Sitting of 16 February 1994

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

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what improvement in quality of service has been seen in councils since the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Independent research by the university of Birmingham has shown that authorities' CCT contracts have ensured better monitoring and better delivery of services. Costs are on average 7 per cent. less than before, and up to 20 per cent. less for some services.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that compulsory competitive tendering breaks up the cosy relationship between some local authorities and trade unions, particularly those local authorities that run direct services organisations? Is not that really why Labour Members are fearful of fair competition?
    Mr. Baldry: If one wants evidence of that cosy relationship, one need look no further that this week's Municipal Journal. On one page, we discover that the GMB persuaded the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council to rethink its decision to award to outside contractors 19 contracts, which had been won fairly on competitive tender. If we want to know why that has happened, we have only to look on the opposite page, where we discover that the same union will be giving some £250,000 to help the Labour party to fight elections. That is the clearest possible example of a trade union buying influence. The Labour party is clearly in the pocket of the very union that does not want competitive tendering.
    Mr. Henderson: I declare an interest, as a member of the GMB. Are not many thousands of GMB and other trade union members employed by local authorities on very low wages? Have not the cost savings made through CCT often been at the expense of the wages of those low-paid people and, on other occasions, resulted in the quality of services suffering?
    Does the Minister recognise that the transfer of jobs from the public sector, where the Department of the Environment has responsibility, to contractors raises pensions questions? Will he confirm that contractors themselves have asked for clarification on that? Does he
    928
    accept that, when jobs are transferred from local authorities to contractors, any system that is fair should include the fair transfer of pension arrangements and that local authorities and contractors should be obliged to honour those arrangements?
    Mr. Baldry: I notice that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges being sponsored by the GMB, but does not have the good grace to acknowledge that the GMB is seeking to persuade the Labour party, with a substantial contribution of funds, to go back on competitive tendering.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the effectiveness of competitive tendering, all the research shows that performance has been better monitored, productivity has been improved, staff are better managed and motivated and morale is higher as a consequence of CCT. That independent research has been carried out by the institute of local government management in the university of Birmingham, and Opposition Members do not like it, just as they do not like the advice on pensions given by Dr. Elias and others. We will, of course, look carefully at those points.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite what the Opposition have said, my local council, Waltham Forest, has consistently failed to make the extra effort over CCT? The council's direct services organisation was hugely in debt and failed to collect the outstanding bills, and that led to a reduced service for the public. Was not that directly as a result of a political decision by the council to drag its heels over the matter?
    Mr. Baldry: All the evidence shows that competitive tendering brings substantial savings to local people and improves the quality of service. It is a sad reflection that far too many local authorities still resist introducing competitive tendering, often at the behest of the local trade unions. Local authorities must decide whose interests they serve—those of local people or those of local trade unionists.

    Local Government (Fraud and Corruption)
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning fraud and corruption in local government.
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): From time to time, there are allegations about fraud and corruption which are pursued by the proper authorities. Fraud and corruption are always to be condemned.
    Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister confirm the view that has already been expressed by the Government spokesperson in another place that John Magill, the district auditor in the Westminster homes for votes scandal, acted correctly and followed procedures to the letter? Will he join me and others in condemning Westminster Tories who are using the tragic death of Dr. Michael Dutt to try to discredit the district auditor's report?
    Mr. Curry: The position is extremely clear and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know it. The auditor acted perfectly properly, but the conclusions that he has come to are preliminary conclusions, which have not been subject to any trial or adjudication by a court. Clearly,

    929
    there is a procedure that will decide whether those conclusions were well founded. At that point, people can form their judgment. It is wrong to do so before.
    Mr. Bates: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), speaking of Lambeth council, was reported in The Times on 23 January 1993 as saying:
    "the whole place is falling to bits with corruption"?
    Mr. Curry: I know that the hon. Lady is an extremely assiduous Member for her constituency. She is clearly in a much better position to make judgments than the rest of us.
    Mr. Betts: Is not it time that Ministers stopped condemning Labour authorities when only vague allegations have been made about their conduct, and addressed the real problems in authorities such as Westminster? Will the Minister tell us what his Department knew about the cash incentive scheme in Westminster? Was not that scheme approved by his Department? Were not the subsidies for that scheme paid by his Department? Was not the monitoring of the scheme carried out by his Department? Did not the Department undertake a comprehensive review of the scheme, which showed precisely what was happening? Is not it time that the Government came clean and not merely criticised what Westminster council did but owned up to their responsibility in that sordid matter?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman's introduction was revealing. He asked whether it was not time that we did not look at Labour councils. I say that we should look at all councils where there are allegations of corruption, no matter what political colour they are. We have a common interest in stopping corruption and sorting it out wherever it is found, irrespective of what council it is. We should create a clear distinction between allegations and what is found to be true. When allegations have been proven, we have a common interest in seeking probity in local government, irrespective of what council is involved.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the allegations of corruption and fraud in Labour-controlled Monklands, Lambeth and Haringey, the ex-deputy leader of Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council is currently serving a prison sentence for defrauding the council by fiddling his expenses?
    Mr. Curry: My understanding is that the gentleman has appealed against his sentence. He is alleged to be conducting council business from his cell in the mean time, and is receiving the allowances that go with those responsibilities. I should have thought that it might be slightly more prudent for those allowances to be held and paid if he is proved not guilty, rather than being paid during the period of his appeal.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that, on top of the systematic corruption and gerrymandering exposed in Westminster, there is a rising tide of reports of official corruption investigations in one Conservative district council after another, the latest being in South Oxfordshire, Hertsmere and Mid Bedfordshire? Is not it because the abuse of power by many sections of the Conservative party is so extensive that, in addition to what some Members of Parliament have said, the former Lord Chancellor and ostensible upholder of the rule of law, Lord Hailsham, issued a most disgraceful attack in another place on the
    930
    integrity and independence of the district auditor? Is not it the case that, in the eyes of some Conservatives, the independence of the judicial process ends where Conservative sleaze and corruption begin?
    Mr. Curry: What the former Lord Chancellor said is perfectly clear. He said that many people were acting as if the auditor's report were proven fact and those people mentioned in it had been condemned in a court of law. He said that that was not the case and that the reports contained the preliminary findings, which have to be verified. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
    If the hon. Gentleman wishes to swap councils across the Dispatch Box, then anyone can play that game. We have a common interest in ensuring that we have a system of local government that people respect and that is conducted on the basis of probity. If the hon. Gentleman wishes simply to drag us into a mud-slinging contest on that subject let him go for it because I am happy to sling with everyone else, but it will not do any good to the electorate, to local government or to those who aspire to public service.

    Rent-to-mortgage Scheme
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what uptake he expects of the rent-to-mortgage scheme.
    The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The early response to the scheme has been encouraging, although it is as yet too early to say how many of the 1.5 million tenants who are eligible will take advantage of it.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his considered reply. Does not the success of the scheme depend on the level of interest shown in it? Had the Opposition parties been in power, what level of interest would there have been?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend rightly points out that the scheme is of interest to 1.5 million local authority tenants who would not have the choice that is now available to them had we listened to Opposition Members. I hope that all hon. Members will bring to the attention of their local authority tenants the potential of the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which will be of interest to the 1.5 million local authority tenants who are paying their rents in full.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister remember just before the last general election accepting a mortgage-to-rent scheme that I proposed, at least in part? The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Minister, said that the scheme would save thousands of people from being repossessed and going into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That was therefore a similar sort of scheme. Why did the Government say before the election that they would save thousands of those families, but fail to do anything afterwards?
    Sir George Young: That is a good example of Opposition Back Benchers implying that the Labour party is committed to substantial public expenditure when they know perfectly well that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have distanced themselves from any such commitment.

    931
    The last figures were published in January and showed a welcome reduction in the number of repossessions and most forecasters agree that the figures will continue to fall.
    Mr. Waterson: Is not the golden thread running through the rent-to-mortgage scheme, the right to buy council homes and leasehold enfranchisement that Conservative Members believe in people having control over their own lives? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proposition has never been welcomed by Opposition Members?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes the point in his characteristically clear way. The Conservative party is interested in choice and in giving people the opportunity to make decisions about their lives. Opposition Members want to deny people that choice.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Before the Minister gets too enthralled by the golden thread of rents to mortgages, let me point out that, as he knows, many people who have bought under the right-to-buy scheme, to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will later allude when he introduces his Assistance for Local Authority Leaseholders Bill, are finding it impossible to sell their homes or pay for the capital or service charges. Can he tell them when he will relieve them of the consequences of buying under the Government's scheme, before he puts other people in a similar position?
    Sir George Young: As I think that the hon. Member will agree, most of those who bought flats from their local authorities did so with the benefit of substantial discounts, also benefited from the fall in interest rates and in no way regret the decision. A minority—
    Mr. Battle: Seventy thousand.
    Sir George Young: It is nowhere near 70,000. A minority of those who bought are having difficulty selling their flats. My Department is having discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the local authorities. We are encouraging some local authorities to follow the example of authorities such as Wandsworth, which gives mortgage indemnities to those who want to buy flats. I urge all local authorities to consider whether they have a role to play in proposing mortgage indemnity schemes—48 are doing so—or doing what the London borough of Enfield has done and buying the flats back.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Should not that excellent scheme now be extended to housing association tenants? Will my right hon. Friend look at the ways in which that could be done, despite the early opposition in another place to home purchase by tenants of housing associations?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, housing association tenants do not have the opportunity to take up rent to mortgage, because housing associations use private finance to supplement their resources to build new homes. We have given those tenants opportunities to get access to home ownership by extending the tenants' incentive scheme, which gives them the cash sums that they need to purchase homes in the open market. To some extent, that is a broader choice, because it does not confine them to buying the home in which they currently live.

    Water (Compulsory Metering)
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take in respect of the practice of charging for water by compulsory metering of the domestic water supply.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The basis for charging is a matter for each water company.
    Ms Eagle: Yet another answer from the Government in which they say that something is not a matter for them. We have just heard a lot about choice from Ministers, yet water metering is rarely a matter of choice; in fact it is compulsory. Does the Minister agree that when water is compulsorily metered there is a vast increase in the size of bills? What will he say to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. McGregor, who have seen their charge of £70 a year for water transformed into a charge of £144 for the first quarter—an increase of close to 700 per cent.—which they simply cannot pay?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady flies in the face of the facts that confront the average user of, say, electricity or of gas, which is metered and distributed on the basis of those who can afford to pay.
    Mr. Enright: But sewage charges are not metered.
    Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman were to be quiet for once, he might hear something to his advantage.
    The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) must understand, as I am sure that many people do, that if we are to be concerned about difficulties with water—for example, the demands for water that we have seen during drought periods in parts of England—we must understand that it is a commodity that may have to be treated in similar ways to others. I do not pretend to offer an absolute answer. Perhaps she would like to consult her Front Bench about the environmental concepts that she pretends to put forward in what, after all, is a point that does not have much validity.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not unreasonable for people to pay for what they use? Therefore, is not it right that subsidy should not be given when one bears in mind that, on average, with a metering system people will pay exactly the same? That point of elementary mathematics appears to have been misunderstood, or is incapable of appreciation, by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is quite right. Opposition Members are not very good at mathematics. Although vie should be tolerant of their foibles, the fact remains that, as is often the case with environmental issues, they say one thing here and another outside.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister must accept, however, that compulsory metering hits many households, especially large families with children and those with disabilities who need frequent bathing. If the Minister is worried about the environmental effects of drought, will he tell the water companies to do something about the 25 per cent. leakage of water, which is lost from the system and never gets to households? Does not he recognise that compulsory metering takes no account of human need, that it rations by price and discourages proper hygiene? Will he now ensure

    933
    that private water companies such as Anglian Water, which has already embarked on a programme of compulsory metering, are told to desist in no uncertain terms?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The fact remains that gas and electricity, which are metered—
    Ms Eagle: They are quite different.
    Mr. Atkins: They are not quite different; they are comparable and those utilities are required by average families, who pay accordingly. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) knows as well as I do that those in need and the more vulnerable members of society are able to obtain help and support from benefit offices. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman standing at the Dispatch Box to suggest that metering is not on. There are alternative methods of payment, of which metering is one.

    Water Charges
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of South West Water to discuss the basis of water charges.
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend has not yet had the opportunity to meet the chairman of South West Water. I hope to do so shortly.
    Mr. Nicholls: As and when my hon. Friend meets the chairman, I hope that he will take the opportunity to tell him about the indignation and anger that have been expressed during the past four years by hon. Members who represent the west country at the unsustainable level of water charges in the west country, which have continued to rise unabated. When does my hon. Friend expect the valuable initiatives taken in Europe to try to cope with those charges to bring about some decrease?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is one of my hon. Friends who have led many delegations to see Ministers, former ones and current ones, to discuss with us the problems of his constituents. I know that he will understand that we are doing all that we possibly can to alleviate the pressures on South West Water and on my hon. Friend's constituents. What is apparent, from what my hon. Friend knows and from what he and his colleagues have said to my right hon. Friend and to me, is that Opposition Members believe that we should implement directives on quality in some areas but are not prepared to listen to the concerns so adequately and properly represented by my hon. Friend and others on behalf of their constituents about those increases in charges.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern expressed in Devon and Cornwall by ordinary water users about the fact that their bills are due to double in the next four years to more than £500 a year on average? Is he also aware that people in the area are appalled by the synthetic concern expressed by people like the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) who, after all, voted in the House for higher bills?
    Mr. Atkins: I do not believe that we need any lessons in synthetic protest from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister accept that it is now well over a year since the Prime Minister came to the
    934
    west country and promised to cut bills? Since then, bills have continued to increase. When the bills for next year shortly fall through their letter boxes, people will find that they have gone up by almost a third since the Prime Minister made that promise. How long do they have to wait until their bills are a reasonable level?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he has also had a meeting with the Secretary of State—incidentally, he broke the information on that to the press before it was properly made available, but, frankly, that is typical of the Liberal party—that the situation is quite clear. We have understood the problem faced by people in the south-west, which is due to the fact that that region has a larger number of beaches than other parts of the United Kingdom. Is the hon. Gentleman expecting his hon. Friends in other parts of the country to subsidise the costs that his constituents are being asked to bear? If so, I should be extremely interested to learn his hon. Friends' response to that suggestion.

    Housing Stock
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he plans to take to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to housing associations.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Twenty five authorities have so far transferred their housing, with the agreement of their tenants, and 18 more are programmed to do so between now and March next year. I shall encourage more to do so in the future.
    Mr. Luff: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real benefits that will start to flow in Wychavon, to the tenants of Wychavon council housing and to the homeless, following the decision of the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction to allow the authority's stock to be transferred to two housing associations? Does he share my concern about the propaganda from certain Labour-controlled local authorities and the Labour party branches of Maidstone and Thanet against such transfers? Does he agree that it is about time that the Opposition started to put the interests of tenants and the homeless above their petty ideology?
    Mr. Gummer: When such a transfer was first made in my constituency, I had my doubts, but all I can say is that the experience of transferring local council housing in Suffolk, Coastal to Suffolk Heritage housing association has been uniformly good. In my surgeries, I find that far fewer complaints and many more congratulations are offered about the way in which local housing is run.
    I hope that the Opposition will recognise that. I understand that some members of the Labour party realise that it is sensible, as it benefits the tenants and provides more homes for the homeless.
    Mrs. Mahon: What can the Minister do about transferring the high-rise flats in Mixenden in my constituency, where asbestos has been found? The local authority cannot afford to pay for its removal. Would the Minister make special grants available if the property were transferred to a housing association?
    Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Lady knows, a number of local authorities, many of them Labour controlled, are now joining in to decide how best to deal with such matters. [Interruption.] Opposition Members must try to realise that I am trying to be as non-party political as usual, and I shall continue to try and be so. I do not want to embarrass any of the hon. Lady's colleagues, but they are looking into the matter. If the hon. Lady has a particular problem about asbestos in a particular block of flats, I am happy to consider it.

