relating to January will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of the money contributed to an average personal pension at the rebate-only level by a
  499
  man of 30 years would be absorbed in expenses, charges and commission during the lifetime of the contract if it were terminated after five years;

  (2) what proportion of the money contributed to an average personal pension at the rebate-only level by a man aged 30 years would be absorbed in expenses, charges and commission during the lifetime of the contract up to maturity;

  (3) what proportion of the money contributed to an average personal pension at the rebate-only level by a man aged 30 years would be absorbed in expenses, charges and commission in the first year of contract.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on 30 November 1993 at columns 432–33.

  Elderly Population
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what change is projected in the population of those aged(a) over 65 years, (b) over 75 years and (c) over 85 years in each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Number of people aged 65 and over (000s)

  Number of people aged 75 and over (000s)

  Number of people aged 85 and over (000s)

  1993

  8,961

  3,917

  963

  1994

  8,992

  4,092

  1,202

  1995

  9,030

  4,028

  1,038

  1996

  9,069

  4,134

  1,071

  1997

  9,095

  4,215

  1,101

  1998

  9,105

  4,271

  1,134

  1999

  9,115

  4,320

  1,168

  2000

  9,139

  4,362

  1,196

  2001

  9,172

  4,407

  1,211

  2002

  9,212

  4,442

  1,211

  2003

  9,263

  4,471

  1,194

  Source: OPCS and Government Actuary's Department: based on mid-1992 Great Britain population projections.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children there were in families in Wales receiving invalidity benefit or its equivalent in 1979 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Scott
  Information for 1979 is unavailable. The latest date for which information is available is 4 April 1992, but not in the form requested. Such information as is available is the following:

  Number of child dependency increases in payment to invalidity benefit recipients in Wales—24,000

  Source: I per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he intends to make for an equivalent premium after 28 weeks for those recipients on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit who are incapable of work following the introduction of incapacity benefit in 1995 and the award of a higher rate of short-term benefit after 28 weeks.

  Mr. Burt
  The rules for the disability premium will be changing to be consistent with the incapacity benefit rules.
  500
  In particular, the new long-term incapacity benefit will act as a passport to the premium and for those who have no other means of entitlement to the disability premium, the period of incapacity needed to qualify will increase from 28 to 52 weeks. The new definition of work and assessment of incapacity will apply. We have no plans to introduce an additional premium payable after 28 weeks incapacity.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what additional resources he plans to provide to fund the Benefits Agency medical service, to take account of the operational costs of incapacity benefit;

  (2) what additional resources he plans to provide to meet the costs of additional medical assessors and social security appeal tribunals following the introduction of incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated additional administrative costs and manpower consequences of 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. We are still considering the additional resources that may be required for the appeals system for incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's budget for disability working allowance in 1993–94 and 1994–95 and the expected budget in 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Scott
  Planned expenditure for disability working allowance was £16 million in 1993–94, and £50 million in 1994–95 and 1995–96, rounded to the nearest £50 million. Figures for 1996–97 will be available in the departmental report which is expected to be published in March.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has so far been paid in disability working allowance in 1993–94.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability working allowance outturn figures for 1993–94 will not become available until the departmental report is published in March.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the arrangements for claimants currently in receipt of severe disablement allowance whose incapacity for work is due for review after April 1995.

  Mr. Scott
  From April 1995 people in receipt of severe disablement allowance will no longer have to undergo any kind of review of their capacity for work.

  Income Support (Giro Payment)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many giro payments of income support are reported missing in each year; what percentage of total giro payment this is; and how many giros remain missing without being cashed.

  Mr. Burt
  The payment of income support by girocheque is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John Fraser, dated 10 February
  1994:

  501
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about payments of Income Support made by girocheque.
  Payments of Income Support are frequently combined with payments of other benefits therefore it is not possible to identify the number of payments made by girocheque that are for income support alone.
  However, figures relating to the issue and losses of all girocheques issued by the Benefits Agency are available and are detailed below.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Issues millions

  30·844

  34·484

  34·470

  36·190

  27·863

  Losses

  84,901

  89,176

  83,849

  86,004

  135,546

  Losses (Per cent.)

  0·275

  0·259

  0·243

  0·283

  0·490

  No missing/ not cashed or traced

  6,100

  3,855

  9,290

  12,078

  36,641

  The Employment Service acts as our agent in the provision of girocheques to those who are unemployed and claiming Income Support; the above figures relate only to girocheques issued by the Benefits Agency.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rules he proposes to apply for the award of disability premium for people on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, following the introduction of incapacity benefit in 1995.

  Mr. Burt
  The disability premium provides extra help in income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit for long-term sick and disabled people.

  For those claiming these benefits as long-term sick the rules for the disability premium will be changed from April 1995 to reflect the incapacity benefit changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 1 December 1993. The new long-term incapacity benefit will act as a passport to the disability premium. Severe disablement allowance will continue to bring entitlement to the disability premium. For those who have no other means of entitlement, the period of incapacity needed to qualify will increase from 28 to 52 weeks and the new definition of work and assessment of incapacity will apply.

  Disability living allowance, attendance allowance and mobility supplement are other passporting benefits to the disability premium, which can be awarded on other grounds—for instance, if the person is registered blind. These routes to the disability premium will not be affected by the incapacity benefit changes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General what services he or his predecessors have performed under the Treasury Solicitor Act 1876 on behalf of International Military Services Ltd.

  The Attorney-General
  I know of none.
  502

  Treasury Solicitors' Department
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the size, grades and costs of the staff of the Treasury Solicitors' Department in each of the last three years ending on 31 March and the current figures for numbers and grades.

  The Attorney-General
  The following table sets out the size and grades of the staff of the Treasury Solicitor's Department in each of the first three years ending on 31 March and the current figures:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Grade

  31 March

  31 March

  31 March

  Present

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  10

  9

  8

  8

  4

  —

  2

  3

  3

  5

  38

  40

  39

  40

  6

  59

  64

  58

  63

  71

  78

  86

  91

  101

  SEO

  13

  13

  17

  19

  HEO

  33

  32

  32

  36

  EO

  68

  69

  67

  72

  AO/AA

  69

  74

  75

  75

  Support

  69

  74

  78

  77

  TOTAL

  439

  465

  470

  496

  The costs of staff of the Treasury Solicitor's Department in each of the last three years ending on 31 March were:

  1990–91 £12559 million2

  1991–92 £14088 million

  1992–93 £15073 million

  1Includes legal officers and senior legal assistants.

  21990–91 includes notional figure for superannuation of £1·642 million.

  Superannuation was only charged in cash terms from I April 1991.

WALES

  Bryn Melyn Home
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what public funding is provided for the Bryn Melyn home in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am not aware of any public funding for this private children's home. No funding has been provided by the Department or other agencies for which the Welsh Office has direct responsibility.

  School League Tables.
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations on school league tables he has received from the Institute of Welsh Affairs; what reply he has sent; and if he will review current policies as a result.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None directly, but the report published by the institute in January, "Towards an educational policy for Wales", makes reference to the publication of school performance information.

  Before decisions are taken on the extent of school/college performance information to be published in autumn 1994 there will be consultations with schools, FE colleges, and education interests.

  Open-heart Surgery
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the present waiting list for open-heart surgery in Wales.
  503
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on waiting lists is collected centrally on the basis of specialties recognised by the royal colleges. Open heart surgery is not one of these recognised specialties and hence the information requested is not available. However, at 30 September 1993, the latest date for which information is available, there were 301 people waiting for in-patient treatment in Wales in the specialty of cardiac surgery.

  Cardiff BUPA Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the provision of University Hospital of Wales staff at the Cardiff BUPA hospital to provide immediate postoperative care for NHS cardiac surgery patients operated on at the BUPA hospital at NHS expense; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the training of BUPA nursing staff in post-operative cardiac surgery recovery techniques at the University Hospital of Wales; and what remuneration he has arranged for the South Glamorgan health authority for such training activities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. It would be for the Health Authority and the University Hospital of Wales to negotiate an appropriate charge for any services provided to private hospitals.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the present numbers who were treated at the BUPA hospital, Pentwyn, Cardiff, for open-heart surgery at the expense of the South Glamorgan health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1992–93, almost 1,000 adult open-heart operations were performed on NHS patients in South Wales, 50 of them under contract with the BUPA hospital in Cardiff. Commissioning authorities are fully funded to secure that level of service.

  Fifteen NHS open heart operations on patients from South Glamorgan were carried out at the BUPA hospital in Cardiff in 1992–93.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of chairpersons and board members of the training and enterprise councils in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are seven chairpersons and 85 board members of the training and enterprise councils in Wales.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the London regional passengers' committee.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The members of the London regional passengers committee as at 21 January 1994 are:504

  Professor Eric C. Midwinter (Chairman)

  Mr. David R. Bruck

  Mrs. Delia M. Buckle

  Mrs. Beverley J. Davies

  Mr. Lekh C. Dindayal JP

  Mr. Nicholas P. Ellis

  Mrs. Stella A. Fowler

  Sir Alan Greengross

  Mr. Karl T. Gurney

  Mr. Michael J. Harris

  Mr. I. Haynes

  Mr. Andrew J. Holt

  Mr. Ernest C. King

  Miss Faith C. Lawson

  Mr. Stepehen J. A. J. Le Bras

  Mr. Laurie Mack

  Mrs. Suzanne C. May

  Mr. Peter Nichols

  Mr. Peter L. Noble

  Mrs. Dawn Penso

  Mr. John A. K. Phillips

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Small Businesses.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Appointments to the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Small Businesses are the responsibility of the Director General of Telecommunications. However, I understand that the current members are:

  Chairman:

  Mr. Michael Ashton

  Members:

  Miss Joy Allan

  Mrs. Judith Barden

  Mr. Sefton Bennett

  Mr. Robert Frenzel

  Mr. Patrick Frymann

  Mr. Richard Furey

  Mr. Michael Jordan

  Mr. Sean Mayo

  Mrs. Pamela Parker

  Mrs. Margaret Seymour

  Mr. Michael Taylor

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the President of the Board of Trade in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The expenditure incurred by my Department from 11 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 on my domestic travel was £8,745, and on my overseas travel was £5,866. From 1 April 1993 to 8 February 1994 the equivalent figures were £8,727 on my domestic travel and £16,360 on my overseas travel. These figures do not include the cost to my Department of my car. My Department does not allocate budgets for travel by individual Ministers.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost paid out to witnesses attending the Scott inquiry under the provisions available under the order 62, r 12(1) of the rules of the Supreme Court, by the costs branch of the Treasury Solicitor's Department; and to whom such expenses have been paid.
  505
  Mr. Needham
  To date, no expenses have been paid for legal costs to witnesses before the Scott inquiry.

  Value Added Tax (Domestic fuel)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the reductions in consumption of domestic fuel resulting from the imposition of value added tax.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has published a range of energy demand projections in "Energy Paper 59", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Those projections showed domestic sector energy demand approximately 6 per cent. higher in 2000 than in 1990. The imposition of VAT on domestic fuels is expected, in the long run, to reduce domestic sector consumption of coal by about 2 per cent. and of electricity and gas by about 4 per cent. This takes no account of the effects of any offsetting measures.