    Local Government Commission
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Local Government Commission to produce its preliminary report on the future structure of local government in Devon and Cornwall.
    Mr. Baldry: The Local Government Commission has asked for initial proposals for Devon to be submitted to it by 8 April and for Cornwall by 29 April. The commission will then prepare draft proposals, on which it will consult local people and other interested parties. The publication date for them is a matter for the commission.
    Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that a recent High Court ruling has changed the rules in favour of two-tier authorities? Does that explain why the commission is now no longer saying that unitary authorities are the preferred option, but that it will investigate and examine the merits of unitary authorities? Is he aware that the MORI poll in Devon recently shows that there is no pressure for change in our county?
    Mr. Baldry: First, the Government firmly believe that unitary authorities are often the best way to achieve effective and convenient local government. My hon. Friend is free to make his own views known to the commission, but he has to be aware that there are other views in Devon. I understand that eight out of 10 district councils in Devon are putting an agreed joint submission to the commission proposing a smaller number of unitary authorities. The political complexion of the districts involved is one Conservative, two independent, two Liberal, two with no overall control and one Labour. That shows that, in Devon, as elsewhere in the country, local people and councils of all political complexions are discussing with their neighbours the natural size of local government that is best for their area and are putting agreed proposals to the commission.
    Mr. Grocott: Does not the Minister owe it to the House to be absolutely precise about the soaring cost of his plans for local government reform? Can he confirm that the cost of the commission has risen from £2 million two years ago to an estimated £8 million next year? Can he further confirm that substantial numbers of civil servants in his Department are engaged full time on that and nothing else and that many others are peripherally involved?
    Finally, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that virtually every local authority in the country is having to devote substantial resources to dealing with the problems of local government reform? If he wants to pursue such a policy, does he not owe it to local authorities at least to make sure that central Government provide them with the funds for dealing with that expensive procedure?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not appreciated that the timetable for the commission has been reduced this year. Of course, that means that the costs are higher this year, but the overall costs are exactly the same. I am also surprised by the hon. Gentleman's lukewarm approach to the issue. Clearly, he has not consulted his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) who made it clear that Labour has been in favour of unitary authorities almost for ever. I thus find his remarks surprising and out of tune with what is being said, but perhaps it is yet another instance of the Labour party being totally split.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the recent court case and subsequent ministerial advice, many of us in the west country take the view that we are over-governed, that there is a strong case for single-tier local authorities, that Cornwall needs local government based on the existing district councils and that the county council should be scrapped?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes some very good points about the duplication of functions. There is bound to be confusion when essential services, such as housing and education, are delivered by different authorities in the same area. In my hon. Friend's constituency, it must be confusing to local people that if they are concerned about the cleaning of their street, they must approach their district council, but if they are concerned about the maintenance of their street, they must approach the county council. That cannot make good sense. As I have made clear, we firmly believe that unitary authorities will often be the best way to achieve effective and convenient local government.

    Housing Association Houses
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of new housing association houses to be completed in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of new housing association houses to be completed in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.
    Sir George Young: The Housing Corporation estimates that housing associations will provide around 57,600 new lettings in 1993–94, 58,300 in 1994–95 and 51,500 in 1995–96; a total of around 167,400 over the three years.
    Mr. Burden: Is not the real fact that in the next financial year Government investment in housing associations will be cut by more than £300 million and in the year after by not far short of £300 million? How does the Minister explain away the fact that his Government have spent years grooming housing associations as an alternative to local authorities in providing low-cost housing only now to strangle housing associations, forcing them to cut back on building, or raise rents, or both? What does that mean for the 900 families who become homeless in my city of Birmingham every single month?
    Sir George Young: What really matters is the fact that the Government have exceeded by 25,000 the number of new units they said that they would provide. We have exceeded our manifesto commitment by producing

    937
    178,000 new homes as against 153,000. In the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92 the output was 70,000; in the next three years it is likely to be 178,000. That is what really matters for the homeless.
    Mr. Barron: Is not what really matters the newbuild social housing that we have for rent in this country and not the figures which the Government are putting out? Is not it true that there will be a 38 per cent. reduction in building new social housing for rent rather than the figures with which the Minister is misleading the House?
    Sir George Young: What really matters for people in housing need is the number of new lettings. Those are the figures that are of relevance to people in housing need and they are the figures which consistently go up.
    Mr. Hendry: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are 2 million more houses in this country than there were in 1979, but that too many of them are currently empty? Can he also confirm that the Government's task force on empty properties is making a concerted attack on bringing back into use those empty Government properties? Is not it time that Labour local authorities who are sitting on thousands upon thousands of empty houses made an equally determined attack on the problem?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. We must make better use of the stock that we already have. There are some 800,000 units empty and there is a political imperative to bring them back into use. I hope shortly to receive the report of the task force, with its recommendations for making better use of Government-owned properties. Local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled local authorities in London, must make better use of their own housing stock if we are to make faster progress.
    Mr. Barry Field: Is not the real answer to more housing association houses being built to give the tenants the right to buy? To paraphrase Shakespeare, what we would like to hear on this side of the House is: "Sir George for England and for housing association tenants".
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for injecting a patriotic note into our discussions.
    As I explained, many housing association tenants have the opportunity to become home owners by taking advantage of the tenants incentive scheme. The way in which housing associations are now funded makes it impossible to extend to housing association tenants rights parallel to those available to local authority tenants; but, in many cases, the tenants incentive scheme is a better alternative.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister was very selective about the figure that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). He did not dare to compare the current position with that of 1979. Will he not admit that there is now a serious shortfall in housing that is built for rent, as a result of Government policy? The Government are now cutting the money available to housing associations, and they have axed local authority provision. Given that he accepted last year that capital receipts should be used to allow new building, why does not the Minister accept that they should be used for that purpose now?
    Sir George Young: The figures for homeless
    938
    acceptances have fallen for the past six quarters; in the past 12 months, there have been 41 per cent. fewer people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and the number of lettings is rising. That is the currency which matters to people on waiting lists or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We are making good progress, and we are determined to go on and do even better.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 9 per cent. of Hackney council's housing stock is unlet? Does he not think that the council is trying to become even less efficient than Lambeth council—if that is possible?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right: there are housing difficulties in Hackney and it is incumbent on Hackney council to do all that it can to make better use of its housing stock. Filling those properties would generate a rental income which, in turn, could be ploughed back into improving the condition of the housing stock. I very much hope that that will be one of the issues on which public attention will be focused in London over the forthcoming months.

    Battersea Power Station
    Mr Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a repair order in respect of Battersea power station.
    Mr. Gummer: No. This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage; but I understand that English Heritage inspected the building last month and noted no significant change in its condition.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Secretary of State recall John Broome's proposals 10 years ago to turn Battersea power station into a sort of Disneyland, at a ceremony attended by Margaret Thatcher? Now—apart from its roof having come off—the power station is in danger of falling down. As the Minister responsible for London, and the ultimate planning authority for London, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will take urgent steps to find a community use for Gilbert Scott's wonderful gem on the Thames that is compatible with its architectural importance?
    Mr. Gummer: We must get the balance right. Much of the work done under Mr. Broome's ownership was of a structural nature, and it is clear that the danger to which the hon. Gentleman refers does not exist at present. I shall keep an eye on the power station, however, because—like the hon. Gentleman—I recognise its importance as an architectural feature. Although there is dispute about quite how important it is, I accept the hon. Gentleman's view.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Battersea power station is just one example of a sad category of buildings that have attracted the attention of Government Departments as gems of one kind or another, but have then been listed in a way that makes it extraordinarily difficult to adapt them, and have then been left for long periods? Many have decayed to a point at which they can no longer be rescued. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for National Heritage about this distressing scandal?
    Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether it is a growing scandal, although it is certainly distressing when buildings that might be put to better and newer use are not so put. We must accept that it is particularly difficult to find a new use for this building. It is, however, being regularly and properly inspected by English Heritage, and it should be recognised that large sums are necessary if it is to be put to a reasonable use. I do not think that my hon. Friend has many bright ideas about that—and few Opposition Members have either bright ideas or suggestions about where the money should come from.

    Council Accommodation
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposals to change priorities for rehousing families in permanent council accommodation.
    Mr. Gummer: The consultation paper on access to local authority and housing association tenancies was issued on 20 January. The consultation period ends on 18 March.
    Ms Coffey: Does the Minister agree that, in the allocation of houses, it is not the system but the shortage of decent, affordable housing that is the problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an inevitable consequence of the proposals in the homelessness review will be an increase in the number of children coming into care because their parents are overwhelmed by housing difficulties? Does he really want to go back to a "Cathy Come Home" situation? Will he reconsider his proposals, which only serve to punish the homeless for their housing need, and deal with the real problem, which is a shortage of decent, affordable housing in this country?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Lady is mistaken, and I shall explain why. At the moment, we have a situation in which some people, who are in very bad housing conditions but are not technically homeless, are left in those conditions, whereas others, who are in better conditions but are technically homeless, take the places that are available. What we are proposing is simply that we should seek a common means of sharing, on the basis of need, the accommodation that is available. The hon. Lady should be ashamed of herself for trying to suggest otherwise. She is using the plight of homeless and sad families for party political purposes.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current legislation on homelessness works against ordinary families with children who are in need, who often find themselves on the housing list for years despite the fact that they are local people with a right to be housed?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that when the legislation on homelessness was introduced it was intended to give people access to local authority and housing association accommodation on the basis of need. It is clear that that does not always happen, and it is sensible that we should try to ensure that in future it will. I do not understand why Opposition Members, who are supposedly interested in the provision of housing for those in priority need, find it impossible to join us in this effort and, instead, use the situation for sordid party political purposes.
    Mr. Battle: On the subject of shame, is not the reality that here, the shame rests with the Conservative party? Will the Secretary of State, instead of scapegoating single mothers and, now, the homeless in general and rubbing out people's right to a secure home by offering only a short-term break of six months in a private rented bedsit, cancel this uncalled-for, unwanted, back-to-basics-tainted review of the homelessness legislation, which is crudely geared to fiddling the homelessness figures—doing to the homeless what the Government have done to the unemployed, and doing absolutely nothing to tackle the real housing and homelessness problem, which the Government are deliberately turning into a crisis?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not think that it is acceptable that a family with children living in very bad housing should wait and wait and wait while people who are statutorily homeless, even though they have a better roof over their heads, jump the queue. The hon. Gentleman ought to take the opportunity of his next article in the newspaper for which he writes regularly to explain that Conservatives want to ensure that choices are made entirely on the basis of need rather than on the basis of statutory entitlement. Until the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the bona fides of others, as we are prepared to accept his bona fides, he will have nothing to contribute to this debate.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to encourage greater energy efficiency.
    Mr. Atkins: My Department is taking forward a comprehensive range of measures to encourage greater energy efficiency. These are set out in the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on energy efficiency in buildings, which was published yesterday, and also in the United Kingdom's climate change programme, which was launched by the Prime Minister on 25 January.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the doubling of resources for the home energy efficiency scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the November Budget has been widely welcomed throughout the country, especially by the elderly and disabled? Will he ensure that the benefits of the scheme are made widely known throughout the country to those who may be eligible?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is right to draw attention to the fact that we are increasing the budget in that area, as in many others related to energy efficiency. I will certainly take to heart his strictures about ensuring that the public are even more aware of what is needed to improve energy efficiency.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is it not time that the Minister admitted that all those documents and policies are long-gone pious hopes, short on realistic objectives? The Energy Conservation Bill, which represents a practical way of doing something about the problems, passed unamended through its Committee stage this morning. Will the Minister now assure the House that on Report he will not seek to weaken the important principle in clause 2—the duty to survey properties—by providing the alternative of

    941
    a permissive principle, which would make the Bill a toothless tiger—or can we assume that that is his real objective?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman was present this morning when the Standing Committee examined the matter at some length, and he will understand, as will the promoter of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that there are issues that cause some concern, and which are the subject of some consideration. In due course, we shall consider what action to take in relation to them.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: May I generally welcome the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, and its positive tone, as well as the responses of OFFER—the Office of Electricity Regulation—and the Energy Saving Trust? But may I underline the fact that the EST clearly has problems in funding a very important programme that will be the key to fulfilling our obligations under the climate change convention? May I therefore urge my hon. Friend to redouble his efforts to bring together the EST and the regulators to ensure that a solution is found to the problem and the funds produced?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will be interested to know that the regulators will meet officials from my Department tomorrow. I will certainly press the cause that he advocates.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the standard spending assessment formula used to determine local government spending in Liverpool.
    Mr. Curry: Liverpool's standard spending assessment is calculated according to the formulae set out in the local government finance report for 1994–95, which was approved by the House on 3 February.
    Mr. Alton: How can the Minister justify a formula that leads to children at risk in Birmingham being allotted £5,000 per head, whereas in Liverpool the sum is only £800 per head? How can he justify a formula that leads to a city that has been afforded objective 1 status by the European Community losing about £17 million from its assessment in the current financial year? Whereas local authorities across the country are receiving an average increase of more than 3 per cent., Liverpool will have a reduction of more than 1 per cent. In the circumstances, is the Minister now in a position to respond to the representations made to him by all the political parties on Liverpool city council? They are still awaiting a reply.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman would know a little more about the justification for the standard spending assessments had he been in the House when we debated them, and had he voted on that occasion. He was not here. It is not my job to compensate for his previous absence. The SSA system has been worked out objectively; it is a formula-based system, a means of dividing a fixed cake. The fact that Liverpool gets lots of benefits from other schemes is not relevant to the consideration. I told Liverpool clearly that if its representatives wished to discuss the way in which we took the SSA system forward
    942
    I should be perfectly willing to do that. I have made that offer to all the councils whose representatives have come to see me. This year's settlement was agreed by the House in the hon. Gentleman's absence.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Are the findings of the 1991 census now incorporated fully into the SSA formulae?
    Mr. Curry: Yes they are. In future years, the population estimates will be included until there is another census that will enable us to incorporate the actual figures. That is part of the continual updating of the system.

    Car Boot Sales
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had on the control of car boot sales.
    Mr. Baldry: We regularly receive correspondence on the subject of car boot sales from those who are concerned about the problems that badly managed events can sometimes cause and from others who regard car boots sales as a useful activity which is already adequately regulated.
    Mr. Griffiths: As the Federation of Small Businesses fears that the abolition of market franchise rights will harm traditional village and town markets, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that honest market traders and consumers are protected from the minority of car boot sale cowboys?
    Mr. Baldry: There is a battery of regulation and legislation already in place which can be used to control car boot sales. It may be helpful to the House if I state that the Acts are the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Theft Act 19768, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions.) Act 1976, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Local authorities already have a wide range of powers to manage car boot sales. One wonders what further regulation the Labour party wants. Does it simply want to ban car boot sales altogether?
    Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend please bear it in mind that well-managed car boot sales provide a useful source of income to many charities and voluntary organisations? Will he try to avoid producing yet more well-intentioned legislation, which ends up letting the villains escape and trammelling decent people in yet more burdens of red tape?
    Mr. Baldry: As I have already made clear, there are at least eight Acts of Parliament that apply to the control of car boot sales. My hon. Friend makes a good point that there are large number of organisations, including voluntary and charitable organisations, that find car boot sales a useful way to legitimately raise funds.
    Mr. Vaz: What is the real reason why the Government have reversed their policy on market deregulation from their statement contained in a letter from officials to the National Association of British Market Authorities on 11 March 1991? Will the Minister confirm that a change in franchise rights will allow car-boot cheats to thrive at the expense of honest traders? It will be a crooks charter. Does

    943
    not he accept that that failure to reimburse local authorities for any change in franchise rights would, in the words of his officials,
    "infringe the European convention on human rights"
    as it amounts to expropriation without compensation? When will the Minister clear up that mess?
    Mr. Baldry: I am somewhat boggle-minded at the idea that removing archaic rights given by the Crown many years ago to local authorities is somehow in contravention of the European convention on human rights, but I believe that anything can be said at Question Time. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is completely bogus. The only right that market franchise rights give to a local authorities is to be able to object to a market being within six and two thirds of a mile on that day. As most car boot sales take place on a Sunday, it follows that market franchise rights have little, if any effect, in controlling car boot sales.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the leader of Chelmsford borough council to discuss local government finance.
    Mr. Curry: I shall do my best to respond positively to an invitation.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. If he were to come to Chelmsford to meet the leader of Chelmsford borough council, Councillor Wedon, he and the other Conservative councillors would explain how they have reduced the council tax bill by £20 in the current year while maintaining services. He would also hear that that good work for the taxpayer will be undercut by the increases that Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council is imposing on charge payers by spending up to its standard spending assessment.
    Mr. Curry: I know that the present leadership in Chelmsford has tried to pull back the council from the exorbitant levels of expenditure reached by the Liberal Democrat party and I am sad that those efforts will be undermined by the opposition parties of Essex county council. That will end the tradition of sound rule.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Bolsover district council will travel to Chelmsford and they will pass all those cones on the M1 to discuss the important question of the landslip, which they discussed with the Minister, on
    944
    which six houses have already been demolished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not in Chelmsford.] We are prepared to discuss it at Chelmsford, at Finchley, at Westminster—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is being discussed here, at Westminster. The hon. Gentleman's question is irrelevant.
    Mr. Skinner: We will travel anywhere to get the money.
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are in Westminster now.