  Accounts Services Agency
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the outcome of the review of options for the future of the Accounts Services Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  PA Consulting Group has completed its review of the options for the future of the Accounts Services Agency. In parallel, the Department has reviewed the scope for its financial accounting services to be met from the private sector, concluding that all but a small number of the services currently supplied by the agency could be contracted out, with appropriate safeguards.

  I have accepted PA's recommendations that:
  the proposal for a management-led employee buy-out should be declined, primarily because it was based on the assumption that competitive tendering was unnecessary. Competition is essential to ensure value for money;
  the agency should be moved into the private sector by competitive tendering of the services contract; and
  the contract should be offered with the expectation that the agency's existing staff and assets would be transferred to the successful bidder.

  The agency needs the expertise, financial resources, and freedom of the private sector to be able to improve its efficiency and to take full advantage of market opportunities. Strategic contracting out has been chosen as the preferred route to achieve this because it focuses on the service contract to DTI, and it would enable more staff and assets to be transferred to the private sector. Substantially the same outcome would be achieved as if the alternative route of privatisation had been chosen, but at a lower cost and on a shorter time scale.

  This course of action will allow the Department to obtain the best value for money in the provision of its financial accounting services. PA estimates that the saving could be 10 to 20 per cent. per annum. Up to 90 permanent staff could transfer to the contractor. This will ensure continuity in the supply of a core service to the Department. The agency will gain access to the expertise and financial resources of the private sector which will give the existing team the freedom to take advantage of market opportunities without the constraints of operating in the public sector. This will result in a better service to all its
  506
  customers and greater opportunities for its staff than would have been possible if the agency were to have remained in public sector ownership.

  Human Genes
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines he has produced for the research councils on the patenting of human genes; what discussions he has had on this subject with his European counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 1 February, Official Report, columns 619–20. This reply makes it clear that the Office of Science and Technology supports the policy of the Medical Research Council in not filing any further patent applications for human DNA sequences of unknown function.

  I am very happy to inform the hon. Member that the United States National Institutes of Health and the Medical Research Council have today agreed to withdraw their patent applications for cDNA sequences of unknown utility. The MRC, with the support of the Government, has always argued that these applications should not be granted. I welcome the co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States on this important issue.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date British Aerospace advised the Minister of its intention to sell Rover to BMW; and on what date the Minister notified the Japanese ambassador of this intention.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 February 19941: British Aerospace advised the Department in confidence of its decision in principle to sell Rover shortly after the BAe board meeting on 27 January and also subsequently, again in confidence, of the final decision shortly after it was made on 29 January. The Government did not notify the Japanese ambassador of BAe's decision.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the block grants and rate support grant allocated to authorities in west Yorkshire for each year since 1983; and if he will list the services covered by the grants.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is set out in the table. The rate support grant was not a service-specific grant and nor is revenue support grant. Both were or are paid to support expenditure which local authorities incur in performing their functions and which but for these grants, and national non-domestic rates from 1 April 1990, would have to be met from local taxes.
  507

  Rate support grant £000s

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  West Yorkshire

  100,312

  102,681

  115,699

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bradford

  114,808

  114,773

  120,735

  131,371

  143,296

  156,111

  171,750

  Calderdale

  44,575

  44,901

  45,413

  51,968

  57,003

  59,959

  60,907

  Kirklees

  89,421

  91,640

  93,145

  106,650

  118,107

  126,061

  124,237

  Leeds

  123,940

  125,009

  114,626

  135,324

  144,776

  145,847

  138,844

  Wakefield

  57,464

  58,598

  55,413

  62,971

  67,391

  67,608

  65,314

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  —

  —

  —

  23,268

  27,642

  37,051

  39,252

  West Yorkshire Fire Authority

  —

  —

  —

  8,507

  9,284

  8,030

  10,165

  West Yorkshire Transport Authority

  —

  —

  —

  4,728

  7,587

  5,208

  5,111

  Block Grant £000s

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  West Yorkshire

  100,312

  102,681

  115,699

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bradford

  110,697

  110,644

  116,591

  127,203

  139,098

  151,875

  167,473

  Calderdale

  49,964

  43,277

  43,776

  50,314

  55,337

  58,277

  59,205

  Kirklees

  86,266

  88,460

  89,938

  103,406

  114,827

  122,739

  120,865

  Leeds

  116,342

  117,367

  106,947

  127,602

  137,007

  138,013

  130,946

  Wakefield

  54,518

  55,631

  52,424

  59,951

  64,340

  64,517

  62,178

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  —

  —

  —

  23,268

  27,642

  37,051

  39,252

  West Yorkshire Fire Authority

  —

  —

  —

  8,507

  9,284

  8,030

  10,165

  West Yorkshire Transport Authority

  —

  —

  —

  4,728

  7,587

  5,208

  5,111

  Revenue Support Grant £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Bradford

  157,783

  172,080

  236,612

  237,755

  Calderdale

  39,873

  38,432

  66,937

  65,840

  Kirklees

  82,492

  82,049

  138,135

  132,425

  Leeds

  137,665

  141,144

  242,216

  232,336

  Wakefield

  45,037

  44,071

  87,128

  86,905

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  —

  —

  —

  50,369

  West Yorkshire Fire Authority

  —

  —

  —

  24,101

  West Yorkshire Transport Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Following the introduction of the community charge system in 1990 the rate support grant was replaced by the revenue support grant.

  2. Block grants form part of rate support grant. Block grants ceased to exist following the introduction of the community charge system.

  3. West Yorkshire was one of the metropolitan county councils abolished in 1986. Its functions were then passed onto the metropolitan districts, the police, fire and civil defence, and transport authorities.

  4. Under the community charge system, 1990–91 to 1992–93, RSG was paid into the collection funds administered by the metropolitan districts. For this reason there were no figures for RSG to the police, fire and transport authorities.

  5. Under the council tax system, transport authorities do not receive RSG.

  Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 799, if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will publish the monitoring results of the Eskmeals site to which he refers.

  Mr. Atkins
  The decision to publish the monitoring results of the Eskmeals site is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  508

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 794, if he will set out the points on THORP raised with him on 16 December 1993 by the ambassador of the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Such communications between the United Kingdom and other Governments are treated in confidence.

  Effluent Discharge Charging Scheme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the revised effluent discharge charging scheme launched by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Atkins
  The NRA's original scheme of charging for discharges came into effect in July 1991. As promised at that time, we have now reviewed it in the light of experience and on the basis of full consultation. We concluded that, in general, dischargers were satisfied. However, some changes have been made which will result in lower bills for some dischargers, particularly smaller businesses. There will also be an allowance for seasonal discharges which will benefit camping and caravan sites in particular. The NRA's considerable efforts in improving efficiency mean there will be no increase in either the application charge or the annual charge factor for 1994–95. The new arrangements will be introduced on 1 April 1994 and run until 31 March 1999.

  Tower Block Properties
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study his Department has made of the extent to which estate agencies are refusing to deal with properties which are situated above the fifth floor in tower blocks bought under the right-to-buy legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  None. The Department has no evidence to suggest this is a widespread problem. Research
  509
  has been commissioned into the scale and range of problems leaseholders of council flats have with service charges and resale of their dwellings. Preliminary data are expected shortly.

  Owner Occupation
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of homes in the United Kingdom were owner-occupied in each year since 1987.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates by type of tenure of the stock of dwellings in the United Kingdom appear in "Housing and Construction Statistics, Great Britain". Figures of owner-occupied dwellings expressed as a percentage of total dwelling stock are shown in table 9.3 of the 1982–92 annual edition for each year from 1987 to 1992.

  A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government have taken to implement the recommendations made in the first report of the Select Committee on the Environment of Session 1992–93, on forestry and the environment—HC, 1992–93, No. 257.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have already implemented several of the Select Committee's recommendations, including the publication on 25 January of our response to the Rio forest principles, "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme". Other matters are under consideration. We will be providing the Select Committee with a follow-up report before the Whitsun recess.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, how much public money was paid to private landowners in the last financial year as an inducement not to plant conifers; what were the highest sums of money that were paid to landlords for not planting conifers; and to whom these sums were paid.

  Mr. Atkins
  Within the last financial year no new management agreements which compensate landowners for not planting conifers have been made in England by English Nature. I will write to the hon. Member with details of any such payments made under existing management agreements.

  South Crofty Tin Mine
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the costs of any closure of the South Crofty tin mine in Cornwall on the environment, in particular the financial impact on the National Rivers Authority operation at Wheal Jane; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The NRA does not expect any additional cost to its operations at Wheal Jane but, as contingency planning, is investigating what might need to be done to avoid pollution were South Crofty to close.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated net aggregate expenditure of(a) county councils and (b) district councils in the current financial year.
  510
  Mr. Baldry
  County councils' and shire districts' budgeted net revenue expenditure for 1993–94 is £18,025 million and £3,202 million respectively.

  Gloucester Grove Estate
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will meet a deputation of tenants from Gloucester Grove estate in Southwark;

  (2) if he will visit Gloucester Grove housing estate;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the estates action programme improvement of the Gloucester Grove estate in Southwark;

  (4) if he will make a statement about phase 7 improvements to Gloucester Grove housing estate in Southwark;

  (5) how many of the blocks in the Gloucester Grove housing estate remain to be improved; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Estate action improvements have been in progress on the Gloucester Grove estate since 1986–87. The Government have already made available £8·6 million of resources and have earmarked a further £8·85 million for phases 5 and 6 which are currently on site. These phases will be completed in 1996–97 and will complete the improvement of 10 blocks in total.

  The London borough of Southwark submitted a bid for a further eight blocks to be included in the 1994–95 estate action programme. Competition for resources was extremely tight, with 47 bids for support in London alone, and it was not possible to support that bid this year.

  At the end of phase 6, 19 blocks will remain unimproved. Future proposals for these blocks will form part of Southwark's proposed strategy for five council estates in the Peckham area. I hope that the proposed partnership between the borough, the private sector and housing associations will produce some imaginative proposals for improvements and a mixture of tenures on Gloucester Grove and the other estates.

  I have visited Southwark estates on a number of occasions in recent years and spoke to tenants from Gloucester Grove at Southwark's housing investment programme presentation in October 1992. Efforts are now best directed towards drawing up realistic proposals within Southwark's strategy for the area.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Rendell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recommendations were put forward with regard to Southport by the Local Government Commission prior to the beginning of the Lancashire review.

  Mr. Baldry
  It was the Local Government Boundary Commission, abolished in October 1992 and the Local Government Commission's predecessor, which conducted a review of the boundaries of Sefton metropolitan borough with West Lancashire and Wirral. In its final report, submitted in June 1992, report No. 664, it recommended only minor boundary changes. The Secretary of State accepted these recommendations and an order was made on 1 May 1993, with the boundary changes taking effect from 1 April 1994—SI 1206/93.
  511

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with representatives of Liverpool city council in respect of its standard spending assessment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning met a delegation from Liverpool city council, on 17 January, to discuss Liverpool's proposed standard spending assessment for 1994–95.