    Single-tier Local Government
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimates of potential savings as a result of the creation of single-tier local government in England.
    Mr. Baldry: The capacity for savings across England will depend on the action of the councils established by Parliament following the recommendations of the Local Government Commission.
    Mr. Hall: Does the Minister agree that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that shire counties' estimates of the transitional costs of the local government review are grossly exaggerated? Does he agree that they have also grossly exaggerated the pay-back period of those transitional costs and that there are real savings to be made in the local government review? Therefore, the shire counties' claim that the review will mean £100 on people's council taxes is erroneous. Does the Minister also agree that unitary authorities offer great scope for local government, particularly in Halton and Warrington borough councils which I represent?
    Mr. Baldry: In local government reorganisation, we must look at the opportunities that that reorganisation presents to find ways in which services can be better delivered for the benefit of local people. I have absolutely no doubt that, up and down the country, people of all political complexions are coming together to find just that. We need to treat with suspicion some of the estimates of the costs of reorganisation presented by way of special pleading from particular groups from wherever they come. However, I hope that everyone considering the reorganisation of local government will consider ways in which long-term savings can be made as a consequence of reorganisation.
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: No, I have a statement. I call Mr. Robin Cook to ask his private notice question.

British Steel
3.30 pm
Mr. Robin Cook (by private notice): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the decision of the European Commission to fine British Steel.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The European Commission announced this morning the decision to impose fines of slightly more than 100 million ecu on 16 steel companies from six Community and three Scandinavian countries.
Under the treaty of Paris—the European Coal and Steel Community treaty—the Commission has sole jurisdiction in the application of competition law to cartels and restrictive agreements so far as they concern primary steel products. I would emphasise that the Government support the full and fair application of the Community's competition rules.
My latest information is that British Steel has not yet received formal notification from the Commission. However, the fines are being levied following a Commission investigation into alleged anti-competitive activity in beams. The Commission has made a finding of price fixing, exchange of information and market sharing.
The procedures which have led to the imposition of the fine constitute a legal process. It is open to the company to appeal and I understand that it intends to do so.
The House will recall that the European steel industry had operated with production quotas administered by the Commission under the manifest crisis provisions of the ECSC treaty between 1980 and 1988.
The chairman of British Steel has told me that the company is surprised at the decision, particularly since it contends that the Commission was aware of exchanges of information that continued after the ending of the manifest crisis on 30 June 1988.
I would stress that this matter is entirely for the Commission and the company, but we shall be studying the wider implications carefully and discussing them with British Steel at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Cook: Does not the Minister appreciate that the statement which the House wanted was not one about what the Commission had decided, but one about what was the view of the British Government and what the British Government were going to do about it? Does he not understand that the survival of the British steel industry is not something else that he can add to the long list of things for which the Government will take no responsibility?
Does not the Minister realise that the reason why today's fine will cause anger and anxiety among the work force at British Steel is that it is another blow to an industry which has already lost 100,000 jobs and shed double the capacity of the rest of Europe?
Will the Minister confirm that the fine which has been imposed on British Steel is larger than that on any of the 16 companies to which he referred, and is three times larger than the next biggest fine? Why should British Steel, which has already made the biggest cuts in capacity, now be hit with the biggest fine? Will the Minister confirm that the value of the fine imposed on British Steel is larger than the profits that it declared for the first six months of 1993? What will that mean for steel plants that are already at risk and are already having difficulty making ends meet?
946
In the light of today's fine, will the Minister now reconsider his decision at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in December to agree to large new subsidies for German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese steel industries? Will he confirm that, at the meeting, he agreed to state subsidies of £5 billion to those industries? How can it be fair competition to fine British Steel millions and subsidise German and Italian steel by billions? Does the Minister remember saying before the meeting that no deal was better than a bad deal? Will he now admit that it was a bad deal and that today's fine makes it a worse deal for British Steel?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the Commission what he failed to tell it in December, and that is that there will be no more cuts in steel capacity in Britain until the rest of Europe have matched the cuts in capacity that we have already made, and that the solution to the crisis in the steel industry in Europe is to wind down subsidies to capacity in the least efficient companies, not to fine British Steel and threaten the most efficient steel plants in Europe?
Mr. Sainsbury: I find Labour Members' great enthusiasm for all things related to Europe and their untrammelled support for the treaty of Rome somewhat at odds with the hon. Gentleman's approach to the question. He asked what the Government intend to do about it. I suppose that he might have been suggesting that we leave the European Union and seek the abrogation of the treaty of Rome and the treaty of Paris. If he is not suggesting that, I assume that he would like us and other member states to adhere to the provisions of the treaty. The hon. Gentleman displays his ignorance of the provisions of the treaty by asking what the Government can do about something which, as I made clear in my answer, is entirely a matter for the Commission and for the company concerned.
I am happy—he might be surprised—to agree with the hon. Gentleman on one thing. I am surprised that he ever says anything that I find myself able to agree with. He said that it would be most useful for British steel companies to wind down the illegal state subsidies being paid in the rest of Europe. That indeed was the purpose of the agreement of 17 December. It was unanimously agreed in the Council of Ministers because it brought about not only a substantial reduction in capacity but, more important, an agreement to end operating cost subsidies and the imposition of the strictest monitoring arrangements on that point that we have ever had in the European Community.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Now that we have had the initial exchange, I am looking for brisk answers and even brisker questions.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend dismiss the hollow words of Opposition Members who opposed the privatisation of British Steel which has led to its productivity? Will he accept that the news will be a bitter blow to the workers and managers at British Steel at Skinningrove in my constituency? Will he also accept that, on top of the decision that they will have to face capacity cuts, the news is unwelcome? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we want Europe's most efficient steel producer, British Steel, to be allowed to operate in a free market and on a level playing field?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am very happy to agree that we want British Steel, which is probably Europe's most efficient

947
producer of primary steel products, to be able to operate and trade in a free and fair market. That is why we entirely support the Commission in what it is seeking to do to end illegal state subsidies. We will pursue that objective as energetically as we can, and we will monitor the Commission's performance in monitoring illegal state subsidies as closely as we can.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Does the Minister agree that it is crude timetabling for the Commission to bring forward the matter after three years of investigations? Would it be more in tune with the deal that he tried to do to take out 25 million tonnes of excess capacity and compare that with the British Steel Corporation's and the British steel industry's removal of capacity, particularly with the manifest crisis, which was done in the reference period and which mitigated against our own steel industry? When he attends the next ministerial conference, will he ensure that there are no further reductions until the deficit produced in the manifest crisis between 1980 and 1988 is met? Will he at least give the British steel industry a fair crack of the whip?
Mr. Sainsbury: Our extensive contacts with British Steel and the British steel industry show that most of all they want the elimination of the operating cost subsidies that go to state-owned companies in other parts of Europe. They also want and expect further reductions in capacity. Substantial reductions in capacity were agreed at the Industry Council on 17 December. It was also agreed that there should be strict monitoring arrangements to ensure that there was an end to operating cost subsidies.
I assure hon. Members that, in our efforts to ensure that the agreement is adhered to, we shall leave no stone unturned. The Commission is already aware of our views on the subject and I shall ensure that it will remain in no doubt about them.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Commission cannot face both ways? On 17 December, it was asked and gave approval to sanction retrospectively £5 billion of illegal subsidies in Spain, Italy and Germany. Is it not the industrial economics of the mad house to sanction such support and not to reduce the capacity of inefficient producers? If the removal of 5 million tonnes of capacity is part of the deal, will there be a guarantee that the reduction will be made among those inefficient producers in other parts of Europe?
Mr. Sainsbury: As my hon. Friend said, we want substantial reductions in capacity, particularly in the three countries that he mentioned—Germany, Italy and Spain—where the reductions in capacity that occurred in the United Kingdom have not been matched. Furthermore, we want the elimination of operating cost subsidies. The subsidies that were sanctioned by the Industry Council on 17 December were connected with restructuring and reduction in capacity. Those operating cost subsidies have distorted the market, to the disadvantage of British steel producers. We are determined to eliminate those subsidies.
Mr. Peter Snape: What impact will the fine have on British Steel's production and, consequently, on British manufacturing? Given that the Minister, on two previous occasions, has made
948
hand-washing—or hand-wringing—statements on the future of the British industry, is he prepared to defend from the Dispatch Box any sector of our once great industry?
Mr. Sainsbury: I do not know what constitutes hand wringing—or hand washing—in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, but I and many commentators believe that my statement the other day was good news for British Aerospace and the British car industry. The fine is, of course, a matter for British Steel, but it has said already that it intends to appeal and it thinks that it has a good case. 'We should await the outcome of that appeal.
Mr. Roger Knapman: What guarantee will my right hon. Friend give that, if the fines are confirmed and British Steel meets its fine as a private limited company, in Italy the fine will not be paid by a further subsidy from the Italian Government? After all, £28 million is a lot of money. It would keep 28 Members of the European Parliament going for a full working year.
Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but the largest fines were levied on private sector companies. A number of private companies in Germany, for example, had substantial fines imposed upon them. I cannot say whether they will appeal, and I cannot anticipate the outcome of appeals in that or any other case.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister confirm that the workers and shareholders of British Steel will pay the fine but that in other parts of the Community the taxpayer will pay the fine?
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my previous reply. I said that most of the companies, especially those that received the largest fines, which are subject to appeal, are private sector companies, so their shareholders and workers will pay the fines.
Sir Roger Moate: Is it not clear that, unless there is a major reduction in capacity soon across the whole of Europe, the British steel industry and others will be in a state of manifest crisis? While we fully accept that my right hon. Friend is robustly trying to turn every stone and achieve everything, can he explain what steps are open to the British Government to protect the British steel industry against further penalties of this sort and further unfair competition if the Commission continues to fail to deliver the goods?
Mr. Sainsbury: As I said in the statement, we support the full and fair application of the Commission's competition rules. We are not in favour of cartels. 'We believe that they operate to the disadvantage of customers of the industry. It is against that background that we are seeking to create a fairer competitive environment for steel in Europe. That requires not only the elimination of capacity, to which my hon. Friend referred—a certain amount of elimination has already been agreed and we hope to see more—but, most of all, the elimination of operating cost subsidies to British Steel's competitors so that those competitors must compete with British Steel on a fair basis. That is what we are now moving towards as a result of the agreement of the Industry Council on 17 December. As I said, I am determined to ensure that that agreement is adhered to.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Can the Minister explain why the Commission is acting on beams and sections while maintaining that the principal problem is the excess capacity of strip products?
Mr. Sainsbury: The two issues are not directly connected because the investigation, which goes back to 1991—it has lasted for some three years—relates to agreements which the Commission contends existed with regard to those particular products. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the overcapacity, which a number of hon. Members have referred to and which is most evident in the Community at present, relates to flat products and other products rather than beams.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not the case that the biggest rigger of the market is the European Commission? Over the years, the Commission, together with European Governments, has meddled and fiddled with the steel industry so that it has created a mess of unproductive overcapacity. Is the real lesson from this that, while markets may not produce perfect solutions, they produce solutions that are a great deal less imperfect than the beggar-my-neighbour industrial policy and protectionism of the type that is constantly espoused by Labour Members and, unfortunately, by the Commission?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend in his support for markets providing the best solution. Unhappily, Labour Members are still some decades away from realising that. My hon. Friend says that the Commission is the biggest rigger of the market and, indeed, the period of manifest crisis declared in the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community—the treaty of Paris—was obviously a rigging of the market. The Community is also capable of unrigging markets. It is its efforts to bring about the elimination of unfair subsidies that we support and hope to see effective.
Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the Minister recognise that in order to create an efficient steel industry in this country many thousands of jobs were lost, and that what is needed now, above all else, is a level playing field because other countries simply have not cut back as we have done? For example, Germany, Spain and Italy are subsidising their industries. Is it not simply bizarre therefore to talk about fining the British steel industry? I warn the Minister that it can only lead to further job losses. When will he stand up for our steel industry?
Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the steel industry wishes to see not only capacity reductions but, most of all, the elimination of the subsidies about which he has just complained. That is what we agreed at the Industry Council on 17 December, and that is what I shall stand up for as strongly as I can. It is in all our interests, and especially the interests of British Steel and its customers, to see those unfair subsidies eliminated.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Does not my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the Commission should come to this conclusion when it appears that it was aware of the exchange of information between steel companies before the inquiry was embarked upon? The Commission made no complaint about the exchange of that information, and now seeks to penalise those who have been undertaking action of which it was aware. Should it not be embarking on a little criticism of its internal arrangements?
Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has particular knowledge of the industry and makes his point powerfully. It would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of the appeal, and I am sure that the issues to which my hon. Friend referred will be raised in that process.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Although I think that the Commission's proposal is outrageous, the Minister cannot object. He voted for the Single European Act, and for the Maastricht and other European treaties which handed over the British steel industry to the unelected and unaccountable Commission. Of course there is an alternative. This sovereign Parliament could say that the proposal is unfair and un-British, and that the Commission could get stuffed.
Mr. Sainsbury: That might almost be unparliamentary language. I must say to the hon. Gentleman what I said in answer to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). We are a member of the European Community, and we adhere to the treaty of Paris. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we leave the EC, he is entitled to his view. [HON. MEMBERS: "We should leave it."] We know the view of Opposition Members who sit below the Gangway, because we hear them all too frequently from sedentary positions. However, it is not the view of the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is not it the case that since privatisation—indeed, as a result of it—British Steel has become one of the most productive, competitive and efficient steel manufacturers in the world? Bearing in mind that British Steel, as I understand it, faces the largest fine, will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that the Commission does not discriminate against British Steel to the advantage of heavily subsidised steel manufacturers on the continent?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the efficiency and productivity of British Steel. It is notable that, under nationalisation at the time that the Conservative Government came to power, it took more than 13 man hours to produce a tonne of steel. It now takes substantially less than five man hours, and that makes British Steel one of the most efficient steel producers in the world. I want British Steel to be able to operate and benefit from that efficiency without others having illegal subsidies. We are moving towards achieving that, and we require the Commission's action to achieve it.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will the Minister confirm that British Steel's production costs are as much as $90 per tonne below those of its European rivals? As that is the case, is not the issue at stake in this dispute the expectation that British Steel will cut back on its production to accommodate the higher-cost subsidised steel of other European producers? Why will not the Minister say today that he will resist that in all circumstances? What power will he muster to do so?
Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman knows of any evidence to support his allegations, I shall be interested to see it. I have no knowledge that there is any substance to those allegations. I think that he will find it totally without foundation that there is some connection between this decision and capacity.
Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend recall what he said just now about the treaty of Paris and leaving the European Community? Does he accept that

951
many of us have no desire to leave the EC, but simply want it to work fairly? Is not the way to achieve that to renegotiate the arrangements of the treaty of Paris and other treaties? The disastrous mess created over the coal industry was a direct result of the failure to renegotiate those treaties so that we had a level playing field in Europe. Does not that also apply to British Steel in this issue?
Mr. Sainsbury: I think that my hon. Friend might have meant to refer to British Coal at the end of his question rather than British Steel. The treaty of Paris—the European Coal and Steel Community treaty—enables unfair, unapproved subsidies to be eliminated if strong enough action is taken. The Commission has expressed its view that it wants to take that action. We want to see those subsidies eliminated. If we succeed and the Commission succeeds in that objective, that will be the best possible thing that we can do for British Steel. It will be further evidence, which I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate, of the benefits of the Community and our membership of it.
Mr. Barry Jones: Where is the evidence of the fight by the Minister with regard to the subsidies in Germany, Spain and Italy? Do not Ministers present a pathetic spectacle whingeing and whining their way around Europe?
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman's outburst was more in keeping with the normal attitude of his hon. Friends below the Gangway and was somewhat uncharacteristic of him. He, sadly perhaps, was not able to be present at the Industry Council, but I assure him that not only on that occasion but on every other occasion when we have discussed steel, which is an important issue in the Industry Council meetings, I have done as much as I possibly could. Regrettably we sometimes had less support from our European Community colleagues than I would have hoped for.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality is that the Commission has put up a smokescreen to cover its ineffective action on the position of subsidy in the steel industry across Europe? We must kick and push the Commission to get on with the business because British Steel is under serious threat. It has been privatised, it is not subsidised, it is highly competitive and it could easily collapse under such pressure.
Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that, although I doubt that kicking and screaming would be part of my behaviour, I shall do all that I can to ensure that the subsidies are eliminated. I know of no evidence that the fines on the 16 companies are in any way connected with the current efforts to eliminate subsidies and reduce capacity.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that the health of the steel industry, and in particular the special steel industry, is fundamental to the whole of manufacturing industry in Britain? He must do more than continue his efforts within Europe. Why does not he consider positive ways in which the Government now could give added support to the steel industry, such as in electricity costs, research investment and environmental matters, as our European competitors do without compunction?
Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Lady has noticed the recent decisions that have led to significant reductions in electricity costs for major users. Indeed, they were welcomed by those major users. I find myself somewhat puzzled by the hon. Lady's question. She seemed to ask for subsidies for the British steel industry, which is what I thought we were trying to get rid of on a Europe-wide scale.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not the Commission's action convince my right hon. Friend that, far from being impartial in such matters, the Commission is entirely partisan and seeks to impose political solutions to the problem?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am not so convinced. As I have been requested energetically by hon. Members on both sides of the House to do, I shall support the Commission in its efforts to eliminate unfair subsidies.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The Minister misunderstands and misconceives the anger in the House today. In relation to British industry, when it comes to hand-wringing and hand-washing, he has no lessons to learn from Pontius Pilate.
With regard to the remark made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), and associating my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) with my comments, is the Minister aware of the deep disappointment on Teesside that people have worked so hard, made so many sacrifices and faced so many cuts, yet because British Steel is successful it has had imposed a greater fine? The matter has been going on for three years. The British Government tell us that they wish to be at the heart of Europe. What representations has the Minister made on behalf of British Steel to the EC Commission in those three years?
Mr. Sainsbury: In common with most of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is anticipating the outcome of the legal process. The matter has yet to go to appeal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, British Steel believes that during the appeal several substantial issues will be considered. It contends that those will support the actions for which it and a number of other companies are being fined. We should not assume that the appeal will go adversely, any more than we should assume that it will succeed. [Interruption.] Opposition Members tend to recommend intervention in legal proceedings, but I wonder whether they would approve if those legal proceedings were taking place in the courts of Great Britain.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister recognise that, while he hopes that a level playing field will be brought about, many British industries are being killed off and some may even die in despair before his hope is realised? Has he considered the implications for a related industry? The United Kingdom shipbuilding, ship repair and conversion industries have lost out and will lose out this year because of unfair support. Major contracts worth £40 million, which could come to the United Kingdom, are likely to go to other European Community countries. It is disgraceful that the Government have not taken as robust a stand as Clinton took the other day with the Japanese.
Mr. Sainsbury: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that the shipbuilding industry has some parallels with the steel industry. The Northern Ireland shipbuilding

953
company, Harland and Wolff, is a company transformed and is now very efficient. Like British Steel and other steel companies in Britain, it wants to compete on what we habitually refer to as a level playing field. Only the Commission can achieve that, and that is what we want it to do. The Commission is well aware of the fact that the British Government attach the strongest importance to the elimination of those subsidies, and it will be constantly reminded of that point of view by what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said today and on every other possible occasion.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister agree that the recent closure of the competitive Templeborough plant in Rotherham is ample demonstration of the abject failure of the Government and the Commission? Does he accept that the most successful engineering steel industry in Europe is now imperilled? What action will the Government take to resolve the anxiety, other than withdrawing the iron and steel employees readaptation benefit scheme, ISERBS, which was a singularly foolish thing to do?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that, like the hon. Gentleman, we all regret the closure of the Templeborough works. It was not directly connected with the events under discussion, but United Engineering Steels will benefit substantially—as would British Steel—from the elimination of unfair subsidies, which I have already mentioned and on which the Commission is working.
Mr. Hardy: When?
Mr. Sainsbury: They should be stopped even now.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Do not the findings substantiate the view that British Steel sacrificed Ravenscraig—the heart of the Scottish steel industry—as the entry price to a sordid price-fixing cartel in Europe? Far from the Government having nothing to do with the arrangements, is it not true that they knew about them, aided and abetted them and that that is why they did not force the sale of Ravenscraig by British Steel? Instead of defending British Steel's illegal activities, why does the Minister not apologise to the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland for allowing their plant to be used as the sacrificial lamb for British Steel's dirty deals in Europe?
Mr. Sainsbury: That unsubstantiated allegation is typical of the hon. Gentleman. Ravenscraig made flat products, but the issue concerns beam, long products.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Minister has badly misjudged the mood of the House this afternoon. As the European Commission's findings will affect the future viability of British Steel, does he agree that he was wrong to withdraw the ISERBS arrangement, which assisted redundant steel workers throughout Britain, but especially in Scotland? As he and the Government have done nothing but preside over our rolling over to our European opponents and agree to cuts in British steel production figures, has he considered resigning?
Mr. Sainsbury: As I told some of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is anticipating the outcome of the appeal and particularly dire consequences. I know that the fine is
954
substantial, but it might be reduced even if the appeal is not upheld. We should not prejudge the outcome, nor should we prejudge the consequences for British Steel.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Minister speaks of the sole competence of the European Commission. Is not this pathetic non-statement an inevitable consequence of the transfer of power from this country and this Government to the institutions, which are unelected and irresponsible, in the European Community? Is not this statement the harbinger of many more to come, just as the statement that he made about Rover only a fortnight ago was foreshadowed? If the British privatised slimmed-down steel industry is as competitive and world beating as Ministers claim, why is it necessary to become mixed up with a European price cartel?
Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman's views on all matters European are well known in the House and, I think, disagreed with by members of his own Front Bench. I must bring his attention to a point that he might not have reflected on. There is general agreement on both sides of the House that we want to see the elimination of unfair subsidies. Only the Community can bring about that elimination.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Have not we reached a sorry state of affairs when the combination of this Tory Government and the Common Market has resulted in the steel industry being fined, after they signed a treaty based on the free movement of capital and labour? We have the cheapest steel and coal, yet the Common Market does not buy a cobble. The Government have just about closed down the shipbuilding industry. Is it not high time that Britain considered the question—it must be faced at some time—of getting out of the Common Market? It has been an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end. It will even affect the grocer, who will be buying his supermarket trolleys from Germany.
Mr. Sainsbury: We can always rely on the hon. Gentleman to speak with habitual moderation. I fear that we normally can rely on him to express sentiments with which his colleagues on the Front Bench would not agree.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Are not the Government already opting out of the treaty of Paris with their abandonment of the ISERBS scheme with special redundancy payments for steel workers? If they can abandon protection for steel workers, why can they not abandon the imposition of the Commission through the treaty of Paris? Why do not the Government realise that the Common Market Commission is not some lofty objective body but a group of Commissioners fighting for each member state's interests? Has the right hon. Gentleman instructed our Commissioners to do that? Have Ministers behaved like that? Or have they capitulated, as usual, to the diktat of the unelected Commissioners?
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman's description of the operations of the Commission and of the Commissioners is, as I suspect he knows, a travesty of the truth. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the abolition of the ISERBS scheme, as he would have seen from the study, a copy of which is in the Library, was not proving to be effective or good value for money, but was entirely compatible with the treaty of Paris.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister tell us exactly what operating subsidies were identified at the Council of Ministers meeting in December? Will he tell us the date on which they will end?
Mr. Sainsbury: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a written answer that I gave earlier in the year about the outcome of—
Mr. Barry Jones: This is awful.
Mr. Sainsbury: It was about the outcome of the Industry Council, which, contrary to the views of the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be getting a bit worked up about this, was not awful. It will be awful if it does not deliver.
What was agreed was a reduction of 4.6 million tonnes of capacity. That we want to see occur. What was also agreed was the elimination of operating cost subsidies, and the strictest monitoring arrangements which the Commission has ever introduced and which the Community has ever seen. We shall hear at the next Industry Council how effectively they are working. I hope to be able to report to the House that they are working effectively and are helping British Steel.

Points of Order
4.8 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice. Yesterday, I received a copy of a document that has been issued by an Indian-based organisation. It calls on people living in the United Kingdom to boycott the goods produced in the constituencies of a number of hon. Members. It names 13 Labour Members, two Conservative Members, one Liberal Democrat and one Labour Member of the European Parliament—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I have the hon. Gentleman's attention? I have no indication of the subject that he is seeking to raise with me. It seems that it may well concern a matter of privilege, so he should write to me about it and I will certainly consider it. I think that it would be wise if the hon. Gentleman did not try to pursue the point of order now, because I believe that it could be a matter of privilege.
Mr. Madden: I am uncertain of that matter, Madam Speaker. I wrote to you and I left a note in your office earlier today.
Madam Speaker: No. I have not had any notice from the hon. Gentleman other than to say that he wished to raise a point of order with me. I have had no notification of what the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise. If he is uncertain about the matter, all the more reason why he should write to me.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, however inadvertently, to mislead the House during Question Time by saying that the deputy leader of Derbyshire county council is appealing against his conviction for fraud? In fact, that appeal has already failed. Was not my hon. Friend underestimating the extent to which the bunch on the Opposition Benches—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It was only yesterday that I was able to answer a genuine point of order, when I reminded hon. Members that they are abusing our system of points of order. They are not using the procedures correctly. Points of order should be about our Standing Orders and procedures and should not continue debate, which most points of order seem to seek to do.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A number of points of order have been raised about the answers given by executive agencies. I do not wish to resurrect the argument about executive agencies providing letters in answer to parliamentary questions that have been put down.
During the process of clarification, in March 1993 the then Home Secretary gave a list of matters relating to the prison service which were to be answered by the director general. You may recall, Madam Speaker, that those answers were to be printed in Hansard. The scope of that procedure, which has been agreed and accepted by the House as a matter of order and procedure, is now being widened.

957
I tabled a question about the inquiry by the prison service into the sad suicide of a constituent of mine, Anthony Robert Madden, in Armley gaol on 26 June 1993. I asked for a copy of that report to be placed in the Library.
That matter did not come within the terms of the answer given on 25 March 1993 in Hansard.In effect, it means that the Home Office is now widening the range of matters to be dealt with by the director general, without any reference to the House. That is always a danger. It is important to raise points of order when that happens because we should retain accountability for those executive agencies, particularly on a matter concerning a tragic suicide in a prison, when it appears as though the prison authorities were trying to cover up—with the connivance, I am afraid, of the Minister.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have had no indication of the matter that he has raised on a point of order and therefore I do not happen to have Hansard of 25 March 1993 in front of me. The hon. Gentleman may like to pursue the matter further with the Home Secretary, or perhaps he could seek advice from the Table Office. He knows that I do not give advice about procedure across the Floor of the House. If he does not wish to follow my suggestions, I should be very willing to see him to consider what I can do about the matter.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you rule regularly that statements by Ministers are not a matter for you, unless you are notified, and then, obviously, the House is informed. I should simply like to ask your advice, because, today, the news has contained general reports of the large police presence at the proposed M11 route in east London.
In the past, when an incident has got out of control and led to injuries or death, it is then the subject of a statement before the House. I seek your straightforward advice on the best way to try to get the issue of the M11 route raised before problems arise rather than after. The problem is that,
958
if we wait for the next Home Office or Transport questions, the event will be over. When would be the best opportunity to raise such matters while the events are still current?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking for procedural advice. I have just made it clear that I do not give procedural advice. Tomorrow happens to be Thursday; perhaps he should look at the business for Thursday.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you consider re-examining the practice of giving private responses to hon. Members on issues of privilege? I shall not go into the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), but when you rule in private, by implication, unless hon. Members ask my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member who raises an issue of privilege, the rest of the House is denied that response. However, a public interest issue may well arise out of the action taken by that organisation in regard to the 17 Members of Parliament concerned. Will you reflect on my request and consider it?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Speaker of the House has total authority over matters of privilege. It would be a complete departure if the entire House were to be informed of the ruling. If the hon. Gentleman and others are seeking to change that, they must use the normal channels.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that that is your position, but there is clearly a public interest issue. It is alleged that 17 hon. Members are affected by an individual organisation. Surely the wider public have a right to know, even though, as Speaker of the House, you may feel that your responsibility remains only to my hon. Friend.
Madam Speaker: I cannot make a statement on those matters, but if hon. Members who raise them were to reflect, they might find other methods by which they could bring them to the public's attention.

Assistance for Local Authority Leaseholders
4.16 pm
Mr. John Denham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to identify residential properties of which the authority owns the freehold and which the leaseholders find hard to sell; to require local authorities to make available mortgage guarantees to assist the sale of certain local authority leaseholds of residential property; to enable local authorities to repurchase the leases of certain leaseholds of residential properties; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is a rescue plan for some 70,000 home owners who, to all intents and purposes, are trapped in former council fiats. More than half those who were induced or seduced to buy under the right to buy are or will be living in properties which simply cannot be sold. That is ironic because the majority of people who bought flats did so because they thought that it would be easier to move by selling than through council transfer lists.
One couple in my constituency bought their tower block flat for cash in 1981 and have since made it into a model home. They have been trying to sell that flat for several years. They have dropped the asking price by 50 per cent. and they have found several potential buyers, but not one of those buyers can get a mortgage—not even a 60 per cent. mortgage.
Another constituent bought a one-bedroom flat in a medium-rise block in my constituency in 1988. She subsequently married and started a family; she needs to move to a bigger home. She has found potential buyers, but not one can obtain a mortgage, not even from the bank which currently mortgages the property.
Mortgage lenders have red-lined all high-rise and most medium-rise blocks of flats. On that basis, we can confidently predict that 70,000 households will face the same problem in the future. Not only can the owners not sell, but many face higher service charges than they first expected.
The Conservative Government bear a heavy responsibility for that crisis. That is why my Bill requires them to act. The Government must not continue to shuffle off responsibility on to local authorities that have neither the full legal powers nor the resources to deal with the problem.
The Government promoted the right to buy to flat owners with quite extraordinary irresponsibility. The latest leaflet from the Department of the Environment warns potential buyers of possible high service charges and mortgage problems. But that only emphasises the Government's failure to issue those warnings when today's victims were buying their homes.
Councils such as Sheffield and Norwich which attempted to highlight the likely problems were overruled and overridden by Ministers, who threatened to step in and enforce the right to buy. Building societies such as the Halifax which predicted today's problems in writing to the Government in 1985 and again in 1987 were ignored. Government restrictions on service charge levels for the first five or 10 years of home ownership had the effect of disguising from potential buyers the likely cost of owning a council leasehold.
My Bill is intended to provide a long-overdue way out of this nightmare for the people affected by it and I have
960
tried to base it on four clear principles. First, there must be a national scheme and a national solution. The extent of the problem varies considerably from one local authority to another. It simply would not be realistic to ask individual local authorities to meet their own local problems from their own resources.
Secondly, wherever possible, current leaseholders must be assisted to sell their homes on the private market at a fair market value. Thirdly, any public costs involved must be kept to a reasonable minimum and represent good value for money. Fourthly, no scheme should unfairly take resources away from the urgent task of improving and repairing the homes of current and future council tenants.
It is on the basis of these four principles that I have drawn up the Bill. It will bring together the existing but inadequate powers of local authorities in a national and nationally funded scheme. In the first instance, local authorities would be required to draw up a scheme to identify flats which are unlikely to attract mortgage finance. Those schemes would need to be agreed with the Secretary of State. With the approval of the Secretary of State local authorities would then be required to offer a mortgage guarantee for all or part of the capital value of the flat. However, it is important to ensure that a mortgage lender who refused a loan based just on the nature of the property would be subject to action by extending the powers of the building societies ombudsman.
If in the end the guarantee were called, the local authority would have the choice of taking the property back into its own stock to let to someone from its waiting list, or of being reimbursed by the Government for the cost of meeting the guarantee.
Such an approach would help tens of thousands of leaseholders in the coming years and, by making properties marketable once again, would allow the price of those properties to be established at a level which reflected the relatively high service charges that council leaseholds are always likely to attract. But I also recognise that there will be some flats which, because of their structural condition and future repair costs, will probably never attract buyers, so the Bill also proposes that local authorities identify those properties and be enabled by the Government to repurchase them at a price reflecting any original discount.
That again should be funded by Government. The question of cost is bound to be raised, but in this case the logic of using local authority capital receipts, which were obtained by selling those flats in the first place, for the purpose of getting people out of this nightmare is unquestionable.
I do not believe that anyone denies that the problem exists or that it will be identified on an increasingly wide scale over the coming years, and the support that I have had for the Bill from hon. Members from Thurrock, Lewisham, Hampstead and Highgate, Waltham Forest, Greenwich, Sheffield, Plymouth and other parts of the country indicates the number who are experiencing these problems at first hand in their constituency advice surgeries.
It is now time for the Government to act. The problem has been dumped on local authorities for too long. There must be a national scheme, which should be funded and underwritten nationally. The Government must be prepared to stand up to the building societies. This Bill will enable the Government to do all three things.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Denham, Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Mike Gapes, Mr.