  Shire Counties (Expenditure)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the standard spending assessment and the expenditure levels for each shire county for each of the last eight years, the current year and his proposals for 1994–95; and if he will set out the percentage change in each case(a) between each year and (b) over the full range of years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: I have placed in the Library tables showing: standard spending assessments for the years 1990–91 to 1994–95; grant-related expenditure assessments for the years 1985–86 to 1989–90; and equivalent expenditure figures for the years 1985–86 to 1993–94 for each shire county. Since comparisons cannot be made between GREs and SSAs, nor between equivalent expenditures under the two regimes, the percentage changers are given between each year, between 1985–86 and 1989–90, and between 1990–91 and 1994–95.

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  holding answer 3 February 1994]: The Department of the Environment has engaged the services of Touche Ross since 1 July 1993 to a total value of £178,000.

EDUCATION

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision has been made for the public accountability of further education colleges incorporated under the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The framework for the public accountability of colleges in the further education sector is set by the financial memorandum between the Department and the Further Education Funding Council, and the financial memoranda between the council and colleges. The financial memorandum between the Department and the council makes it clear that it is part of the duty of the chief officer of the council, as accounting officer, to satisfy himself that further education colleges have appropriate arrangements for financial management and accounting.

  Under the financial memoranda between the council and colleges, colleges are required to provide the council with
  512
  audited accounts for each financial year. Each governing body must ensure that its college has a sound system of internal control and must appoint an audit committee and internal audit service for the college. The council may undertake examination of colleges' internal financial and management controls. Colleges' books and records are open to inspection by the council and by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in London, Ofsted expects to inspect in the academic year 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The arrangements for inspecting schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 are a matter for Ofsted.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what further guidance will be given on schools' environmental management practices as indicated in the sustainable development strategy.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The guidance promised in the United Kingdom strategy on sustainable development will be published later this year.

  It will be in the form of a simple environmental audit scheme which the schools can carry out themselves to evaluate and improve the environmental impact of their school buildings.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has for schools to have a policy for environmental education guaranteeing provision and continuity between different subject areas of the curriculum;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to encourage all schools to appoint a co-ordinator for environmental education;

  (3) if he will publish guidance to advise schools of good practice in teaching about care for the environment;

  (4) what plans he has for providing guidance to schools on delivering environmental education on biodiversity and sustainable development;

  (5) what plans he has to provide grants to voluntary bodies to produce teaching resources and facilities that promote the concept of sustainability declared at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Provided that the statutory requirements are met, it is for the individual school to determine the character of its curriculum, its organisation and the mode of its delivery, taking account of any relevant information or advice produced by the Office for Standards in Education. Where environmental education is addressed through the statutory subjects of the national curriculum, content and continuity will be specified within the statutory documents. My right hon. Friend is giving priority to the revision of these documents and has no plans to publish additional guidance for schools on these matters. He does not publish curriculum resources and has no plans to fund voluntary or other bodies to do so. He prefers to provide
  513
  specific grant to support expenditure by schools on books, materials and equipment or teacher training, as they see fit to develop national curriculum provision.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to ensure that within the school's inspection framework the responsibility of schools for raising awareness and understanding of the environment and conservation issues is subject to inspection and comment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the Education (Schools) Act 1992, registered inspectors conducting inspection of schools must report on the quality of education and standards achieved in schools in accordance with Ofsted's pubished framework for inspection.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Funding Levels (Disputes)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what mechanisms exist to resolve any dispute or disagreements between the Further Education Funding Council and individual colleges, including disputes over levels of funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the first instance, my right hon. Friend would expect a college to pursue its concerns with the Further Education Funding Council; in the last resort it could complain to the Secretary of State.

  If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Further Education Funding Council has failed to discharge its duties under the Education Acts, he may issue a direction to the council under section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. If he is satisfied that the council is exercising its functions unreasonably, he may issue a direction under section 68 of the Education Act 1944, as applied by paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 also gives the Secretary of State power to issue general or special directions to the council. Special directions may, in particular, relate to the provision of financial support by the council in respect of activities carried on by a particular institution. The Secretary of State would expect to exercise this power only in very exceptional circumstances.

  Further Education
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy on the publication of names and addresses of chairpersons and members of further eduction colleges incorporated under the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the charter for further education, colleges are expected to publish the names of governors and how to contact them, which would normally be through the college. There is no expectation that governors' private addresses should be published.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions exist for the independent monitoring of the financial situation of further education colleges incorporated under the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.
  514
  Mr. Boswell
  Independent monitoring of the financial position of colleges in the further education sector is secured through the requirement in the financial memoranda between the Further Education Funding Council and colleges for the appointment of an audit committee, and also through the requirement on colleges to appoint external auditors. In addition, under section 53 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, colleges' accounts are open to inspection by the Comptroller arid Auditor General.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many official engagements have been carried out in the last year by each Education Minister(a) in total, (b) at grant-maintained schools and (c) at local education authority schools.

  Mr. Patten
  The figures requested are as follows:

  1Total number of official visits

  Of which: Visits to schools

  GM Schools

  LEA Schools

  Secretary of State

  76

  3

  21

  Baroness Blatch

  52

  17

  12

  Mr. Forth

  84

  1

  32

  Mr. Squire

  73

  15

  11

  Mr. Boswell

  136

  2

  9

  TOTAL

  421

  38

  85

  1 The figures cover all Ministers' official engagements, including school visits, conferences, receptions, and other speaking engagements, such as those at official lunches and dinners.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Foreign Visitors to London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice he will seek from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about encouraging foreign visitors to London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  None. It is not for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to advise on such matters of policy.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Royal Armouries.

  Mr. Sproat
  The current members of the Roy al Armouries board of trustees is as follows:

  Lord Eden of Winton (Chairman)

  Rufus Bond-Gunning

  David Chandler

  Lady Cooksey

  Richard Fortin

  John Hale

  Robert Hardy

  Geoffrey Lewis

  The hon. Francis Plowden

  Field Marshall Sir John Stanier

  The Duke of Wellington

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Broadcasting Standards Council.
  515
  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of the Broadcasting Standards Council are:

  Lady Howe (Chairman)

  Dame Jocelyn Barrow OBE

  Ms Sally O'Sullivan

  Mrs. Rhiannon Bevan

  Mr. Matthew Parris

  Dr. Jean Curtis-Raleigh

  The Reverend John Lang

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Horniman museum.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the Horniman museum are:

  Dame Margaret Weston (Chairman)

  His Honour Judge Brian Galpin

  Dr. Eileen Hooper-Greenhill

  Michael Homiman Esq.

  Dr. Schuyler Jones

  Donald Kirkham Esq.

  Dame Unity Lister

  Prof. Ghillean Prance

  Ronald Watts Esq.

  Michael Wheeler Esq.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts.

  Mr. Sproat
  The present members of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts are:

  Dr. Gerald Aylmer DPhil FBA (Chairman)

  David Vaisey FSA

  Viscount of Arbuthnott CBE DSC FRSE

  Lord Camoys

  Lord Egremont DL

  Dr. Joan Thirsk FBA

  Sir Matthew Farrer KCVO

  Sir John Sainty KCB

  Miss Barbara Harvey FSA FBA

  Prof. R. H. Campbell

  Sir Keith Thomas FBA

  The Very Reverend Henry Stapleton

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Blake Dlitt FBA JP

  John W. Ehrman FBA

  Prof S. F. C. Milsom QC FBA

  Patrick Cormack MP FSA

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the national maritime museum.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the national maritime museum are:

  Lord Lewin KG CGB LVO DSC (Chairman)

  Sir Nigel Broackes

  Professor Alastair Couper FNI FRICS

  J. G. Davis Esq. CBE FCIT FCIS

  HRA Duke of Edinburgh KG KT OM GBE PC FRS

  Sir David Hardy

  Robin Knox-Johnson Esq. CBE RD

  H. U. A. Lambert Esq. MA FIB

  Dr. Paul Murdin OBE

  Mrs. Coral Samuel

  Sir Charles Henderson Tidbury

  Arthur Burton Weller Esq.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if companies and consortia which plan to devote their profits to charitable causes will be eligible for consideration when he decides where to award the contract, or contracts, to manage the national lottery.
  516
  Mr. Sproat
  The responsibility for licensing a body corporate to operate the national lottery lies with the director general, who will consider all applications.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Trident D5 missile that the United Kingdom is purchasing from the United States of America has been flight-tested with more than eight re-entry vehicles.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 16 December,Official Report, column 903, on test firing, and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) of 18 January, Official Report, column 505, on a processing margin, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the maximum number of Trident missiles to be purchased from the United States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We plan to purchase sufficient Trident missiles from the United States to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent well into the next century. It is not our policy to comment on the total number of missiles to be purchased.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the technical maximum number of warheads that the United Kingdom's Trident submarines will be capable of deploying.

  Mr. Aitken
  Each United Kingdom Trident submarine will be technically capable of carrying a maximum of 192 warheads. However, we have announced that each Trident submarine will deploy with no more than 96 warheads and may carry a significantly lower number.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications of a cut-off in military fissile material production for(a) the planned Trident deployment and (b) the production of other future United Kingdom nuclear weapons systems.

  Mr. Aitken
  We hope to be able to work towards a multilateral and verifiable cut-off in the production of fissile material for explosive purposes which has potential value for non-proliferation efforts. It would be premature to comment on the implications for the United Kingdom until the details of such a cut-off have been agreed.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom has the capability to recycle military fissile material, currently deployed in its strategic nuclear weapons and arising from the dismantlement of some of its tactical nuclear weapons, for use in its Trident missiles.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes. The United Kingdom has the facilities for, and extensive experience in, the dismantling of redundant nuclear wapons and in the recycling of the fissile material.
  517

  Defence Staff
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the number, location, service and rank of defence and service attaché and defence adviser posts in foreign and Commonwealth countries as of(a) April 1990 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available together with similar figures for dedicated support staff; if he will publish similar figures for the British defence staff in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Tables showing the number, location, service and rank of defence and service attaché, defence adviser posts and dedicated support staff in foreign and Commonwealth countries as of 1 April 1990, table 1, and 1 February 1994, table 2, and British defence staff in the United States of America as of April 1990 and January 1994, tables 3 and 4, are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the financial arrangements for funding defence and service attaches and defence advisers and their support staff in foreign and Commonwealth countries.

  Mr. Hanley
  Funding of accredited service attaches, defence advisers and dedicated support staff is undertaken by the Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Ministry of Defence funds pay and allowances as well as necessary equipment including official transport. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides accommodation, office facilities, communications and security for Ministry of Defence personnel in post.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Hanley
  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.

  Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), of 20 January,Official Report, column 825, if he will set out the reason why the information requested on arms manufacture at the royal arms factory, Enfield is not available from official sources.

  Mr. Aitken
  When the royal ordnance factories were incorporated in 1985, all records were retained by Royal Ordnance plc, except those that were returned to the Ministry of Defence for preservation as public records. The returned files do not contain the information requested by the hon. Member for South Shields.