961
Clive Soley, Ms Tessa Jowell, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr Neil Gerrard, Mr. Keith Hill, Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. David Jamieson.

Assistance for Local Authority Leaseholders
  ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY LEASEHOLDERS
  Mr. John Denham accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to identify residential properties of which the authority owns the freehold and which the leaseholders find hard to sell; to require local authorities to make available mortgage guarantees to assist the sale of certain local authority leaseholds of residential property; to enable local authorities to repurchase the leases of certain leaseholds of residential properties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
Orders of the Day

  Channel Tunnel
  4.25 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,

  That the draft Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to provide the legal framework for measures to protect the channel tunnel and international train services from acts of terrorism. It seeks to do that in two ways: first, by creating a number of new and serious offences against the safety of the tunnel and trains, and secondly by providing the Secretary of State with powers to direct the concessionaires—Eurotunnel—and operators of channel tunnel trains to take measures to protect the tunnel, trains and related facilities against acts of violence. In both respects, the order applies to the channel tunnel a security framework very similar to that which applies to the civil aviation and maritime transport sectors.
  Although the tunnel was built with private money and will be run as a commercial enterprise, the British and French Governments have an important role in ensuring that its security is satisfactorily provided and organised. Article 5 of the 1986 channel tunnel treaty called for a
  "special arrangement between the two Governments on security matters".
  That arrangement has been made. The terms require each Government to ensure that the security of the fixed link, including the terminal areas, other sites and essential services, is satisfactorily provided and organised, and that the responsibilities are properly defined and exercised.
  Thus, while the two Governments seek to co-ordinate policy, tunnel security is a matter for each Government separately. On the French side, it is normal for transport security to be undertaken by state agencies. In France—in the case of the tunnel, railway stations and freight terminals to be served by channel tunnel trains—most security functions will be undertaken by the police de l' air et frontières and the douanes, or customs, although the operators will provide much of the security infrastructure and equipment.
  In the United Kingdom, the responsibility for security of all modes of transport rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, it is established United Kingdom practice to place a duty on the transport operator to put the necessary security procedures and facilities in place. In the field of civil aviation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives directions, under the Aviation Security Act 1982 and the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, to airlines and airport operators, requiring them to carry out specified security measures. The same applies in the case of ports, ferries and shipping lines, under the 1990 Act.
  The intention of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order is to place Eurotunnel, British Rail and, in due course, British Rail's private-sector successors on the same legal footing. Each of those transport sectors is quite different from the others, and security arrangements must be tailored to suit operating circumstances and the nature of the threat; but the legal framework can and should be very similar.

  963
  Eurotunnel, British Rail and the French railway network—SNCF—have submitted their detailed security proposals to the two Governments, in accordance with article 5 of the 1986 treaty and clause 23 of the associated concession agreement. This order will provide the means of implementing and enforcing those arrangements in the United Kingdom under section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. In the course of drafting the order, Eurotunnel and British Rail were consulted about its terms and about the directions that the Secretary of State expects to make.
  I should like to make one further point before referring briefly to the order itself. A police presence at the Folkestone terminal will be provided by the Kent constabulary, but it will be concerned primarily with law and order and not with the provision of protective security, which is the responsibility of Eurotunnel. In the event of a serious security incident, the Kent police would, of course, respond. The British Transport police, supported by the local police force, will fulfil the same role at the Waterloo international station and at Ashford international station when it opens, as well as at other stations and freight terminals throughout the country serviced by channel tunnel trains.
  It may be helpful if I focus on the main provisions of the order and say a little about how they will operate in practice. The substance of the measure is contained in parts II and III.
  Part II creates a number of new offences against the safety of the channel tunnel and channel tunnel trains. These are serious offences, including hijacking, seizing control of the tunnel system, destroying or damaging channel tunnel trains or the tunnel system, and other acts likely to endanger safety, including the making of threats. All of the offences created in part II provide that a person found guilty will be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life—in each case, the same as the corresponding offence under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. Under article 9, proceedings for an offence under part II can be brought only by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.
  The primary purpose of part III is to provide for the protection of channel tunnel trains and related facilities, the tunnel system, persons and property from acts of violence. It does this principally by giving the Secretary of State powers to direct Eurotunnel, train operators and others to put in place appropriate physical security measures and to carry out sensible security procedures.
  Articles 14 and 15 are of particular importance. They enable the Secretary of State to require searches of traffic to be carried out before it may enter the tunnel system or board a channel tunnel train. This includes searches of passengers and their property, goods, the trains and the tunnel system itself. Outside the tunnel system, it includes also searches of premises used in connection with channel tunnel trains, such as Waterloo international terminal, including people and property on those premises.
  Sir David Mitchell: Will searches of trains coming to the United Kingdom be carried out by French authorities or by British authorities operating on French soil?
  Mr. Freeman: The responsibility for searching any train, whether passenger or freight, travelling through France and entering the channel tunnel will rest with the French authorities. In the case of traffic travelling through
  964
  the United Kingdom to the channel tunnel, all passengers and freight will be liable to search at the channel tunnel site. Anyone with freight or a car catching the Euro shuttle will be liable to be searched at Cheriton by security officers. All railway passengers will be liable to be searched at Waterloo international or at other appropriate points of embarkation. All British Rail freight will be liable to be searched at the point of origin—the point at which the container is packed—or at the consignor's premises if the consignor is an approved channel tunnel freight forwarder. I think that that should answer my hon. Friend's question. If not, however, I shall be happy to give way again.
  Sir David Mitchell: What I am anxious to know is whether British customs or other officials will search cars and other vehicles before they enter the system on their way to the United Kingdom. I am thinking of customs, security and animal-health checks.
  Mr. Freeman: There are three separate issues in that. The order deals with security—the threat from terrorism; it specifically does not cover customs, immigration or animal health. Those are separate issues. The order deals with security searches, and the responsibility for them will rest with the French rather than the British authorities for trains entering the tunnel from Sangatte.
  I shall write to my hon. Friend to give him fuller details about customs and immigration procedures and animal health, but the general principle that applies is that the French and British authorities will carry out the same functions in their respective countries as they would carry out for airline or ferry passengers moving between Britain and France. Although the question that my hon. Friend asked is not relevant to the order, if he tables a question to me I shall give him a clear answer. It will be for the convenience of the House if my answer appears in the Official Report.
  Finally, it may help the House if I speak briefly about the preparations for opening the tunnel. That is the context in which the order is set. The plan is that Eurotunnel will open the tunnel on 6 May, when Her Majesty the Queen and President Mitterrand will officiate at ceremonies. Eurotunnel's freight and passenger services are matters for the company; it will provide a private sector service and it will announce when the freight and passenger shuttles will run.
  Scheduled rail passenger services run by British Rail, SNCF and the Belgian state railway will commence this summer. Delivery of the train sets is progressing well, and testing is under way. Services from Waterloo, the only station where passengers will be able to join a train, will take about three hours to reach Paris, and the Government believe that that will offer a competitive service in terms of both convenience and pricing compared with the alternative modes of transport.
  I can confirm that Railfreight Distribution is ready to commence services as soon as the tunnel is open for business. It is ready to go now. The intention is that by the end of the year about 11 freight trains a day will run in each direction, and in due course that number could increase to the capacity of the tunnel, which is 35 freight trains a day in both directions. Class 92 locos, which have been ordered by British Rail, should be available by the end of the year.

  965
  I plan to lay imminently the regulations concerning the concession that 44-tonne lorries with containers or swap bodies should be allowed in this country if they are moving to or from rail terminals—
  Mr. John Gunnell: As the Minister has gone into the wider question of opening the facilities, and as freight facilities through the tunnel will be available in the relatively near future, has any firm decision been made on the freight terminal arrangements for west and south Yorkshire?
  Mr. Freeman: British Rail has now signed agreements in connection with the Wakefield freight terminal in west Yorkshire. Its construction will depend largely on public funding, partly from the local authority concerned—as the hon. Gentleman will know, it has taken action by selling one asset and retaining the cash in the expectation of making a contribution. Other funding rests with central Government to comment upon and support, and that proposal is with me now.
  When the hon. Gentleman mentions south Yorkshire I assume that he is referring to the terminal at Doncaster, which may or may not require more modest public sector funding to support it. My understanding is that it was initiated and made progress on the assumption that essentially it would be financed without European or British Government funding. British Rail has committed itself to Wakefield and not to Doncaster. That may change, as has been speculated on a number of occasions, but it has not changed so far. We shall certainly keep the situation under review.
  I answered a question yesterday, which may help the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and it concerned the intensification of use and noise on existing freight lines. I made the point that we accept that the Land Compensation Act 1973 has relevance to trains—especially freight trains—which work existing British Rail lines, where new work has been undertaken. It is a matter of legal interpretation and I simply draw the attention of the House to that answer.
  I confirm that it is the intention that day and night services beyond London, principally up the east and west coast main lines, but including services to the west country and Wales, will enter service by the end of next year.
  If there are points raised in the debate, I shall be happy to seek to answer them. The Government believe that the channel tunnel creates a marvellous opportunity for business men and for passengers in Britain who seek to go abroad for business or leisure. That it has been built and is ready for business is a great achievement. It will greatly benefit the rail system for passengers and freight and the order helps safeguard the tunnel and the traffic which will use it. We wish the channel tunnel well.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Let me start by making it plain that I strongly support the channel tunnel and I hope that it will be a success. I speak for most on the Opposition Benches, possibly not all, but I am sure that the same applies to those on the Conservative
  966
  Benches. We want to see that the tunnel is a success, that it brings maximum benefits to Britain and that those benefits are not confined to the south-east.
  Clearly, if the tunnel is to be a success, it must be secure and safe. It is difficult to separate security from safety, although we recognise that the order is mainly concerned with security and security from terrorists. I suppose that the channel tunnel is the prestige engineering project of the remaining part of the century—perhaps not so much for France, but certainly for Britain—and it commands a great deal of public attention. As it attracts such attention, it is likely to attract terrorists and slightly potty attention-seekers who may threaten it.
  Mr. Peter Snape: You mean politicians.
  Mr. Dobson: Only politicians on the Government Benches. However, in view of their general ineffectiveness, they could not blow up a tunnel.
  We need a secure channel tunnel system and therefore we need a legal framework for it. The order provides that legal framework and I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks and for supplying briefing material. The general idea is that the approach is comparable to the security measures that apply to air and sea safety. However, the situations are not strictly comparable, an issue to which the hon. Member for Basingstoke may have been referring. While it is equally possible to blow up an aircraft, a ship and a train in a tunnel, it is impossible to blow up the air or the sea.
  The order may prove to be adequate as far as it goes. It is an effort to bring the law into line with current developments and to cope with current threats. The present body of the law is not satisfactory.
  It is commonplace in all systems of security that they are as strong as their weakest link. Besides the legal provisions, we need physical security measures such as adequate perimeter fencing. More importantly, we must ensure that the security system is in the hands of staff who are properly trained and adequate for the task. Without that, the system will be almost bound to fail because those who will seek to subvert it will look for the weakest point and eventually find it. We must consider, and continue to consider, the parts that may be the least secure and the arrangements that may lead to bother.
  We must consider the relationship between the Kent police and the French authorities, which will be responsible, as I understand it, for the tunnel and the terminals. We must ensure that the liaison between themn is satisfactory to us and to them so that they both feel secure about the respective arrangements.
  The British Transport police will be responsible for the security of the rest of the line, for the Waterloo terminal and, as I understand it, any other terminal in London—eventually, presumably, St. Pancras—and also for the freight terminals around the country. Is the Minister satisfied that the wide experience and expertise of the British Transport police, which they have acquired over the years, are being made available to the Kent police, that the Kent police are making proper use of it and that they will maintain adequate relations?
  In an age in which terrorism is rife, many judgments must be made on how to respond to threats or warnings. They require assessment by some human being somewhere in the chain of command. Hundreds of warnings are

  967
  received about threats to the security of the railway and underground system in London. Stations are closed in response to those warnings on only a few occasions, because an individual somewhere near the top of the chain of command assesses all the information available and feels sufficiently secure to decide that it is safe not to close one or more stations in the system. If that person does not feel satisfied and secure, he closes the station.
  For such a person in the chain of command to be satisfied with anything to do with the channel tunnel, he will have to be satisfied that at all stages and in all places in Britain and France, the proper procedures have been followed and the buildings and rolling stock have been properly protected and inspected. Most importantly, that person must be satisfied that the staff were properly vetted before they were appointed, are properly accredited and properly trained and have been properly supervised. If that is not the case and he does not feel secure, on receiving some warning, that person may have to take it more seriously and order the closing of the tunnel to ensure that people are safe. He must feel confident that the system is working properly.
  Problems may arise. At the moment, the people in the British Transport police who make such decisions have confidence in the system because they are accustomed to working with British Rail, London Underground Ltd. and their own staff. With regard to the tunnel, they will have to feel secure that the arrangements made by the Kent police and the French police are satisfactory.
  The Minister has not touched on something that is quite possible under the order—the contracting out of some of the security duties to private sector security firms. A feeling of security and safety is crucial to the success of the tunnel. If the Minister and Eurotunnel want to contract out security duties to people like Group 4, they can write off any thought of profits because no one will use the tunnel if such people are involved. The Minister and Eurotunnel must stick with the British Transport police—the BTP—and others of our police forces. They must not try to save money by contracting out the basic duties of the state and the organs of the state. That is why we believe that no one other than the BTP should be involved in such matters all over the system in Britain. It seems that the responsibility of the British Transport police will range from the tunnel up to, and including, the Waterloo terminal.
  What about the arrangements for freight and the security of freight terminals? As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) pointed out, it is far from clear whether some of the terminals will ever exist. The terminal in Wakefield that the Minister confidently proclaimed was going ahead is but a theory at the moment. We do not know what security arrangements are being made there.
  The House must be satisfied that there will be proper security arrangements wherever freight is assembled. If that is not the case, the well-informed terrorist will be able to load something on to the freight train, time it properly and explode it in the tunnel. As I said at the outset, the strength of any security system depends on the strength of its weakest link. If terrorists can gain access because of shoddy and slipshod approaches to security in parts of the country well away from the tunnel, they will exploit those arrangements.
  Does the Minister intend that the Secretary of State should exercise his power to require restricted zone status on all or part of the freight terminals around the country?
  968
  Given that, as a result of the Government's obsession with the private sector, some freight terminals may be privately owned, will the Minister guarantee that the BTP will have the right of entry and search in respect of all those terminals and that there will be no question of a challenge to their authority in that respect? Will the Minister guarantee that there will be secure perimeters? Will he guarantee that staff will be properly vetted and that no dodgy outfits will supply security guards for those premises? People inside and outside the House, and everyone who wants to use the channel tunnel, must be interested in getting reassuring and honest answers to those questions.
  We realise that there are problems about public disclosure of certain security measures and arrangements. However, security is related to safety. When it comes to safety, there is an obligation to disclose, to the public and to those who are interested, what safety arrangements exist. I do not believe that that duty of disclosure has been met by Eurotunnel, by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority or by the Government. There has been far too much secrecy and much of that secrecy has been bad for the tunnel's reputation. It has not protected the reputation of the tunnel. I have always believed in the old but good saying, "Tell the truth and shame the devil."
  There is also concern, among people who are bothered about such things, about the independence of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority. The authority will have authorised the safety system and it might then supervise it. It will not be keen to point out shortcomings in the system that it has helped bring into being.
  Information on safety tests has been kept secret. It was extremely foolish of Eurotunnel not to allow television cameras in during the quite proper and deliberate overloading of the electricity circuits when one of the insulators collapsed. The television cameras should have been there to show that a great deal of damage was not caused. I cannot understand why the television cameras were kept out.
  If what Eurotunnel was saying was true, it would have been better to say that what happened was a minor incident and almost an automatic part of the testing. Instead, Eurotunnel created an aura of secrecy and all sorts of harum-scarum stories have been told and that is to the disadvantage of the company and to all of us who believe that the tunnel should be working safely as soon as possible.
  As the Minister knows, there has been disquiet all along about the decision that drivers and passengers should travel with their vehicles on the shuttles. There is also still disquiet about the open-sided wagons which are intended to carry lorries. They are not thought to be very safe. I have received expressions of concern from the Fire Brigades Union—the FBU—about aspects of fire safety in the tunnel.
  People may say that the FBU has a vested interest, and it does. Members of the FBU will have to enter the tunnel and fight an inferno if one occurs. Everyone else will be running away, but FBU members will be entering the tunnel to try to put things right. The Government should have taken more notice of the Fire Brigades Union than of some alleged safety experts, sitting comfortably in their offices, who will be sitting comfortably there if there is a catastrophe.
  At the moment, fire fighting arrangements are to be provided by the Kent fire brigade. As I understand it, it