  Surplus Equipment
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the normal procedure for the sale of surplus or obsolescent equipment.
  518
  Mr. Aitken
  My Department arranges sales of surplus equipment through Government-to-Government and Government-to-industry contracts, competitive tenders, public auctions and private treaty sales. These take into account the type and condition of the equipment and the available market opportunities.

  Jet Provost Trainers
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Jet Provost trainers are to be sold in the current financial year.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 62 Jet Provosts will be sold in the current financial year.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom and under what procedure Jet Provost trainers have been sold; how many have been sold; and what financial gain resulted to Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since April 1990, 115 Jet Provost aircraft have been sold to over 20 different customers, by competitive tender, public auction and private treaty arrangements. Receipts have totalled some £600,000.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether contingent liabilities exist for the United Kingdorn Government in sales of arms or arms-related sales by the Government, its agents, including DESO or IMS Ltd., or as part of Government-to-Government arms deals.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes. The supplementary statement to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts 1992–93, Cm 52, contains information on contingent liabilities.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries have been the top 20 buyers of British arms since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  Details of purchasers of British defence equipment are given in table 1.11 of the United Kingdom Defence Statistics. A copy of the 1993 edition has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Arms Control Unit
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and function of the defence arms control unit.

  Mr. Hanley
  The main function of the defence arms control unit, now known as the proliferation and arms control secretariat, is to co-ordinate and provide advice on defence policy aspects of United Kingdom's involvement in non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament negotiations.

  Exercise Arctic Express
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected cost of participation of British forces in exercise Arctic Express.

  Mr. Hanley
  The expected cost to the United Kingdom for exercise Arctic Express will be some £2,950,000.
  519
  NATO will, however, refund part of the cost of air transport movement, reducing the final cost to a figure of some £2,600,000.

  Sarajevo
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is prepared to offer mortar-locating radar and other detection equipment to United Nations forces deployed in Sarajevo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is for the United Nations to determine the equipment needs of their forces in the former Yugoslavia. Any United Nations request for additional equipments would be given due consideration.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the use of air power to protect the civilians of Sarajevo in accordance with United Nations resolutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The North Atlantic Council's decision of 9 February authorised the use of air strikes in close co-ordination with the United Nations Secretary-General, if heavy weapons are not withdrawn from around Sarajevo or placed under UNPROFOR's control within 10 days. Air strikes can be launched with immediate effect, at the request of the United Nations, against heavy weapons responsible for any further attacks on civilian targets in the city.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the establishment of an effective United Nations safe area in and around Sarajevo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  United Nations Security Council resolution 836 established six safe areas in Bosnia, including Sarajevo. NATO has called on the parties to lift the siege of Sarajevo and made clear the alliance's readiness to carry out air strikes if heavy weapons are not withdrawn or placed under United Nations control within 10 days. The Government fully support the efforts of NATO and the United Nations.

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United Nations counterparts about the deployment of additional forces in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, has had many discussions, including on former Yugoslavia issues, with his counterparts from various United Nations member nations. Additional Dutch, Malaysian and Pakistani forces are currently deploying to Bosnia following a request from the United Nations Secretary-General last year for troops to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 836, which established six safe areas.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature and extent of the discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts about the deployment of additional forces in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in regular contact with his 520
  NATO counterparts about all aspects of our military deployments in former Yugoslavia. The deployment of additional personnel to UNPROFOR in Bosnia is, however, a matter for the United Nations.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a full breakdown of the total annual support costs for helicopter search and rescue operations including support manpower costs at RAF Brawdy in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Alcoholic Beverages
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will take steps in any EC Council discussions concerning the rules for listing ingredients and additives in alcoholic beverages to ensure consistent and simultaneous treatment for beer, wines and spirits.

  Mr. Jack
  Yes. During negotiations on the European Commission's proposal for ingredients listing of alcoholic drinks the United Kingdom will seek to ensure that any measures which are eventually adopted apply consistently and simultaneously to the different product sectors.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations she has received in favour of the deferral of the vesting date of Milk Marque from April to November 1994; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  On 9 February the Milk Marketing Board submitted amendments to its reorganisation scheme. These provide, inter alia, for a vesting day of 1 November 1994. We shall be conducting a formal consultation on the scheme as amended.

  Animal Diseases (Monitoring)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the future of the computer monitoring programme for the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, salmonella and other animal diseases at the Central Veterinary Laboratory.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Central Veterinary Laboratory and I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Paul Tyler, dated 11 February 1994:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the computer monitoring programme operated at CVL for the spread of BSE, Salmonella and other animal diseases.
  CVL has built excellent systems for the monitoring of a range of animal diseases including those you mention. The systems have produced accurate and up-to-date figures for some years and our expert team will continue to maintain and refine the systems for as long as they are required.
  521

SCOTLAND

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if chairmen and directors of trusts are required to declare an interest when any relevant business is being considered and withdrawn from further consideration of such business.

  Mr. Stewart
  Yes.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ascertain whether all trust executive and non-executive directors have been provided with the training necessary for them to have an adequate appreciation of the control mechanisms and rebating arrangements for financial matters.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 28 January 1994,Official Report, column 461.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to non-executive directors of trusts on their powers to act independently where they are in disagreement with chairmen and executive directors.

  Mr. Stewart
  Each trust board is required to have an audit committee, the composition of which includes non-executive directors but not the chairman or executive directors, and with a prescribed remit.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all board members of NHS trusts have been required to declare any interest that may be relevant before he appoints them; and if such interests are made known to the other members of the board to which they were appointed.

  Mr. Stewart
  Such information is not currently sought from trust board members prior to their appointment but the position is under review. Any trust director who has an interest in a contract or other matter at a trust board meeting is required by regulations to disclose that interest and not to take part in consideration or discussion of it.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to NHS trusts on the exercise of financial control.

  Mr. Stewart
  In addition to the training provision for their directors referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on 28 January 1994,Official Report, column 461, NHS trusts in Scotland are issued with a financial manual "NHS Trusts: Guidance for Financial Managers" which includes guidance on financial controls.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each non-executive member he has appointed to the board of an NHS trust(a) directorships, including non-executive directorships, held in private companies or plcs, (b) ownership or part ownership of private companies, businesses or consultancies likely or possibly seeking to do business with the NHS, (c) majority or controlling shareholdings in a charity or voluntary body in the field of health care, social services or housing and (d) any material connection with a voluntary or other body contracting for services with NHS organisations.

  Mr. Stewart
  Such information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has provided for chairmen of trusts on retaining the independence of their chief executives.
  522
  Mr. Stewart
  No specific guidance has been issued but the roles and relationships of chairmen and chief executives are covered in the induction courses arranged centrally for new trust chairmen and in support provided locally by the management development group.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of the Scottish pollution control co-ordinating committee since 1990.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish pollution control co-ordinating committee is a sub-group of the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, which officials of the Scottish Office normally attend. Its purpose is to promote the consistent application of district and islands' pollution control functions throughout Scotland and offer a forum for the exchange of information between local authority and Government officials.

  I have arranged with REHIS for copies of the committee's minutes since its inception in June 1992 to be placed in the Library.

  Glass Recycling
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has received from local authorities in Scotland regarding the current status of glass recycling.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Forty-eight Scottish local authorities have submitted draft recycling plans which give details of their current arrangements for collecting glass for recycling and of their plans for future glass collection. In addition, representations giving information about the impact of recent changes in prices paid for glass cullet have been made on behalf of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Argyle and Bute district council, Inverness district council and Cumnock and Doon Valley district council.

  Forestry Commission
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many submissions have now been received by the review group considering the future of the Forestry Commission; and how many of those submissions addressing the question of privatisation of the commission were opposed.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: Over 3,500 individuals and organisations have sent representations both to the forestry review group and to Ministers, about the work currently being carried out by the group. A large majority of these submissions which addressed the question of privatisation were opposed to it, with many referring to concerns about the implications for access, environmental considerations and timber production. All representations are being taken into account by the group as it continues its work.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list where cattle infected with BSE have been located in Scotland, the species involved, the number involved in each incident and the date on which each case was discovered; and if he will make a statement.
  523
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The information up to 31 December 1993 is given in the

  1993

  Breed

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Unknown

  9

  —

  16

  3

  11

  1

  1

  1

  20

  8

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Angus

  21

  —

  57

  3

  14

  3

  4

  5

  33

  8

  —

  —

  Ankole

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire

  —

  —

  39

  4

  3

  2

  1

  2

  42

  1

  —

  —

  Belgium Blue

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Blonde D'Aquitaine

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blue Grey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Charolais

  1

  1

  3

  2

  11

  2

  —

  2

  2

  7

  —

  —

  Chianin x Simmental

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Friesian

  23

  40

  323

  37

  120

  29

  29

  13

  264

  24

  —

  —

  Galloway

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Holstein

  4

  —

  22

  1

  10

  —

  1

  —

  11

  3

  —

  —

  Hereford

  55

  10

  80

  29

  93

  32

  25

  9

  45

  56

  —

  —

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Jersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limousin

  18

  14

  44

  7

  30

  2

  2

  1

  30

  8

  —

  —

  Luing

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Red Friesian

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Red Holstein

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Rogmanola

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Saler

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shorthorn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Simmental

  15

  4

  37

  11

  65

  17

  5

  —

  16

  19

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  146

  69

  633

  98

  365

  92

  68

  33

  473

  136

  —

  —

  1992

  Breed

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Unknown

  2

  1

  8

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  9

  3

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Angus

  26

  2

  40

  3

  13

  4

  3

  1

  38

  7

  —

  —

  Ayrshire

  1

  2

  38

  5

  6

  1

  —

  1

  61

  2

  —

  —

  Belgian Blue

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Blonde D'Aquitaine

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Blue Grey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  British White

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Charolais

  3

  —

  3

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  4

  5

  —

  —

  Devon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Friesian

  22

  23

  362

  22

  125

  27

  28

  15

  261

  26

  1

  —

  Galloway

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Gelbvieh

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Holstein

  4

  —

  12

  1

  19

  —

  —

  —

  12

  8

  —

  —

  Hereford

  35

  7

  59

  19

  70

  17

  6

  1

  42

  48

  —

  —

  Jersey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Limousin

  10

  2

  23

  4

  26

  1

  5

  —

  27

  11

  —

  —

  Lincoln Red

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Luing

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Murray Grey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Red Holstein

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rogmanola

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shorthorn

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Simmental

  7

  2

  22

  8

  33

  13

  3

  6

  14

  25

  —

  —

  South Devon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  112

  40

  576

  65

  312

  67

  45

  24

  471

  136

  1

  —

  1991

  Breed

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Unknown

  3

  —

  4

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Angus

  11

  1

  17

  —

  8

  1

  1

  —

  7

  3

  —

  —

  Ayrshire

  1

  1

  19

  —

  7

  —

  1

  —

  32

  1

  —

  —

  Belgium Blue

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blonde D'Aquitaine

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British White

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Charolais

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Friesian

  17

  10

  173

  20

  54

  7

  9

  —

  125

  8

  2

  —

  Gelbvieh

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  524
  following table. This shows confirmed cases of BSE by year of report, broken down by breed. Cross breeds have been listed under the main breed.
  525

  Breed

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Strathctyde

  Tayside

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Holstein

  —

  1

  4

  1

  11

  —

  2

  —

  8

  1

  —

  —

  Hereford

  17

  3

  21

  9

  26

  15

  1

  1

  16

  28

  —

  —

  Jersey

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Limousin

  5

  2

  5

  1

  6

  4

  —

  —

  13

  1

  —

  —

  Luing

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Murray Grey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Red Friesian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Red Holstein

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shorthorn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Simmental

  —

  1

  7

  4

  4

  6

  1

  2

  6

  6

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  58

  21

  254

  35

  124

  34

  15

  4

  214

  49

  2

  —

  1990

  Breed

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Unknown

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Angus

  2

  —

  5

  6

  4

  —

  1

  —

  5

  3

  —

  —

  Ayrshire

  —

  1

  5

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  41

  2

  —

  —

  Belgian Blue

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blonde D'Aquitaine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Charolais

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Friesian

  5

  8

  71

  22

  39

  6

  4

  4

  65

  15

  —

  —

  Galloway

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Holstein

  —

  1

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford

  11

  1

  3

  4

  34

  17

  3

  —

  15

  14

  —

  —

  Highland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Jersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limousin

  1

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  Lincoln Red

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shorthorn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Simmental

  3

  —

  1

  5

  5

  3

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  24

  11

  94

  38

  100

  28

  9

  6

  134

  42

  —

  —

  1989

  Breed

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Unknown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Angus

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  12

  2

  —

  —

  British White

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Friesian

  4

  5

  21

  8

  21

  4

  6

  1

  40

  4

  1

  —

  Holstein

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford

  1

  2

  5

  3

  10

  4

  —

  1

  3

  7

  —

  —

  Jersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Limousin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Red Friesian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Shorthorn

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Simmental

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  9

  7

  33

  11

  42

  12

  7

  2

  66

  17

  1

  1

  June to December 1988

  Breed

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Strathctyde

  Tayside

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Unknown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Angus

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Friesian

  1

  2

  7

  —

  9

  2

  1

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Holstein

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Jersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Limousin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Simmental

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  1

  3

  12

  0

  12

  3

  2

  2

  11

  3

  —

  —

  526 527

  Before June 1998

  Breed

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Shetland

  Western Isles

  Unknown

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Aberdeen Angus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Ayrshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Friesian

  —_

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Holstein

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

  Mr. Lang
  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.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Remand Centres
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown by race, on the most convenient date, of the inmates held in the remand centres at Featherstone, Cardiff, Dorchester, Exeter,

  Population in remand centres on 30 June 1992: by establishment and ethnic origin

  England and Wales

  Number

  Ethnic origin

  Establishment

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, mixed origin

  Other, not recorded (including refusal)

  All persons in establishment

  Hindley

  370

  4

  3

  16

  2

  395

  Low Newton1

  272

  2

  3

  2

  —

  279

  Moorland1

  430

  11

  17

  5

  —

  463

  Feltham1

  194

  69

  13

  16

  6

  298

  Haslar1

  11

  45

  24

  20

  10

  110

  Norwich1

  56

  1

  —

  2

  —

  59

  Rochester1

  92

  34

  1

  3

  2

  132

  Brinsford1

  285

  21

  17

  11

  1

  335

  Cardiff1

  93

  2

  —

  5

  3

  103

  Dorchester1

  33

  1

  2

  1

  1

  38

  Exeter1

  64

  2

  1

  —

  1

  68

  Glen Parva1

  259

  11

  15

  11

  2

  298

  Stoke Heath1

  32

  5

  —

  3

  9

  43

  Swansea1

  60

  1

  —

  —

  —

  61

  All remand centres

  2,251

  209

  96

  95

  31

  2,682

  1Establishments serving more than one purpose, the numbers above refer only to those held in the remand component.

  Brixton Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the reason for the recent trawl at Her Majesty's prison Brixton for staff; and how many prison staff had been subjected to compulsory transfers from Brixton in 1993.
  528
  Feltham, Glen Parva, Gloucester, Wigan, Iancaster, Durham, Doncaster, Northallerton, Norwich, Reading, Rochester, Market Drayton, Swansea and Milton Keynes.

  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 Ms Diane Abbott, dated 11 February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will give a breakdown by race, on the most convenient date, of the inmates held in the remand centres at Featherstone, Cardiff, Dorchester, Exeter, Feltham, Glen Parva, Gloucester, Wigan, Iancaster, Durham, Doncaster, Northallerton, Norwich, Reading, Rochester, Market Drayton, Swansea and Milton Keynes.

  The readily available information is for 30 June 1992 and is given in the attached table. Some of the Prison Service establishments listed in the Question were not operating as remand centres on that date. The breakdown given is in terms of the ethnic classification used at the time. A new ethnic coding was introduced in prisons from 1 October 1992.

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 11 February 1994:

  529
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning the reason for the recent trawl at Brixton prison for staff, and how many prison staff had been subjected to compulsory transfers from Brixton in 1993.
  Following an increased demand for staff in the north of England, a number of staff took the opportunity to transfer there from Brixton. Subsequently, a national trawl was held to replace some of the staff at Brixton.
  Prison officers are mobile grades and all permanent transfers are "compulsory". Where practicable the wishes of staff are taken into account. If this is not possible staff are issued with a compulsory transfer notice against which they can appeal.
  In 1993, 26 officers were issued with compulsory notices in Brixton. 19 of these appealed and the compulsory notices were subsequently withdrawn. Seven did not appeal and were subsequently transferred to Belmarsh.

  Police on the Beat
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from(a) hon. Members, (b) chief constables and (c) chairmen or members of police authorities, asserting that police beat cover has been reduced in their areas since 1992; and if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to ensure that any increase in the number of police officers is reflected by more police actually on the beat.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Views about policing levels and beat cover feature regularly in the numerous representations and correspondence which we receive on the general subject of policing. Information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Current initiatives designed to put more officers on the beat include reducing paperwork, civilianisation and reorganising management structures. One of the key objectives set for the service is to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public

  Number of males aged under 21 prosecuted at the magistrates courts and convicted1 at all courts of buggery offences—1982 to 1986 England and Wales

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  With a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  18

  17

  32

  23

  30

  23

  25

  23

  31

  31

  By a man with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent

  5

  5

  2

  1

  4

  4

  5

  2

  4

  4

  By a man of the age of 21 or over with another male person under the age of 21 with consent

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  —

  4

  2

  4

  5

  By a man with another male person other than above

  5

  3

  11

  5

  2

  1

  10

  6

  3

  2

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home committing buggery or an act of gross indecency on a male patient

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man committing buggery or an act of gross indecency with mentally disordered male patient who is subject to his care

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  2

  7

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  Attempt by a man of the age of 21 or over to commit buggery with another male person under the age of 21 with his consent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with another male person other than above

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  530

  Wymott Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Her Majesty's prison Wymott have been charged for the riot and destruction of the prison; and what has been the range of punishments provided.

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 11 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners at Her Majesty's Prison Wymott have been charged for the riot and destruction of the prison; and what has been the range of punishments provided.
  Lancashire Constabulary are still continuing their investigation into the disturbance. They have not yet charged any individual person, but he result of their inquiries should be known soon, together with any decision to lay charges.
  As a result of the internal Prison Service investigation into the disturbance, fourteen prisoners were charged with an overall total of 24 offences under Prison Rules. Three of these prisoners were found guilty of an overall total of four offences and the individual level of punishments awarded in these cases ranged from 7 to 28 days added to their sentences. One prisoner was found not guilty of the charges against him. Charges against the remaining ten prisoners have at this stage been adjourned pending the outcome of the police investigation or other internal Prison Service

  Buggery
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions over the past decade any male under the age of 21 years has been(a)prosecuted or (b) prosecuted and convicted for the offence of buggery.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1982 to 1992 is given in the table.
  531

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Assault with intent to commit buggery

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1 Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences.

  Note: Generally, attempting, conspiring, inciting, aiding, abetting, causing or permitting a crime is classified under the heading of the crime itself.

  Number of nudes aged under 21 prosecuted at the magistrates courts and convicted 1 at all courts of buggery offences—1987 to 1992 England and Wales

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  With a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  32

  27

  50

  40

  42

  30

  46

  31

  53

  19

  37

  30

  By a man with a male person of me age of 16 or over without consent

  6

  3

  4

  1

  3

  2

  4

  6

  5

  2

  2

  —

  By a man of the age of 21 or over with another male person under the age of 21 with consent

  2

  —

  4

  4

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  By a man with another male person other than above

  3

  1

  3

  5

  1

  1

  3

  2

  4

  —

  5

  2

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home committing buggery or an act of gross indecency on a male patient

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man committing buggery or an act of gross indecency with mentally disordered male patient who is subject to his care

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  6

  6

  10

  6

  6

  5

  5

  2

  4

  5

  5

  3

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Attempt by a man of the age of 21 or over to commit buggery with another male person under the age of 21 with his consent

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with another male person other than above

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Assault with intent to commit buggery

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1 Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences.

  Note: Generally, attempting, conspiring, inciting, aiding, betting, causing or permitting a crime is classified under the heading of the crime itself.

  Youth Custody
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1989,(a) the average age and (b) the average length of sentence of the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences, who have been reclassified from young offender to adult status prior to reaching 21 years of age.

  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. William Etherington, dated 11 February 1994:

  RECLASSIFICATION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list for each year since 1989 the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences who have been reclassified from young offender to adult status before reaching 21 years of age.

  The information requested is not available. The only information is for the number of people in the prison population at a particular date who had previously been reclassified. Provisional information for 30 June 1993 shows that about 90
  532
  young offenders were recorded centrally as being reclassified as adults in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales before reaching 21 years of age.

  Paedophiles
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for legislation to make it possible to prosecute British nationals who commit paedophilic acts overseas when they return to Britain.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government deplore sexual offences against children wherever they occur. Our own law against such abuse is rightly severe. However, our courts' jurisdiction is territorially based rather than nationally based and we have no plans to extend their jurisdiction over paedophile offences committed by British citizens abroad. We believe that such jurisdiction would be largely unenforceable in practice and that where such offences have been committed abroad it is right for the country concerned to enforce its own law.

  Unlike some countries which do claim a wide extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction over their nationals, the United Kingdom is willing to extradite its own nationals to stand trial for these offences abroad, subject to the usual safeguards. We are also willing to give legal assistance to other countries under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990.
  533

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the police arbitration tribunal.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The police arbitration tribunal comprises a chairman and two members. Sir John Wood CBE is the chairman and Mr. G. L. Dennis and Mr. M. J. M. Clarke are the two members.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the police negotiating board.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Professor L. C. Hunter is the appointed independent chairman to the police negotiating board. The deputy chairmen are Mr. T. Carlile and Mr. J. F. L. Pease-Watkin.