  969
  would be possible for Eurotunnel to provide its own private fire fighting arrangements under the law as it stands. I do not think that that is sound. It would damage the reputation of the tunnel and the Minister should guarantee that the Government will not permit Eurotunnel to use any fire services other than the Kent fire service on this side of the channel and its opposite number in France.
  We must also consider the arrangements for the control of goods carried through the tunnel. What will happen to hazardous substances? As all hon. Members will be aware, there is no hazchem code in Europe. As that code has been very effective here, what efforts have the Government been taking to extend it to Europe? I hope that the Government are not back-tracking on the code or regarding it as a burden on business. It is a good idea, it adds to safety and it helps business.
  I accept that I have referred to safety matters, but they affect security. If the system is intrinsically less safe than it might be, what might have been a relatively minor incident could turn into a catastrophe as a result of some inherently unsafe aspect of the operation of the tunnel.
  We do not have enough information to judge the order entirely, partly because safety studies have been kept secret. As I understand it, Eurotunnel has still to present the full safety case to the safety authority. I understand that it has yet to carry out the full dummy runs with live passengers. The safety case cannot be approved by the safety authority until those dummy runs have been carried out to the safety authority's satisfaction.
  I am told that similar runs have not yet been carried out in respect of the shuttle. It is getting rather late. If those tests are not carried out in the next few months, it will be very difficult for the authority to stand up and say that it is not satisfied when that might defer for a month or so the opening of the tunnel. Sufficient progress in that regard has not been made.
  Recent delays in the commercial use of the tunnel are as yet largely unexplained by Eurotunnel. Whenever something happens and a swift, honest and straightforward explanation is not proffered, that damages the tunnel's reputation. The best way to calm people's fears is to tell the truth and get it out as quickly as possible.
  I believe, and have always believed, that the channel tunnel should be a great boon to this country, giving us access to the benefits of the European railway network. That would be of advantage to those who want to travel to Europe and to those who want to shift their freight there. If the tunnel is going to work, it is necessary absolutely to convince potential users that it is secure and safe.
  I welcome the order, but I am not entirely convinced that it is fully satisfactory. The Minister must, in all honesty, answer several questions to the House and to the people who desperately want to travel through the tunnel and send their goods through it.
  4.59 pm
  Sir Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) understandably made the point that it is very hard for the Opposition and, indeed, others to judge the adequacy of security and safety arrangements for the tunnel. I underline the hon. Gentleman's comment; we all have to accept what is being offered to us. The British public and others who will use
  970
  the tunnel must place their faith in the safety arrangements. The order has hon. Members' agreement and support. The Chamber is very quiet—it is almost empty. My right hon. Friend the Minister will have little satisfaction in knowing that if the Government have got it wrong and if anything should go wrong, the Chamber will be very full indeed. A tremendous amount is at stake and there is great public interest in making sure that the Government have got it right.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he supports the concept of the channel tunnel and that he wishes it success. I am not a supporter of the channel tunnel, but I wish it success. Many years ago, before our first application to join the European Community, somebody said to me:
  "What is this ditch that us from France divides? 'Tis but a moat."
  I wish that a major geological fault had been found in the channel which would have prevented us from even dreaming about the tunnel linking the continent with the United Kingdom. However, the tunnel is built. One of my fundamental objections to it was and remains that the main users will be heavy lorries and many motor cars which will use it as a rolling motorway. That will inflict considerable environmental damage on the county of Kent. The major source of tunnel revenue will be traffic using our roads and that short stretch of tunnel as a rolling motorway.
  It is obviously vital to have got safety and security right. I am aware that a tremendous amount of work has been done by the Department of Transport and by authorities in Kent in ensuring that ambulance, fire and police arrangements are adequate. I have the utmost faith that they have got them as right as they possibly can. I have no wish to intrude upon the continuing negotiations to get the arrangements right. Although my constituents and all the people of Kent want to make sure that services are well provided, they want reassurance that the costs of providing such services will be borne fully by the channel tunnel authorities. I would welcome such reassurance from my right hon. Friend on that point.
  Another point that is just as important as cost is the capacity of the services to deal with an emergency in the tunnel without overstraining available resources for my constituents and other people in the county. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on that point in particular.
  Let us consider, for example, ambulance services. I have no doubt that training will be adequate to cope with emergencies in or at the end of the tunnel, but it would not be acceptable if, in an emergency, many ambulances from the county were suddenly taken away from their normal duties and other emergencies could not be covered. Will my right hon. Friend give a specific assurance to me and to the people of Kent that they will not be deprived of emergency ambulance, police and fire cover in the event of anything going seriously wrong in the tunnel? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand the importance of that matter in terms of cost and capacity and that he will reassure us accordingly.
  I now raise another small point on which I doubt whether we will be able to have a full and satisfactory answer now. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a very important point about bomb scares. One hopes that the security arrangements will prevent real security problems, but the biggest problems will be threats. If the authorities are to take a threat seriously, they will have to close the tunnel and the ensuing congestion at either end

  971
  and the chaos would be great. As the hon. Gentleman said, there will be the problem of potty individuals issuing threat after threat. It will require considerable judgment on the part of people in control to decide when such individuals are potty and when they are serious.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned penalties for threats and said that life imprisonment could be the maximum sentence. The travelling public need to know a little more about just how the channel tunnel authorities will try to prevent frequent disruption of traffic in the face of such threats. I suspect that the answer is to emphasise the nature of penalties and the steps that will be taken to trace the idiots who make such threats. We must be serious about imposing very tough penalties, because the consequences for the travelling public will be great. Reassurance on that point would be most helpful.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned that people and cars would be liable to search and that freight could be searched at certain points. Will being liable to search mean that people will be regularly searched? Will there be an automatic search process as is applied when one travels on an aircraft or, indeed, when one enters the Palace of Westminster? Will there be automatic scanning? One hopes that people will not be delayed and subjected to rigorous searches, but it is obvious that there must be some security checks.
  This matter is hardly relevant to the order, but I now refer to my right hon. Friend's parliamentary answer on the intensification of noise on existing routes which will be used for freight transport. I certainly welcome progress in helping people on such routes, but, unfortunately, the problem always lies in the small print. Even my right hon. Friend's answer on that point today referred to where new works had taken place. Thank heavens my constituency will not be affected in that way—I hope. Existing routes in my constituency could be affected, but they are not designated as freight routes. I feel strongly that we must not be too legalistic or small-minded. If we are going to make the tunnel work, we have to be fairly generous with compensation arrangements and noise insulation for routes that are affected by intensification of use, but which have not necessarily been created by extensive new works in the legal sense.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned 44-tonne vehicles and the order to allow them to travel on roads to the freight terminals. I am very suspicious of that. I voted against an increase in lorry weights and I will do so again. I can understand the argument for 44-tonne vehicles going only to terminals, but I should like to know how tough we will be on restricting routes to freight terminals. I find it difficult to understand, under our system of road transport, how tough we can be in preventing vehicles from using certain routes. Are we satisfied that they will not cross inadequate bridges or that money will be made available to strengthen bridges? I am a great believer in freight routes. Are we to have freight routes and heavy lorry routes and will rules be applied to the 44-tonne vehicles? I fear that that could be the thin end of the wedge and that we might see an order increasing lorry weights more generally.
  Of course one welcomes the order. One hopes that the channel tunnel will be a transport success. It is vital that we get the security and safety arrangements right. One hopes that this order contains arrangements that will prove entirely satisfactory.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the order. I have an interest to declare as a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and, for many years, I was the co-chairman of the all-party channel tunnel group.
  I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate). Although I agreed with some of what he said, I thought that he was somewhat unrealistic. I understand his good constituency argument that the Government must ensure that, in the event of an accident in the tunnel, the emergency services of Kent should continue to function as if nothing had occurred. Heaven forbid that it should happen, but if a Boeing 747 crashed in Kent at the same time as he had an accident in his car on the M20, there might be some delay before the ambulance arrived to pluck him from the wreckage. What he asked for was unrealistic, although I am sure that it will read well in his local paper.
  I agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said about 44-tonne lorries. Like him, I have always voted against heavy goods vehicles during my parliamentary career, such as it is. I have usually been on the losing side in those votes. I would also like to know how the Minister proposes to enforce the Government restriction that 44-tonne vehicles should be used only to and from rail terminals. Like the hon. Member for Faversham, I support lorry routes. If a lorry route went through the middle of his constituency, the hon. Gentleman might change his mind. The enforcement of restrictions on heavy goods vehicles is a difficult problem. We are entitled to some assurances from the Minister about how the restrictions will be enforced.
  The hon. Member for Faversham mentioned putting freight on existing rail lines. I should have thought that at least some hon. Members would vaguely support such a policy. The horrific scenario is painted that putting freight on rail will cause enormous noise problems for people living beside railway lines. It has always fascinated me that people who buy houses alongside railway lines promptly write to their Member of Parliament to complain about the noise that trains make. I would be delighted to send the hon. Gentleman a working timetable of British Rail's freight division, as it was called in the 1960s. He will discover that considerably more freight ran on the lines of Kent than today. It consisted mostly of loose-coupled vehicles, which used to clank and rattle along at 25 mph and caused considerably more noise than the roller-bearing airbrake rolling stock that is used today.
  Sir Roger Moate: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is being somewhat flippant. He is older than many of my constituents, but even he must recognise that the early 1960s were more than 30 years ago and that things have become quieter. The serious argument, however, is that much of that freight traffic will be travelling at night—freight trains are noisier than many modern passenger trains—causing considerable disturbance, particularly for people who are not used to trains travelling at that time. It is a new disturbance. All that we are asking for is some help through insulation grants.
  Mr. Snape: Those grants involve a few thousands of pounds of public money. It is the sort of expenditure that the hon. Gentleman and his party regularly vote against when it is directed at other hon. Members' constituencies.

  973
  We should wait and see—I do not accept that trains passing through Kent at night will disturb those who live alongside railway lines. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman has just accused me of flippancy, but now he is having a little giggle. Two major motorways run alongside my constituency, which also contains Bescot marshalling yard. That yard was tipped to be one of the channel tunnel freight terminals, but unfortunately that has not proved to be the case.
  In the 20 years that I have represented my constituency, I cannot remember a single complaint about that yard, although wagons regularly shunt up and down it. I receive many complaints about motorway noise because of its all-pervasive nature. Before some of the people for whom the hon. Gentleman speaks rush to judgment about the additional noise of modern freight trains, they should wait to see what happens when those trains are introduced.
  It is strange for a prominent member of the Conservative party such as the hon. Gentleman to propose spending public money on a hazard that has not yet occurred. If Labour Members ever called for such expenditure, the cry of the Conservative party would be, "Where is the money coming from?" It seems that plenty of public money is available when hypothetical problems are forecast.
  If we go down the road of placing additional costs on rail freight, if I can use that ill-timed simile, there is a danger of increasing costs to such an extent that we shall never achieve the much-vaunted transfer of freight from road to rail. If we make things too expensive, carriers and hauliers will use other methods. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's views on additional road traffic, although he advanced the relevant and valid argument that, if the channel tunnel were used as a shuttle service for cars and heavy goods vehicles, considerably more traffic would be created in his part of the world. But he should bear in mind my argument when he talks about loading additional costs on Britain's much under-utilised railway system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked at considerable length about safety. I understand the fears that he expressed, but some of them were exaggerated. Having spent some of my life on the Committees that discussed the two hybrid Bills on the channel tunnel project, and on the Select Committee that considered the project on the last, successful occasion, I can say that a considerable amount of our time was devoted to safety. During the passage of those Bills, we sought and received assurances that the intergovernmental safety committee, to which my hon. Friend referred, would consist of not only railway experts, but representatives of the fire brigade and the police. Those services will be directly involved in safety matters once the great project is completed. We should keep matters in perspective.
  The project does not approach the limits of human technology; it does not involve sending people in capsules around the moon. People will be making a train journey that has been made possible by the completion of a great project. The people who say, "You'll never get me down there", are the same people who put their trust in someone else when they climb in a silver tube and fly through the air at 35,000 ft at 400 mph. Given the consequences of
  974
  anything going wrong, I know which vehicle I would prefer to be in. The safety level of railways nationwide and worldwide is recognised in the order.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to hazardous goods. I understand that the hybrid Bill Committee that gave the go-ahead for the project some years ago received an assurance that goods classed as dangerous would not be allowed through the channel tunnel. If my hon. Friend stands at St. Stephen's entrance, he will see fleets of petrol tankers and other vehicles—which, I hasten to add, are not driven by hon. Members—which carry hazardous materials within yards of the building. We accept those vehicles, despite the fact that there is no signalling system to prevent one from running into another. We should not worry too much about such matters in the context of the orders because petrol tankers and other vehicles that carry hazardous goods will not pass through the tunnel.
  Mr. Dobson: I recall my hon. Friend describing in graphic detail the long hours that he spent in Committee discussing the channel tunnel Bill. There is some doubt as to whether the undertakings given about hazardous substances will be complied with. Those undertakings were given to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Committee because they thought that hazardous substances should not go through the tunnel. Some doubt has now been raised about whether they should be permitted to do so.
  Mr. Snape: The assurances to which my hon. Friend refers were given before they were sought. At the outset, we were told that hazardous goods—we attempted to define some of them—would not pass through the tunnel. At the risk of offending my hon. Friend, I must say that I would be fairly relaxed if hazardous goods passed through the tunnel. As a former railway signal man, I would prefer to take my chances on a train passing through the channel tunnel followed by a fleet of tankers because the train would be protected by the signalling system, rather than looking in the mirror of my car while travelling on the M40 and seeing a petrol tanker flying up behind me. The Minister should tell us whether the assurances that we received are still valid today. If so, we may be concerning ourselves unnecessarily.
  In debating this order, we must reflect on the fact that we are not talking about a channel tunnel or Eurotunnel, as it is sometimes known. We are talking about three tunnels: a tunnel for trains travelling in one direction, a tunnel for trains travelling in the other direction and a service tunnel. I accept my hon. Friend's point that, in the event of a bomb outrage in the tunnel, considerable damage could be done. However, I understand that to pierce the walls of the tunnel would take something equivalent to the sort of bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki or Hiroshima. We do not envisage terrorist organisations possessing such weapons, or at least getting them into the tunnel.
  I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the penalties on people making malicious calls will be severe and will be invoked in the event of their being found guilty of perpetrating such calls. Before I left the railways 20 years ago, it became the fashion to telephone main line railway stations with bomb threats. Initially, because it was a new fashion, the station was invariably closed. However, the British Transport police acquired the expertise to separate the nutcases from the likely genuine calls. I

  975
  endorse what my hon. Friend said. I hope that that expertise will be used in this project. Undoubtedly, the sort of sad characters who perpetrate such outrages will be attracted to do so by such a great civil engineering project. We have a much better means of tracing such calls because of the new electronic exchanges. There is nothing like a salutary punishment for the perpetrators who are caught to dissuade other people from behaving in that way.
  Those who have been involved at any length with the project will be aware of the question of rabies. I am not sure whether that matter is covered by the terms of the order. A great number of people in this country appear to believe that the continent is full of rabid dogs and foxes. Whether or not it is covered by the order, I hope that the Minister can assure us that that is not the case. I hope that proper precautions will be taken to prevent the spread of rabies to the United Kingdom.
  I understand that about 330 frontier control staff are being provided for the complete system, including the Folkestone and Calais terminals. That is a considerable reduction from the 800 or 900 staff originally envisaged. How does that number compare with the number of staff responsible for those matters who are employed by the competition, especially the ferries? I hope that I can take with me Tory Members who espouse a belief in free enterprise and competition. It would be unfair if this great project was hampered by having to meet the costs of an excessive number of security and customs staff, compared with those employed by other modes of transport.
  My hon. Friend rightly reminded us of the lack of freight terminal facilities in Yorkshire, let alone the security to protect them. We are in a similar position in the west midlands, although the Minister will probably tell me that the existing Landaur street terminal in Birmingham is sufficient in the short term. Living fairly close to that terminal, I have to tell him that I will not believe him. I give him that warning in advance.
  The Hams Hall project has been brought forward. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the project will be completed and up and running—if that is the right term—sooner rather than later because people in the west midlands also wish to benefit from this project.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will be aware that, although the Hams Hall freight terminal project has been approved, that approval depends on the completion of the new Birmingham north relief road. That will create a considerable delay and ensure that what my hon. Friend fears most will happen—there Will not be adequate freight rail terminal facilities in the west midlands for a number of years, well after the tunnel is up and running.
  Mr. Snape: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I know that the Minister will do his best to respond later. My hon. Friend has emphasised a problem that concerns us greatly. Many of us could not understand why Bescot siding was not chosen as the channel tunnel terminal. Having had only about 120 years to measure it, British Rail has now discovered that it is too small for its purpose. The quicker these matters are resolved and adequate security under the terms of the order is installed, the better it will be for the economy of the west midlands and for the successful running of this great project.
  I conclude by saying that I welcome the order and the project. To all those who have expressed fear about
  976
  travelling through the tunnel, I can say making five return journeys in a fairly short time along the west coast main line passing through Kilsby tunnel just south of Rugby—as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and I have done—is the equivalent of travelling through the channel tunnel. I have been making the journey for 20 years and my hon. Friend has been doing it for a year or two, and we are relatively unscathed. Although we have aged considerably while we have been here, like the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), I do not think we can blame that on passing through a tunnel. The project will be an enormous success and I welcome it.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. John Horam: Obviously, the focus of this debate is security, which is an important matter, but I shall touch on the more mundane matter of noise which is a concern to my constituents, as it is to many of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) took to task my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) for being so concerned about noise. The hon. Gentleman was asking what people expected if they bought a house next to a railway line.
  Are not we all in favour of getting more freight off the roads and on to the railways? Indeed, we are. There is a price to pay for that. It is not a simple matter of people buying a house by a railway line and knowing what they are in for. If the hon. Gentleman came to my constituency and saw the way in which British Rail has taken down trees, shrubs and so on—the protective barrier between the existing railway line and the back of houses, especially when the railway line is on a viaduct and the noise tumbles down to the back gardens in my constituency—he would realise that it is a different matter from simply buying a house next to a railway line and taking what one gets.
  It is not a matter of people anticipating a future noise problem, unaware of exactly how bad it will be. The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but British Rail has already undertaken trial runs of freight trains and international passenger trains through south-east London and Kent. My constituents are already aware of the sort of noise that they will have to put up with at night—sometimes it will be? fivefold or tenfold—when the channel tunnel freight trains start in earnest. Therefore, it is not an unanticpated and unknown problem—people are beginning to be aware of it.
  I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham the present thinking on the intensification of use of existing lines, as opposed to entirely new railway lines. We know that draft noise regulations affecting this matter are being considered at present, and consultation is taking place.
  May I also raise a point that my right hon. Friend may have touched on in a written answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)? I think that the answer was given yesterday or the day before, but it has not yet been printed in Hansard. My right hon. Friend asked about the interpretation of compensation claims under the Land Compensation Act 1973.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister may be aware that my constituency, and no doubt others nearby, has recently been flooded with letters from people claiming to be compensation consultants who are saying that people who have houses alongside the line that is to be used for freight

  977
  and passenger services for the channel tunnel have a good case for getting compensation under the Act: A letter that my constituents have received—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a free run about noise. This debate is about security.
  Mr. Horam: The Minister raised the question of noise in his opening remarks, and suggested that he would be prepared to say something about it.
  I conclude by saying that the compensation experts say:
  "The Act also specifies that the Railway Authority must pay all surveyors and legal fees."
  In other words, there is no cost to anyone who takes up the offer made by those people to pursue a claim for compensation against British Rail. I am surprised by that. My right hon. Friend answered an Adjournment debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and said that he would look into the legal basis for the view taken by the compensation experts. I should be grateful if he could refer to that in his winding-up speech.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Some years ago, I was embarrassed on the subject of Eurotunnel in Northern Ireland. A constituent met me and said that he was glad to see that I owned 10 per cent. of Eurotunnel. "Pardon?" I said. He told me that he had read that information in a diary piece in a London newspaper when he had visited London.
  I investigated the matter, and discovered that I had incorrectly declared my handful of shares in the company in the Register of Members' Interests. Apparently, an hon. Member is only supposed to register shareholdings if he has 10 per cent. of a company. I have since calculated I own about 1 ft out of the 32 miles of the tunnel. I declare my interest on that basis.
  I apologise to the Minister for not being here for his opening speech, but I was delayed and have just flown in from Belfast. It would be foolish for anyone to think that the tunnel will not be a major target for terrorism, and it must be treated in that context.
  Will there be the same rigid security controls at the tunnel as there are, for example, at airports for passengers and freight? A person cannot put baggage on an aeroplane unless he gets on the plane. Will a person be able to put baggage on the train going through the Eurotunnel without being on the train as a passenger?
  Drivers of freight lorries will not be with their lorries, but in separate compounds. What distance will the drivers be from the lorries? If the distance is considerable, the risk is that an evil minded person could place a bomb in his vehicle and then be quite a distance away from it in a compound of the train.
  Eurotunnel was built by a large number of Irish workers from the Republic. I do not want to be seen to be Irish-bashing this afternoon, but it is important that we recognise not only the great contribution made by Irish construction workers, but the fact that, while they were in the south of England, they created their own community. Those workers had their own community activities, their own chaplaincy and, of course, their own Irish pubs. It is not generally known that, at those pubs, there were
  978
  considerable collections taken for IRA funds during the construction of the tunnel. That did happen, and has been reported.
  I mention that because it is not just Eurotunnel which is operating the system, and many subcontracts have been allocated. I have read of two that have gone to southern Irish firms. The catering has been subcontracted to an excellent catering firm from Dublin called Bewley's Anyone who was at the Welsh match last Saturday week may have thoroughly enjoyed a cup of coffee in Bewley's in Grafton street. None the less, it is a southern Irish firm. I think that a subsidiary called Campbell's will be doing the catering for Eurotunnel.
  I understand that another southern Irish firm may be about to be allocated the contract for duty-free shopping.
  Mr. Wilson: It has been.
  Mr. Taylor: That has taken place. Will there be proper screening and vetting, not just of the staff employed by Eurotunnel, but of all the staff employed by subcontractors in catering, shop sales and other matters connected to the operation of the tunnel?
  The Eurotunnel is a magnificent project, and the civil engineering and construction industry deserves congratulations. I hope that the tunnel brings benefits not just to the south of England, but to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sir Alastair Morton, the chairman of Eurotunnel—I say this as a shareholder—deserves congratulations on his determination to see the project through to a successful conclusion.
  5.27 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: I start by saying to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that I ceased to be the hon. Member for Basingstoke 10 years ago. He is that much out of date.
  I raised earlier the matters of customs and animal health, as well as security. My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the order was concerned only with security, and that he would write to me on the other matters.
  There ought to be close co-operation between those who carry out searches of vehicles to ensure that there are no rabid animals—or non-rabid animals, such as family pets—being smuggled in cars, and those who carry out animal health checks. Those concerned with customs should work in close co-operation with those who are involved in security. There are different skills involved, but a sense of alertness and awareness is needed, and all those functions ought to be closely linked.
  I do not know whether the checks will carried out in the same building or in the open air. Those involved should be linked by radio telephone, and I regard it as being of considerable importance that they should each have some understanding of the others' work. That is not to decry the expertise that is particularly required in security. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that on board.
  I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East about those who fear travelling in the tunnel, and who talk about claustrophobia. I have asked people who express that view whether they had ever travelled from Sloane square to King's Cross, as that is just about equivalent to the length of time they would be travelling through the Eurotunnel. They do that daily, without a murmur of worry

  979
  or concern, but they appear to believe that they will suffer from claustrophobia if they spend the same amount of time in the channel tunnel.
  I should also like to congratulate, through my right hon. Friend, all those who worked so hard behind the scenes to ensure that safety and security have the absolute priority. I wish my right hon. Friend, and the tunnel, great success.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I rise to make a quick point about the costs of the service, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
  It is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House take security seriously and that we are anxious to have a first-class security service for the tunnel. Obviously, the quality of the service depends on the money and personnel that we are willing to put into it to carry out the tasks. I want to ask some questions about the distribution of the costs of the service.
  It is clear that the service will have to be co-ordinated and that there will have to be some unity between the security on each side of the channel and between the United Kingdom security services provided in the tunnel, at the freight and passenger terminals around the country and on the line. The costs of security in the tunnel will be borne by Eurotunnel, but were the terminals or stations come into private ownership, the costs will undoubtedly be borne by the owners of those sites. I am worried about the costs that will apply to the line as a whole. I assume that those costs will be absorbed by Railtrack. I assume that Railtrack, through the franchising director, will have the job of sorting out where those costs fall.
  I ask the Minister to ensure that the costs that apply to the line are not spread generally around the costs of Railtrack. He will know that we have had a considerable shock in the past few hours in the revelation of the costs that Railtrack will seek to impose, in my case in West Yorkshire. The Minister said that, on privatisation, there would be an increase of some 50 per cent. in the costs. As I understand it, the charges have now been multiplied by a factor of four. I hope to raise that matter with the Minister separately.
  It is important that the costs of safety, which ought to be high because the channel tunnel must be a quality service, are borne by that service and not by users of the rail system as a whole.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I endorse the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). The seriousness of yesterday's announcement of Railtrack charges has not yet begun to soak in, but I assure the Minister that it will be well advertised long before the charges take effect.
  I should say to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that one of the most attractive advertisements for the channel tunnel that I have heard so far is that Bewley's will provide the catering. That will ensure a good cup of coffee and soda bread when one arrives at the terminal at either end. It is a remarkable achievement that Aer Rianta, the Irish state duty-free firm has snatched the duty-free rights from under the nose of other companies on both sides of the channel tunnel. It just shows what a
  980
  state-owned enterprise can do when it is given the freedom to operate commercially outside its own territory. What a slap in the face to Conservative Members that every time they go into the channel tunnel they will pass through the Irish Government's duty-free shops. That is what I call good public enterprise, and it is a pity that the Government despise it in the way that they do.
  We are here, as I am sure that you will remind me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss security in the tunnel. We are here almost on a technicality. It is pointed out at the end of the order that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments accepted the advice of the legal adviser that the existing orders had to be revised to take account of the new circumstances of the channel tunnel. For example, paragraph 4 creates a new offence of hijacking a channel tunnel train. That opens up all sorts of mental images—a sort of "Take me to Cuba". If one did that with an accent, it would probably be racist.
  On the surface, the order is a technicality, but, as the debate has shown, there are many serious worries to be taken into account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others have done, it is proper to place the legitimate worries on record. I am sure that they will be read and considered, and that the necessary steps will be taken. There is no question of doubting the good faith of any of the parties involved. It is in everyone's interest to get it right.
  It is important to stress that, in raising our worries, the priority for Opposition Members and, I am sure, for Conservative Members is that there should be no impediment to the success of the tunnel project. We want it to succeed. We want to encourage people to use it. We want it to be established. We also want to get rid of initial understandable but irrational fears about the safety of using the tunnel. It is immensely in everyone's interests that the necessary precautions are put in place to prevent anything from happening that would undermine public confidence in the tunnel.
  It is human nature that people have fears. We are dealing with the concept of going into an enclosed space—with something hitherto unknown to many people. It is interesting that a high proportion of people say that they would not use the tunnel. Of course, as with everything that is new, they will use it. Many of them will use it and, having used it once, will use it often. That will be the case only if the tunnel can operate in a safe and incident-free manner. It is immensely in everyone's interest, not least the operator's interest, that that should be achieved. It is in that spirit that we hold the debate tonight. Let us recognise the problems, if they exist. Let us make sure that proper precautions are taken. Let us get it absolutely right.
  In the context that I have set out, it is important to note that the channel tunnel is probably the first tunnel of its scale which has been built in the age of the terrorist. It has been built at a time when everyone is aware of the problems that could arise. The necessary safeguards have been built in. I hope that the necessary human dimensions to back them up will also be built in.
  In the short time available, I emphasise one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and other Opposition Members. Let us give British Transport police their proper role in the operation. They are a force of immense experience. They are a public body. They are the right people to do the job and to advise others who do the job. Let there be no suggestion at any point of diluting their responsibility. Let us give them a job to do.

  981
  They will work well with Eurotunnel and the other police forces. They have been used for a long time to defend our railway system against terrorism and other security threats. They have an important role to play.
  I wish the channel tunnel project well. It is a fantastic opportunity for Britain. I want it to be a great national project. We must get security right if those hopes are to be fulfilled.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Freeman: I have been asked 23 questions and I have six minutes in which to respond. Obviously, I cannot answer all the questions, but I shall write to all hon. Members.
  Mr. Wilson: Eight minutes.
  Mr. Freeman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's mathematics is any good—rather like his politics. I shall deal with the two points that he made in a bipartisan spirit. The first was on the role of the British Transport police. There is no question of the British Transport police having anything other than their present status as a separate national public sector police force responsible for looking after law and order on Britain's railways. That will extend to the channel tunnel services.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to mention that matter,but it can assure him that the expertise and services of the British Transport police will be at the disposal of the operators of the channel tunnel services. There is no question of compromising security and their advice will be available to the operators of the freight terminals, which will be restricted zones, and the passenger services.
  I look forward to debating Railtrack charges with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. There is no question of those charges affecting fares, services or investment in any way.
  Mr. Wilson: Rubbish.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the answer to the parliamentary question. We will return to that matter, and I shall prove to the House, and to everyone's satisfaction, that he is wrong.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Freeman: No; I have only five minutes left. Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question about West Yorkshire. I can assure him that, as far as the passenger transport executive is concerned, the additional costs of running domestic rail services will be directly and fully recompensed by a special grant and thereafter by increases to the revenue support grant payments.
  The Government accept that it will take some time to make European passenger services and rail freight distribution profitable. In the meantime, they will be properly supported—directly by British Rail and indirectly by the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) asked who will finance security. Security costs will be borne by the operator and will not fall upon the citizens of Kent. Will emergency cover for the people of Kent be taken away? No more so than through the operation of the port of Dover. We do not intend to place unnecessary burdens on the ambulance, fire and police services to the
  982
  detriment of the citizens of Kent. Who will be liable to a search? I am sure that my hon. Friend will not invite me to go into detail for security reasons, but everyone will be liable to search and searching will be appropriate to the threat. Clearly we must balance security with ease of travel.
  On the enforcement of the regulations on 44-tonne lorries travelling to the tunnel, such lorries will not be allowed on the roads of Kent to or through the tunnel. That concession relates to rail terminals; the channel tunnel terminal does not count as such. Rail freight terminals were designed to collect traffic bound for the channel tunnel. Officials from the Department of Transport will enforce the regulations when they check vehicle weights, as they do regularly. A consignment note, showing that the lorry is bound for a freight terminal, will be the appropriate evidence. Lorries with six axles will not cause any more wear and tear on the bridges and roads than is caused at present.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked about threats. I assure him that penalties are available under article 8 of the order, and that threats will be pursued vigorously. He also asked about rabies. Schedule 3 of the Channel Tunnel International Arrangements Order 1993 sets out the duties of the concessionaires
  "to construct and maintain installations, to prevent animals straying into the tunnels",
  and imposes requirements on them to ensure, for example, that the tunnels are kept clear of anything likely to attract animals. There will be regular checks to ensure that the requirements are met. My mailbag on the subject is probably a little larger than the hon. Gentleman's and I assure him that we take the matter seriously.
  I shall write to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on the subject of staffing compared to the ferries—I think that he mentioned 330 staff. I shall look into the figures.
  On the successor to Landor street, I hope that Hams hall can make progress; it has planning permission, subject to one major constraint. The speed of progress is obviously up to the promoters, but clearly Landor street capacity is limited and it will not be able to provide the west midlands with the service that will be required in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) asked about the regulations for new lines and for the intensification of use. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North having difficulty hearing the answers? In my answer to the parliamentary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I said that those people affected by intensification of use have the right, under the Land Compensation Act 1973, in appropriate circumstances to claim compensation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington refers to that answer, I hope that he will find it helpful.
  I can tell the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that security at the tunnel will be comparable to that of airlines and at airports, commensurate with the threat. He did not have the opportunity to hear what I said at the beginning of my remarks, but if he studies the record I hope that he will be satisfied. Yes, Eurotunnel catering and shop staff will be screened.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) asked about close co-operation between the security services, customs and

  983
  immigration. That is extremely important and we take my hon. Friend's point. Safe passage is absolutely vital. Under the Channel Tunnel International Arrangements Order 1993 arrangements have been made for juxtaposed frontier customs controls. United Kingdom customs officers may inspect traffic boarding the shuttle trains at the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles. I hope that that information is helpful.
  I commend the order to the House and will respond to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) with answers to the detailed questions with which he opened the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.