  The constitution of the police negotiating board stipulates that the board shall consist of an official side and a staff side. It is for those authorities and bodies to decide who should represent them on the board. The current membership is as follows:

  POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD

  MEMBERS:

  Home Office

  Mr. I. M. Burns

  Mr. T. Morris

  Mr. C. L. Scoble

  Mrs. P. G. W. Catto

  Mr. I. F. Smith

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  Mr. B. J. O'Connor

  Northern Ireland Office

  Mrs. C. Collins

  Police Authority for Nothern Ireland

  Mr. A. Armstrong

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Mr. G. Stanfield

  Mr. J. Jennings

  Mr. H. Brown

  Mr. E. B. Fallon

  The Association of County Councils

  Mr. C. F. Robinson

  Mr. J. H. Collins

  Mr. J. T. Meir

  Mr. S. Bayes

  Mr. B. Fippard

  Mr. B. H. Drake

  Mr. C. P. Hay

  Mr. R. G. Owen

  Mr. G. T. Theobald

  Mr. D. Briggs

  Mr. R. E. Meurie-Rees

  Mr. T. G. Yarker

  Mr. D. Sweasey

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. E. Bramfitt

  Mr. G. Bundred

  Mr. C. Swindell

  Mr. S. Murphy

  Mr. J. P. Mellor

  Mr. J. W. Cranswick

  Mr. C. Dale

  The Metropolitan Police

  Mr. D. Meynell

  The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and
  534
  Northern Ireland

  Mr. J. Burrow

  Mr. W. Lawrence

  The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales

  Mr. D. Clark

  Mr. D. Parkinson

  Mr. V. Jones

  The Police Federation for England and Wales

  Mr. L. Williams

  Mr. R. Coyles

  Mr. R. Penn

  Mr. A. Mason

  Mr. J. Moseley

  Mr. R. Oakley

  Mr. G. Hyde

  Mr. S. Cadmore

  Mr. F. Broughton

  Mr. D. Forsyth

  The Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)

  Mr. P. Mitchell

  The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents

  Mr. J. Johnston

  The Scottish Police Federation

  Mr. J. MacDonald

  Mr. J. Marshall

  Mr. I. Black

  Mr. D. Keil

  Mr. J. Fraser

  Mr. S. Falconer

  The Superintendents Association of Northern Ireland

  Mr. W. Davidson

  Miss A. Donald

  The Police Federation for Northern Ireland

  Mr. D. McClurg

  Mr. S. Beattie

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Fire Services Research and Training Trust.

  Mr. Charle Wardle
  The trustees are as follows:

  Mr. R. F. D. Shuffrey, CB, CVO, Chairman, formerly a Home Office Deputy Under-Secretary of State.

  Mr. W. Baird, a former Assistant Under-Secretary of State in the Scottish Office.

  Sir Kenneth Holland, CBE, QFSM, formerly Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services.

  Mr. P. Quaile, recently retired as Deputy Chief General Manager of Sun Alliance and as Chairman of the Fire Protection Association.

  Mr. I. Roy, a former Assistant Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Council on Race Relations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The members of the Home Secretary's Advisory Council on Race Relations are as follows:

  Representative Members:

  Mr. R. Gilbert (Confederation of British Industries)

  Dr. S. Deshmukh (Trades Union Congress)

  Mr. S. Gillings (National Association of Racial Equality Councils)

  Mr. R. Govindia (London Boroughs Association)

  Councillor T. Harris (Association of Metropolitan Authorities)

  Mr. H. Ouseley (Commission for Racial Equality)

  Councillor R. Place (Association of District Councils)

  Vacancy (Association of County Councils)

  Individual Members

  Mrs. S. Ahmed

  535

  Ms B. Bernard

  Mr. D. Bryan

  Mr. T. Chan

  Mrs. R. Howells

  Mr. C. Kavallares

  Mr. R. Mooneram

  Mr. D. Neil

  Mr. J. O'Loughlin

  Councillor M. Rizvi

  Mr. I. Sacranie

  Ms A. Weekes

  Prisons (Drug Abuse)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research the Home Office has undertaken to determine the degree to which alcohol and illicit drug abuse is taking place in prisons; what change the figures represent on previous records; and what steps he has taken recently, or intends to take, in order to combat such abuse.

  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. Frank Field, dated II 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 the research which has been undertaken to determine the degree to which alcohol and illicit drug abuse is taking place in prisons; what change the figures represent on previous records; and what steps he has taken recently or intends to take in order to combat such abuse.

  It is extremely difficult to establish with any satisfactory degree of certainty the degree to which alcohol and illicit drug abuse is taking place in prisons. This is because prisoners are understandably reluctant to admit to contravening prison rules. Most research has therefore focused on the use of alcohol and drugs by prisoners before they were imprisoned. A survey of 1,751 men serving a prison sentence (Maden, Swinton and Gunn, British Journal of Addiction 1992) showed that in 1988–89 43 per cent. of male sentenced prisoners had used drugs in the six months before their arrest. In the report "Mentally Disorderded Offenders" which was produced for the Prison Service by the same authors found alcohol and drug dependency (diagnosed on the basis of daily use during the six month period prior to their offence) as in the table below. The figures do not include cannabis users.

  Adult males

  Young offenders

  Females

  Sample size

  1,365

  404

  273

  Alcohol (per cent.)

  8·6

  8·7

  4·4

  Drugs (per cent.)

  10·1

  6·2

  24·2

  Research is currently being conducted for the Prison Service by the Drugs Addiction Unit at the Institute of Psychiatry to establish risk behaviour for HIV in prisons. This includes questions about current drug use which, if a satisfactory response rate is achieved, should provide better information on illicit drug use.

  The availability and use of drugs in our prisons is a matter of concern. The Government will be bringing forward a clause for inclusion in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to allow the Prison Service to test prisoners for drug misuse. In addition to this the Prison Service is reviewing existing policy relating to drugs and is developing a Drug Strategy which will address ways of reducing the supply of drugs, of reducing demand (by means of improved indentification and treatment for drug misusers) and improved support for prisoners who have become drug free in prison on their return to the community.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to the taking of legal action under the Race Relations Acts against the Hizb ut Tahrir organisation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: There is no legal action under the Race Relations Act 1976 which requires the involvement of the Attorney-General. Offences of incitement to racial hatred are covered by part III of the Public Order Act 1986 for which the Attorney-General's consent is required before a case can proceed.

TRANSPORT

  Operator Licensing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities that responded to his consultation document on deregulation of operator licensing and those that opposed the proposals.

  Mr. Key
  The 46 local authorities which responded to our consultation document are listed in the table. We made a number of proposals. The reaction to them was varied.

  1. Three Rivers District Council, Herts

  2. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  3. Blaenau Borough Council, Gwent

  4. Dacorum Borough Council, Herts

  5. Mole Valley District Council, Dorking

  6. Milton Keynes Borough Council

  7. Gedling Borough Council

  8. West Devon Borough Council

  9. Hastings Borough Council

  10. Runnymede Borough Council

  11. South Lakeland District Council

  12. Wiltshire County Council

  13. Newbury District Council

  14. Runnymede Borough Council

  15. Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

  16. Birmingham City Council

  17. Rother District Council

  18. Worcester City Council

  19. Cherwell District Council

  20. Derbyshire County Council

  21. Mid-Beds District Council

  22. North Kesteven District Council

  23. Devon County Council

  24. Avon County Council

  25. Newark and Sherwood District Council

  26. Kent County Council

  27. Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority

  28. Nottingham City Council

  29. Norfolk Planning County Council

  30. Babergh District Council

  31. Bedfordshire County Council

  32. New Forest District Council

  33. Bawtry Town Council

  34. Swansea City Council

  35. South Norfolk District Council

  36. Lincoln City Council

  37. Copeland Borough Council

  38. Lewes District Council

  39. Southampton City Council

  40. Bedfordshire County Council

  41. Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  42. Winchester City Council

  43. London Borough of Wandsworth

  44. Shropshire County Council

  45. Suffolk County Council

  46. Burnley Borough Council

  537

HEALTH

  Health Authority Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many managers were in post in each health authority and health trust in England in 1990–91 and 1992–93; and what was the total cost in each year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available will be placed in the Library. The figures need to be treated with considerable caution. The number of managers has been deliberately increased since the mid-1980s—not just since the reforms—because the service was previously undermanaged. Much of the increase shown in the table, however, arises from the reclassification of existing staff, including many senior nurses, as managers.

  Children (Birth Defects)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in the northern region have been born with a defective hand in each year since 1989 and if she will also list the name of the village or town of each child.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  The numbers of children born with a defective hand 1(ICDs 755.0, 755.1, 755.2, 755.4, 755.5, 755.8, 755.9) notified to OPCS in each year 1989 to 1992 for the Northern Regional Health Authority and individual district health authorities

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  NORTHERN RHA

  45

  33

  47

  34

  Hartlepool

  1

  2

  1

  3

  North Tees

  1

  0

  2

  1

  South Tees

  4

  4

  3

  4

  East Cumbria

  2

  0

  1

  2

  South Cumbria

  3

  0

  2

  5

  West Cumbria

  0

  3

  1

  2

  Darlington

  1

  0

  4

  0

  Durham

  4

  4

  1

  0

  North West Durham

  2

  3

  0

  1

  South West Durham

  6

  2

  4

  3

  Northumberland

  3

  3

  9

  2

  Gateshead

  1

  3

  2

  5

  Newcastle

  8

  3

  6

  2

  North Tyneside

  3

  2

  2

  1

  South Tyneside

  1

  1

  4

  1

  Sunderland

  5

  3

  5

  2

  1 ICD ninth revision international classification of disease code. The data are presented according to districts in order to protect the confidentiality of individuals.

  We have great sympathy for the parents of children who are born with limb defects. It is unfortunate that in the present state of scientific knowledge the causes of most defects of this kind are not known. We are aware of the need for a prompt and thorough investigation into the reports of unexpectedly high occurrences of birth defects.

  The investigation of recently suspected or reported clusters of limb reduction defects has been initiated by district health authorities, through directors of public health, who are taking expert advice, in concert with the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. For the last 30 years OPCS has maintained a national monitoring system for collecting data about malformations among newborn babies.

  OPCS is currently conducting a national analysis of limb reduction defects to scrutinise the geographical
  538
  pattern. This should be completed within a few weeks. The Department, with OPCS, is in discussion with the environmental epidemiology unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which also incorporates the small area statistics unit, to identify and make provision for the additional expertise that may be required.

  The results of these investigations will be considered carefully and decisions about any further action that might be necessary will be made as quickly as possible.

  Hospital Staff (Redundancies)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of redundancies among national health service hospital staff(a) by grade and (b) by reason for each year since 1988–89.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available centrally.

  Psychiatric Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) voluntary and (b) compulsory admissions to psychiatric hospital took place in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Informal admissions

  Formal admissions

  1979

  171,440

  17,849

  1980

  184,076

  18,514

  1981

  192,340

  18,571

  1982

  194,584

  17,959

  1983

  207,132

  16,918

  1984

  216,183

  16,361

  1985

  226,331

  17,287

  1986

  226,459

  16,696

  1987–88

  226,952

  16,777

  1988–89

  213,228

  17,240

  1989–90

  222,924

  17,312

  Notes:

  Figures shown for 1979–86 were collected by the mental health enquiry from all mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units and include figures from special hospitals and private mental nursing homes. These were based on calendar years. From 1987–88, the figures refer to financial year and were collected on forms KH15—from all NHS facilities—and K037—from private nursing homes—and also directly from the Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Mental Health Budget
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total mental health budget in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The table shows the estimated total hospital and community health services expenditure in cash and constant price terms in England on mentally ill people for each year from 1978–79 to 1991–92, the latest year for which this information is available.

  Expenditure on mentally ill people in hospital and community health services (England)1

  (£) million

  Year

  Cash

  1991–92 Prices2

  1978–79

  490

  1,311

  1979–80

  593

  1,359

  1980–81

  775

  1,501

  539

  Year

  Cash

  1991–92 Prices2

  1981–82

  860

  1,519

  1982–83

  916

  1,511

  1983–84

  965

  1,521

  1984–85

  1,029

  1,544

  1985–86

  1,077

  1,531

  1986–87

  1,149

  1,587

  1987–88

  1,302

  1,707

  1988–89

  1557

  1,9133

  1989–90

  1,662

  1,9103

  1990–91

  1,785

  1,8983

  1991–92

  2,085

  2,0854

  1 Figures include direct patient treatment cost and indirect cost such as hospital administration.

  2 After allowing for general inflation.

  3 Figures from 1988–89 include expenditure on mental illness in and out-patients, day patients and community mental illness nursing. Prior to 1988–89, expenditure on community mental illness nursing was not separately identified, and was included with district nursing services.

  4 Figures are not comparable with earlier years due to significant changes to accounting policies, following the introduction of the internal market.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the extent of over or under-spending on general practitioner fundholder budgets for 1992–93 in each family health services authority and national health service region; and what sums were retained or returned by general practitioner fundholders in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional level information will not be available until all fundholder accounts have been audited and local arrangements for the voluntary return of savings have been completed. Local information, at family health services authority level, is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding practices there are in the Lewisham, Lambeth and Southwark FHSA; and if she will list them with the amount of financial surplus for each practice for 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on 3 February at column 856.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average reimbursement to general practitioners for salaries for all staff in each year since 1990–91 excluding the general practitioner fundholding management allowance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 21 January at column 888.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many whole-time equivalent staff were employed by the Prescription Pricing Authority in each year since 1990; and what were the locations of their employment;

  (2) whether any part of the activities of the Prescription Pricing Authority is to be subjected to market testing in 1994–95;

  (3) what plans she has to change the structure, organisation or functions of the Prescription Pricing Authority.
  540
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of whole-time equivalent staff employed by the Prescription Pricing Authority at each location are:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  738·7

  742·0

  747·8

  11071·1

  Durham

  177·1

  170·1

  165·5

  161·8

  Wakefield

  163·4

  160·4

  168·6

  165·1

  Preston

  90·9

  89·3

  90·8

  88·0

  Liverpool

  11·91

  123·7

  126·8

  127·9

  Sheffield

  126·0

  126·0

  128·2

  128·5

  Manchester

  122·2

  125·3

  130·5

  128·2

  West Bromwich

  123·3

  160·5

  130·5

  132·9

  Bolton

  164·6

  164·7

  188·7

  195·2

  TOTAL

  1,825·3

  1,862·0

  1,877·4

  12,198·7

  1Includes 314·5 seconded Department of Social Security whole-time equivalent staff formerly employed in the health benefits unit—which became part of the Prescription Pricing Authority on 1 April 1993.

  There are no plans to change the functions of the Prescription Pricing Authority. Any changes to the structure or organisation of the authority will depend upon the results of its market-testing programme.

  Initially five areas of activity have been identified for market testing: prescription processing; management and maintenance of the authority's estate; mainframe computer support; security, portering, catering and central administrative services; and information division processing support. A rolling programme of market testing is well under way, with contracts for prescription processing due to be let by April 1995. Contracts for other services will follow, with the current programme completed by March 1996. Testing of remaining areas of the authority's work will then be considered.

  Dental Health (Children)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each health authority in the country in order of the dental health of their children, with such information as is available in relation to the flourine level of the water in each area; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Statistics on dental health for health authorities are not available centrally. The most recent dental caries prevalence surveys of children by health authorities was carried out during 1991–92. Details of the average number of decayed, missed or filled teeth of five-year-olds and the percentage of the population receiving fluoridated water supplies in each district surveyed is contained in briefing produced by the British Flouridation Society. The information is based on surveys collated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Cancer Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals or medical research institutions, including universities, are currently conducting research under what contracts placed by her Department into cancer causation by use of modified viruses; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department holds no contracts to fund any research into cancer studies by use of modified viruses.
  541

  Ethnic Minority Staff
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the percentage of ethnic minority staff at the management executive and her Department in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  The percentage1 of ethnic minority staff in the Department, which includes the National Health Service Management Executive, on 1 April each year since 1990–91 is:

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  9·8

  1991–92

  12·9

  1992–93

  14·9

  1993–94

  15·6

  1 Based on the response to the Department's ethnic origin survey.

  Comparative data are not available for the NHS Management Executive, but at 7 February 1994 the percentage was 5.9.

  Ambulance Service, Northumbria
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the responses to emergency calls of Northumbria ambulance trust were met within the(a) rural and (b) urban standards; and what percentage of such calls within the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear area were met within the urban standard.

  Mr. Sackville
  The performance of the Northumbria ambulance service national service trust is measured centrally against the 19-minute national patients charter emergency response time standard for rural ambulance services. In 1992–93 Northumbria ambulance service achieved the standard in 99 per cent. of cases. Information covering the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear is not collected centrally.

  The Northumbria ambulance service NHS trust has, however, been contracted locally to meet the more stringent, 14-minute, urban response time. This standard has also been achieved consistently, despite a 15 per cent. increase in emergency calls last year.

  Sunderland General Hospital (Parking)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paid for car parking spaces there are at the Sunderland general hospital; what is the revenue from car parking spaces; what further car parking spaces are to be created; what contingency plans are available when all the car parking spaces are full; and whether the staff use the car parking spaces.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. George Bedell, chairman of the Sunderland district health authority, for details.

  Health Care, Sheffield
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the land and buildings that are at present in the ownership, of the regional health authority in the Sheffield area.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been spent within the Sheffield health authority 542
  area on work undertaken for or on behalf of Community Health Sheffield shadow trust on capital developments, including minor works in the 1993–94 financial year and the estimated expenditure in the 1994–95 financial year, within Community Health Sheffield arising from or consequent on such work for managerial, administrative and clerical facilities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for Trent regional health authority. The hon. Members may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman, for details.

  Waiting Times
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by specialty for each trust in the Thames regions the average waiting time for a first appointment with a specialist and the average waiting time from the first appointment to subsequent treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times to first out-patient appointment is not yet collected. The last year for which figures are available by specialty on average waiting time from first out-patient appointment to subsequent treatment is 1991–92 and they were collected by district health authority and not by trust.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times prescription charges have been raised since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fifteen.

  Dr. Helen Zeitlin
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what correspondence she has received relating to the case of Dr. Helen Zeitlin; what action she will take to ensure that a prompt and fair settlement is reached between Dr. Zeitlin, the Alexandra hospital and the health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Two letters have been received in recent months. In November 1992 Dr. Zeitlin won her appeal against dismissal and was subsequently reinstated. Any current issues relating to her employment are a matter between Dr. Zeitlin and her employer.

  Midwives
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the percentage of front line ambulances by region which have a paramedic able to support a midwife in an emergency.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government have set a target for every front-line ambulance to have a paramedic by the end of 1995. It is not known how many paramedics are able to support a midwife in an emergency at present, but training in this area is being developed.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Healph if she will list by region how many midwives have worked in the national health service for each of the last five years; how many midwives by region have direct access to beds in maternity units; and how many women delivered in a maternity unit are admitted under the management of the midwife.
  543
  Mr. Sackville
  The information regarding the number of midwives working in the national health service for each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Information regarding the number of midwives who have access to beds in maternity units and the number of women delivered in maternity units who are admitted under the management of the midwife is not collected in the form requested.

  Hospital and community midwives by region in England 1988–92 At September (excluding agency)

  Whole-time equivalent

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Hospital midwives

  Northern

  1,060

  1,030

  1,040

  1,070

  1,160

  Yorkshire

  1,270

  1,280

  1,300

  1,280

  1,260

  Trent

  1,330

  1,360

  1,400

  1,390

  1,410

  East Anglian

  610

  600

  600

  580

  550

  North West Thames

  940

  950

  960

  910

  890

  North East Thames

  1,300

  1,270

  1,340

  1,350

  1,420

  South East Thames

  810

  610

  1,070

  1,030

  1,090

  South West Thames

  830

  840

  790

  860

  1,120

  Wessex

  910

  910

  900

  900

  890

  Oxford

  780

  800

  830

  850

  790

  South Western

  780

  970

  950

  860

  900

  West Midlands

  1,730

  1,770

  1,850

  1,800

  1,890

  Mersey

  780

  850

  890

  890

  900

  North Western

  1,720

  1,650

  1,680

  1,710

  1,760

  Special Health Authorities

  150

  140

  60

  70

  70

  England

  14,990

  15,040

  15,660

  15,540

  16,090

  Community midwives

  Northern

  260

  260

  240

  240

  240

  Yorkshire

  340

  350

  350

  340

  340

  Trent

  490

  490

  480

  490

  490

  East Anglian

  220

  210

  210

  210

  190

  North West Thames

  240

  250

  250

  220

  200

  North East Thames

  280

  300

  270

  240

  240

  South East Thames

  230

  170

  330

  280

  290

  South West Thames

  200

  210

  190

  180

  230

  Wessex

  250

  240

  240

  240

  250

  Oxford

  180

  180

  180

  180

  180

  South Western

  240

  240

  280

  330

  340

  West Midlands

  480

  480

  460

  420

  480

  Mersey

  240

  230

  230

  220

  220

  North Western

  460

  460

  470

  490

  440

  Special Health Authorities

  10

  10

  20

  20

  20

  England

  4,110

  4,070

  4,200

  4,100

  4,160

  Community and Hospital Total

  19,090

  19,110

  19,860

  19,640

  20,250

  Source: HAP(STATS)B non-medical work force census.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  2. England totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.

  FHSAs (Dental Services)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health services authorities have been unable to provide emergency dental services in each month since July 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have contacted each FHSA asking for help in finding a dentist in each month since July 1992.
  544
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many FHSAs have referred patients who have been unable to obtain treatment from a general dental practitioner to(a) the community dental service, (b) the hospital dental service and (c) a salaried dentist, in each month since July 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Total number of Family Health Services Authorities referring patients to either Community Dental Service, Hospital Dental Service or a salaried dentist since July 19921 England

  Week ending

  FHSAs

  3 July 1992

  20

  10 July 1992

  23

  17 July 1992

  19

  24 July 1992

  18

  31 July 1992

  22

  7 August 1992

  26

  14 August 1992

  21

  21 August 1992

  24

  28 August 1992

  25

  4 September 1992

  23

  11 September 1992

  26

  18 September 1992

  23

  25 September 1992

  24

  2 October 1992

  22

  9 October 1992

  24

  16 October 1992

  23

  23 October 1992

  24

  30 October 1992

  26

  6 November 1992

  28

  13 November 1992

  28

  20 November 1992

  27

  27 November 1992

  25

  4 December 1992

  26

  11 December 1992

  27

  18 December 1992

  27

  25 December 1992

  —

  1 January 1993

  —

  8 January 1993

  25

  15 January 1993

  28

  22 January 1993

  31

  29 January 1993

  30

  5 February 1993

  25

  12 February 1993

  26

  19 February 1993

  30

  26 February 1993

  28

  5 March 1993

  27

  12 March 1993

  28

  19 March 1993

  27

  26 March 1993

  25

  2 April 1993

  25

  9 April 1993

  25

  16 April 1993

  25

  23 April 1993

  23

  30 April 1993

  28

  7 May 1993

  26

  14 May 1993

  27

  21 May 1993

  24

  28 May 1993

  26

  4 June 1993

  24

  11 June 1993

  27

  18 June 1993

  25

  25 June 1993

  27

  2 July 1993

  23

  9 July 1993

  25

  16 July 1993

  26

  23 July 1993

  26

  30 July 1993

  25

  6 August 1993

  25

  13 August 1993

  23

  20 August 1993

  26

  27 August 1993

  22

  545

  Week ending

  FHSAs

  3 September 1993

  24

  10 September 1993

  25

  17 September 1993

  26

  24 September 1993

  24

  1 October 1993

  25

  8 October 1993

  27

  15 October 1993

  27

  22 October 1993

  26

  29 October 1993

  22

  5 November 1993

  25

  12 November 1993

  26

  19 November 1993

  24

  26 November 1993

  26

  3 December 1993

  27

  10 December 1993

  28

  17 December 1993

  29

  24 December 1993

  —

  31 December 1993

  —

  7 January 1994

  25

  14 January 1994

  29

  21 January 1994

  29

  28 January 1994

  30

  4 February 1994

  31

  1 Data were not collected over the Christinas and new year period.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many FHSAs have appointed salaried dentists; and how many dentists have been appointed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are currently 92 salaried dentists employed by 22 family health services authorities.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have given written notice to each FHSA to remove their name from the dental list since July 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table. The total number of dentists who have given written notice to family health services authorities to remove their names from the dental list since July 1992 is 297. A total of 347 dentists were added to the lists in the period 30 June 1992 to 30 September 1993.

  Number of dentists who have given written notice to remove their name from the dental list since July 1992, by Family Health Services Authority England

  Family Health Services Authority

  Number of dentists

  England

  297

  Cleveland

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  Durham

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  Gateshead

  —

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  —

  North Tyneside

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  Humberside

  3

  North Yorkshire

  —

  Bradford

  —

  Calderdale

  16

  Kirklees

  —

  Leeds

  —

  Wakefield

  3

  Derbyshire

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  Rotherham

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  546

  Family Health Services Authority

  Number of dentists

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  Norfolk

  3

  Suffolk

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  Barnet

  —

  Brent and Harrow

  —

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  1

  Hillingdon

  —

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  1

  Essex

  3

  Barking and Havering

  29

  Camden and Islington

  —

  City and East London

  42

  Enfield and Haringey

  30

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  —

  East Sussex

  13

  Kent

  35

  Greenwich and Bexley

  21

  Bromley

  13

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  13

  Surrey

  1

  West Sussex

  —

  Croydon

  5

  Kingston and Richmond

  —

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  16

  Dorset

  —

  Hampshire

  2

  Wiltshire

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  Berkshire

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  Oxfordshire

  1

  Avon

  —

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1

  Devon

  1

  Gloucestershire

  —

  Somerset

  3

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  Birmingham

  —

  Coventry

  —

  Dudley

  1

  Sandwell

  —

  Solihull

  —

  Walsall

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  —

  Sefton

  4

  Wirral

  1

  Lancashire

  —

  Bolton

  16

  Bury

  —

  Manchester

  1

  Oldham

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  Salford

  2

  Stockport

  3

  Tameside

  1

  Trafford

  11

  Wigan

  —

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists who have not given notice to leave the dental list have given written notice to the FHSA to deregister some or all of their continuing care arrangements for adult patients in each month since July 1992; how many dentists have deregistered patients; and how many patients have been deregistered.
  547
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Tables will be placed in the Library which show for each month the number of dentists in contract with each family health services authority who have deregistered adult patients and the total number of adult patients deregistered since July 1992. Where dentists hold contracts with more than one FHSA, the numbers of dentists quoted could include duplications. The information provided weekly by FHSAs since July 1992 shows that in the period up to 4 February 1994, 2,513 dentists gave written notification to deregister 629,318 adult patients.

  Despite these notified deregistrations, the total number of adult patients registered with a dentist in England increased by over 1 million—4·96 per cent.—from 20·580 million to 21·601 million over the period 1 July 1992 to 30 November 1993.

  Dental Treatment (Costs)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost per adult patient for each course of dental treatment in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average cost per course of dental treatment for an adult patient in 1992–93 was £34·77.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing mothers and (b) pregnant women received dental treatment in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what was the average cost per patient in each
  case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the number of nursing mothers and pregnant women who received dental treatment in these years is not available. Figures for the number of courses of treatment received by women in these two categories are shown in the table. Data are not available for 1990–91.

  The table shows the average cost per course of treatment for nursing mothers and pregnant women in each year. This is defined as the gross fee received by the dentist for the course of treatment. Pregnant women and nursing mothers are exempt from dental charges.

  General dental services: number of courses of treatment and average cost for expectant and nursing mothers1 1990–91–1992–93 England

  Number of courses of treatment

  Average cost per course of treatment2

  Year

  Expectant mothers

  Nursing mothers

  Expectant mothers (£)

  Nursing mothers (£)

  1991–92

  452,555

  665,310

  33·31

  45·24

  1992–93

  443,922

  672,609

  31·84

  42·69

  1 Mothers aged 18 and over.

  2 The cost is the gross fee received by the dentist for the course of treatment.

  3 Dental fees were reduced by 7 per cent, in July 1992.

  Self-governing Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that staff and their representatives are involved in the agreement and determination of performance-related pay schemes in self-governing trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for national health service trusts to decide locally.
  548

  Racal Healthlink Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data is transferred between health regions and districts through the Racal Healthlink service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Racal Healthlink service was set up primarily to link the primary health care services and associated national bodies: family health services authorities; the national health service central register; the Prescriptions Pricing Authority; and the Dental Practices Board. In general, these bodies exchange information to assist their administrative operations for example, patient registration details and claims for items of service.

  For regional and district health authorities, although central records are kept about the number of connections and who is connected to Healthlink, records are not kept about the type of data sent between these organisations.

  NHS Communications
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data is expected to be transferred through a new NHS national communications network service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The new national health service-wide communications network will cover the whole range of NHS communications activities: telephone calls, computer networking, radio mobile communications and the electronic transmission of images. Data could be of any of the types currently exchanged on paper.

  Patient Records (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 197–98, what plans she has to assure the confidentiality of any patient records which are held on the new network.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service-wide networking programme has established a security project to develop the security policy and associated security mechanisms needed to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of all information passing across the new network. This work is being undertaken in full consultation with representatives of the medical profession.

  Regional Data Networks
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 198, what was the cost of formulating the business case for implementing a national spine to connect regional data networks.

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated cost of developing the business case for a national spine facility was £290,000.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 198, who is carrying out the work to connect the region-wide data networks; and what is the cost.

  Mr. Sackville
  The competitive procurement of nationwide area networking services was initiated recently. It is intended that there will be one provider of the spine connecting region-wide networks and two or three providers of region-wide networks to maintain competitive pressures. The cost will be known when tenders are evaluated.
  549

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what features of the structure of the health service between England and Wales underlie the different availability of information regarding the percentage of women screened for breast cancer in the last three years between the two countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  Statistical information relating to the performance of the breast screening programme in England is collected annually by the Department of Health from each of 87 local screening programmes. This information is submitted as a standard statistical return.

  In Wales, the screening programme is provided from only three screening centres, due to the much smaller population. Each of these screening centres is part of a single organisation, Breast Test Wales. This enables the Welsh Office to acquire information more easily on all aspects of the programme. Breast Test Wales also provides annual statistical returns identical to those used in England.

  Alden Hey Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many orthopaedic patients are on the waiting list at Alden Hey hospital in Liverpool.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 19 January at column 617.

  NHS Appointments (Cornwall)
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the current non-executive directors and members of the Cornwall district health authority, Cornwall community healthcare trust and the Royal Cornwall hospitals trust, together with the dates when they were appointed and the period of their respective appointments.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 January, c. 793–94]: I regret the information supplied was incorrect. The correct information is as follows:
  550
  In respect of the Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust. Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Chairman of the Royal Cornwall hospitals NHS trust is Mr. John Williams. He was appointed on 1 December 199:1 and his term of office expires on 30 November 1995.

  The non-executive directors of the trust and their terms of appointment are as follows:

  Non-Executive Director

  First Appointed

  Current Term of Office Expires

  Mr. Gilbert McCabe

  1 November 1991

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Edward Latham

  1 November 1991

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Anthony Hill

  19 January 1994

  30 November 1995

  Mrs. Doreen Henderson

  1 October 1992

  30 May 1994

  There is currently a vacancy among the non-executive directors following Mr. Williams's appointment as chairman.

  South Western RHA
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the current membership of South Western regional health authority together with the dates when they were appointed and the period of their respective appointments.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 January 1994, c. 794]: I regret the information supplied in respect of the non-executive members of South Western regional health authority was incorrect. The correct information is as follows:

  The non-executive members of South Western regional health authority and their terms of appointment are as follows:

  Non-Executive Members

  First Appointed

  Current Term of Office Expires

  Sir John Kingman

  26 July 1990

  31 October 1996

  Dame Margaret Fry

  26 July 1990

  31 October 1996

  Mr. Upert Woodburn

  1 January 1993

  31 October 1996

  There are currently two vacancies on the board.

  US NAVY MEDITERRANEAN BATTLE GROUP
  US NAVY MEDITERRANEAN BATTLE GROUP
  ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
  ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
  BUILDING REGULATIONS: EXTENSION OF PART M
  BUILDING REGULATIONS: EXTENSION OF PART M
  MAASTRICHT TREATY, ARTICLE 109e/
  MAASTRICHT TREATY, ARTICLE 109e/
  NHS CONSULTANTS: PRIVATE WORK AND RETAINING FEES
  NHS CONSULTANTS: PRIVATE WORK AND RETAINING FEES
  GARTH PRISON: MEAL EQUIPMENT
  GARTH PRISON: MEAL EQUIPMENT
  POLICE SERVICE: CORE DUTIES
  POLICE SERVICE: CORE DUTIES
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  POLICE OFFICERS: PERJURY CONVICTIONS
  POLICE OFFICERS: PERJURY CONVICTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS HELD BY MPs' SPOUSES
  EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS HELD BY MPs' SPOUSES
  NAVAL GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL MINESWEEPING CLASP
  NAVAL GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL MINESWEEPING CLASP
  APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION
  APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION
  BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
  BIOLOGICAL MONITORING