  Pensions and Benefits
  5.54 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that it will be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following motions:
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 10th February be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
  Mr. Lilley: As a result of the orders, social security will cost more than £83 billion in 1994–95. It will rise to £88 billion in the next year and £92 billion the year after. That huge increase demonstrates both the need to reform our system, to make it affordable in the long term, and our commitment to maintaining a decent level of social security.
  We have met our commitment to uprate benefits, fulfilled out pledge to provide extra help for those most affected by the imposition of value added tax on fuel and are improving the benefits system for mothers who want to return to work.
  As I announced to this House in December, to provide merely for a full uprating of all benefits next year will cost £2 billion, but I have gone beyond that. Despite a very difficult public spending round, I have also provided a very generous package of extra help—over and above the normal uprating—towards VAT on fuel. That will help more than 15 million people in the coming year.
  The package of extra help with VAT on fuel will cost an extra £400 million this year alone. Over three years, the cost will be £2·5 billion. In practice, it means that people on income support will have an increase of 3·9 per cent. from April. A further 2 million people above income support levels, who receive housing benefit and family credit, will receive similar increases.
  However, I also wanted to help those who have worked, saved and earned modest pensions, who often get no extra help. So single pensioners will get an extra 50p a week and couples will get an extra 70p this year. That is on top of the £1 and £1·60 rises in the full basic pension in line with the retail prices index.
  Next year the extra amount for VAT will be worth £1 for a single pensioner and £1·40 for couples and, in the third year, it will be as much as £1·40 for single people and £2 for couples.
  The increases for VAT will also apply to people on widows' benefits, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and the disability premium. Those increases are permanent. In seven weeks' time people will begin to receive the extra money with their benefit—as we promised—before the higher fuel bills arrive. In addition, I am increasing cold weather payments from £6 to £7 in November, and by a further 50p from November 1995.

  985
  To help those people with higher than average heating costs, we are making a further £35 million available through the home energy efficiency scheme. From April 1994, all pensioners and disabled people not on income-related benefits will be eligible for grants from the scheme to insulate their homes and make them more energy efficient. More than 200,000 extra households will be eligible for such grants next year.
  By any standards, that is a very substantial package of help. It is far higher than almost anyone expected. We have certainly done rather better than the 50p that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) told The People newspaper he thought was enough.
  Spending on benefits continues to grow in real terms. Since 1979 it has grown at an underlying rate of 3 per cent. a year—excluding expenditure on the unemployed. Underlying growth is expected to exceed 3 per cent. a year in real terms until the end of the century. Thereafter there will be even more pressure as we enter the next century and the number of pensioners begins to rise. On behalf of every working person every working day, we are spending £15 just to finance the social security system. It is vital to the future of social security that we keep within the limit of what we can afford. My priority is to make savings that do not have a direct effect on benefit entitlements. That means bearing down on operational costs, which will be kept within last year's limit, even with an increased work load. It means carrying forward the battle against fraud.
  Benefit money should go only to those whom Parliament intended to help, not to those who abuse the system. Social security fraud hurts: it means less money for the people who need it. Last year, we set up a new strategic board to look at fraud. The hon. Member for Garscadden welcomed its announcement in December. The board is chaired by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. He reports excellent progress. We have redesigned the order book to prevent forgery; introduced secure delivery methods to prevent theft; and are rewarding vigilant Post Office Counters employees who stop false encashment. Last year, the Benefits Agency's investigators saved more than half a billion pounds. I fully expect them to do better this year.
  I am also stopping a number of abuses. For example, I will discourage local authorities from paying housing benefit on unnecessarily expensive properties. I have introduced legislation to prevent employers from avoiding national insurance liability by paying their employees in commodities such as gold bullion. We are tightening up on the availability of safety net benefits—a practice which I believe is favoured by Labour party supporters—for various foreign nationals who are looking for work in this country.
  United Kingdom citizens would not be entitled to the equivalent of income support and housing benefit if they were looking for work in other countries of the European economic area. In most of those countries, some form of residence test is applied. I propose to bring our rules more in line with theirs by introducing a residence test requirement here, too. It cannot be right to leave our social security system open to benefit tourism.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: On the expected savings, will the Secretary of State quantify his
  986
  attack on benefit tourism? What exactly will the proceeds be? Will he say a word or two about the citizens of the Irish Republic and how they will fit into this framework?
  Mr. Lilley: We do not have records of how many foreign people who would be affected by the rules are currently claiming benefit other than the Home Office record that some 5,000 are claiming income support. That may well be incomplete. We have no records of those claiming housing benefit. We cannot put a figure on it. Clearly it is a growing problem. By stopping it now, the potential savings are equal to the size of the growth that would have occurred had we not taken this action. I am glad that it was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman when it was announced.
  As to the impact on citizens of the Irish Republic, we will not of course discriminate through the measure between any citizens of the European Community, but, typically, they are more likely to have habitual residence both in this country and their own country and therefore pass the test. It is mistaken to assume that Irish people typically come to this country to claim benefit. By and large, they come here to work.
  Mr. Dewar: I was not suggesting that.
  Mr. Lilley: I was not saying that the hon. Gentleman was making that suggestion, but if anyone were to make that assumption—as some people do—they would probably be wrong.
  Mr. Adam Ingram: He was thinking it.
  Mr. Lilley: Perhaps I was reading the hon. Gentleman's mind.
  A further problem is those who enter this country on the express condition that they will not be a burden on the public purse, yet subsequently find ways of claiming benefit. I have already stopped the payment of income support to people who are supposed to be self-supporting or who are here illegally. The same will apply to housing benefit and council tax benefit from April 1994. Proposals are with the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. Those changes will enable us to concentrate our resources on those who have paid their contributions and taxes and intend to pay their own way in future by finding work.
  In July last year, I published an analysis of the growth of social security. It indicated that one of the main sources of growth in claimants and expenditure up to the end of the century would be invalidity and related benefits. That is why I am making a fundamental reform of those benefits. Our reforms to statutory sick pay will return responsibility for levels of sick absence to employers. I am improving the structure of statutory sick pay and giving extra support for small employers. At the same time, I am reducing employers' national insurance contributions. That will more than compensate for the increased costs on statutory sick pay.
  Overall, as a result of the orders today, employers' net costs will be reduced by more than £100 million a year. Those employers who accept the challenge to improve their sick absence records will benefit even more.
  The number on invalidity benefit has more than doubled over 10 years, and trebled over 15. Yet every other source of information indicates that the health of the nation has been improving. If left unchecked, expenditure on invalidity benefit looks likely to increase by a further 50

  987
  per cent. in real terms by the end of the century. The new incapacity benefit will focus help on those medically incapable of work—the people for whom it was always intended—through a new, more objective test-of incapacity for work. I am also making a number of structural changes to the benefit so that those incapable of work will continue to receive a basic level of income, as of right, regardless of means.
  The net effect of these changes will be not to reduce help to the sick and disabled, but only to curb the growth of expenditure. In future, we would expect to spend as much in real terms as those who, in the absence of changes, would have received invalidity benefit as we do now. In addition, people on incapacity benefit will be able to undertake up to 16 hours' voluntary work a week without it affecting their benefit. People receiving disability working allowance will qualify automatically for free prescriptions and dental treatment.
  I am increasing the level of support for Motability, which provides help with mobility for more than 170,000 disabled people. I am increasing by £1 million the grant to the mobility equipment fund, which adapts vehicles for severely disabled people.
  This is a fundamental set of reforms to benefits for sick and disabled people. Altogether, my package represents a very substantial improvement in the structure of benefits for short and long-term sickness and disability. Employers will be encouraged to take direct responsibility for improving the health, motivation and monitoring of their employees. Benefits will be concentrated on those genuinely unable to work. The spiralling costs of benefits will be contained to the gain of all taxpayers and the ultimate good of the welfare state.
  The next stage in my sector-by-sector reform is arrangements for the unemployed. At present we have two benefits with conflicting sets of rules, separate delivery systems and different levels of entitlement. That is contradictory, confusing and unnecessarily complex. We propose to replace them by a single new job seeker's allowance with a contributory and a means-tested element. At the same time, we will place a greater emphasis on helping people back to work.
  Under the new proposals, we are strengthening the links between job search and benefit. At the start of their claim, unemployed people will be required to enter into an agreement on how they will set about seeking work. That agreement will not just be a form of words, but a commitment to a course of action that is relevant and beneficial to the individual and his or her circumstances. It will provide the claimant with a positive plan for getting back into work.
  We are looking at ways of giving extra help to those who make the effort to find a job. We recognise that going back to work can involve extra costs, for example, for clothing and transport, which may be hard to meet after a long period out of work. The Employment Service, therefore, is piloting a job finder's grant of up to £200 for people who have not had a job for two years.
  We are making further changes that will benefit unemployed people who want to help themselves and who find work. At present, unemployed people whose partners work for 16 hours or more a week are excluded from income support. That is a by-product of a beneficial change to the family credit rules, but it can work as a disincentive
  988
  to families on income support. We will therefore be restoring the limit for partners of people on job seeker's allowance to 24 hours.
  I am also pleased to be able to offer further, very substantial practical help to people with family responsibilities who want to work. Giving up benefit in favour of a low-paid job can be an unattractive proposition, especially if it involves child care costs. Therefore, I propose from October 1994 to enable families with a child under the age of 11 to offset up to £40 a week of child care costs against their earnings before those earnings are taken into account against benefit. Families on family credit will therefore be up to £28 a week better off. That will help up to 150,000 families, and we expect 50,000 people to take up work as a direct result of that measure.
  Another major change announced in the social security statement was the equalisation of the state pension age. We will probably see scarcely any growth in the number of pensioners over the next decade or two. Thereafter, however, there will be nearly a 50 per cent. increase in subsequent decades. Given that the basic state pension amounts to more than a third of the social security budget, the potential impact of those extra pensioners on Department of Social Security spending is enormous. That is one inescapable reason for equalising at the age of 65 and for phasing in the new arrangements between 2010 and 2020.
  To have equalised the state pension age at 60 would cost some £12 billion a year more than our proposals. Yet that appears to be what the Labour party is recklessly committed to spend. On 26 January I wrote to the hon. Member for Garscadden and reminded him that last year's Labour party conference passed a motion calling for the equalisation of state pensions at 60. The Labour manifesto likewise pledged to allow men and women to draw full pension at 60. Yet the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said on 26 January that Labour has
  "no commitment to equalisation of the pension age at a certain age".
  I have received no answer or clarification from the hon. Member for Garscadden. I will happily give way to him if he would like to tell the House whether the Labour party is committed to £12 billion a year extra spending. Or are Labour party promises made outside the House not worth the paper they are written on, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East cynically assures us? We must assume from the silence of the hon. Member for Garscadden that the Opposition's words outside the House are simply not to be believed, trusted or taken into account.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that some countries have felt constrained to equalise the state retirement age at 67? We are still better off than a number of countries because of the prudent way in which we plan our social security and retirement systems.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty in seeing how this part of the Secretary of State's speech about state pension age and its correlation comes within the terms of the orders. Perhaps I am unable to fathom that quickly.
  Mr. Lilley: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are all inextricably entwined in the social security statement, but I felt that you would not like me to unravel them at this stage.

  989
  With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to elaborate on a specific and non-partisan point, which will be of interest to the House and the country. At the same time as equalising the pension age, we want to ensure that women have more equal pension entitlement. One factor which makes it difficult for many women to earn full entitlement is that they are not earning while bringing up children or caring for relatives.
  We already compensate for that by the home responsibilities protection system, which makes allowance for years out of the labour market by enabling women to build up full entitlement to the basic pension in as few as 20 working years. We plan to extend that to SERPS. That will be immensely valuable to women, and to a few men who are in a similar position. It will enhance women's pensions rights by some £2 billion a year by 2020.
  Over the past year, I have endeavoured to stimulate an informed public debate, as I have by the orders. I have been as open as any Minister could be in thinking out loud about our long-term approach to social security reform. I have spelled out long-term approach to social security reform. I have spelled out our principles; I have discussed our methodology; I have published our analyses of past spending and projected future growth in spending and dependence; I have collated overseas experience; I have issued our plans for the first sectoral reforms and indicated our likely legislation a year or so ahead.
  All this has indeed stimulated a welcome, lively and constructive public debate. Academics, think tanks, newspapers and commentators have joined in—everyone except, alas, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. They have been conspicuous by their silence.
  The Commission for Social Justice—whose formation I welcomed—has not yet made any concrete contribution. Fearing it might eventually do so, the Leader of the Opposition has now gone to the length, as we are informed by the newspapers, of setting up a separate policy body to take direct control of social security policy and presumably to shut the commission up.
  Since policy has been shunted into those bodies, the poor hon. Member for Garscadden—though theoretically his party's spokesman on social security—has been completely silenced. His role is like nothing so much as a mime artist on the radio: the Marcel Marceau of the social security debate. We urge him, on this occasion, when he has plenty of time and an eager House waiting to hear his words—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—to let us know his thinking and what his policies would be. We want to know what his party would spend and how it would reform benefits and contribute to the great national debate on the reform of the social security system so that we may have a better welfare state in the next century.
  I believe that the orders will be widely welcomed. Our reforms have the backing of most thinking people and we are on track to build a better welfare system for the future. I commend the orders to the House.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I must confess to the Secretary of State that there is a certain predictability about such debates. I had the advantage, or
  990
  should I say I took the precaution, of re-reading what he said last year. The right hon. Gentleman's speech therefore contained few surprises.
  I accept that I have time to speak at great length, if I were so minded, but I am not sure that the audience is one that I find attractive. It looks a little like the "Muppet Show" at the moment, possibly because the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), among others, is present. I am glad to respond to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made.
  This is a ritual debate in the sense that it is an annual outing. The right hon. Gentleman has gone through the niceties of etiquette and it is usual for him to restate what he has already told us in the uprating statement. Some parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were almost word perfect, if my memory serves me correctly.
  It is also an occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman appears before us in the role of the eminently reasonable man. He likes to parade the uprating benefit, particularly when it is in line with prices, like a trophy. We are invited, collectively to say, "The lad has done good." I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not believe that the entire House will be willing to do that today and it is certainly not something which the country would be willing to do.
  I accept that expenditure on social security is formidable and that it is growing. I am not sure that that demonstrates any commitment by the right hon. Gentleman to retain what he was pleased to call a "decent level" of benefit. It certainly underlines the price that we have been paying for recession and high unemployment. One of my colleagues has told me that that can be calculated at about £20 per week per household. That is simply the cost of financing and paying for the long dole queues.
  Although I suspect that the rate of unemployment will continue to fluctuate, one of the really depressing factors to emerge from the figures published today is that the number of long-term unemployed has gone up greatly in recent times. It looks as though that problem will not be easy to solve.
  Mr. Jenkin: Taking into account all those factors, particularly what we now call cyclical social security, are we spending enough?
  Mr. Dewar: We are spending a great deal in the wrong way. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome as a scarred veteran of Glasgow politics of recent years, by his use of the word "cyclical" is conceding that it is a product of the recession. Some of us would argue, however, that it is the result of the mismanagement of the economy. None of us likes bills to go up for that reason.
  If we were in a position to do it, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman at least would want the general standard of protection in society to improve. It has not been possible, not because of demographic factors—those are some years away, as the Minister pointed out—but because Britain has failed to achieve a reasonable economic performance in the past decade. That must rest on the hon. Gentleman's conscience as an active Conservative and a supporter of the Government, as it should on the conscience of the Secretary of State.
  Today, we have the essential minimum. The Minister has uprated benefits according to the RPI, where

  991
  appropriate, or the Rossi index. He has added in a certain amount partially to compensate for the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the Secretary of State's announcement, the increases will not compensate old-age pensioners and one-parent families, who will suffer as a result of the increased scope of VAT?
  Mr. Dewar: There is no argument about that. The Secretary of State seems determined to make me famous and perhaps I should be flattered, but, as so often happens, the fame is ill earned. As he knows, there is no way that the construction he seeks to put on what I said can properly be put on it. I make that point in passing, but I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
  On this non-partisan occasion, I am minded to be charitable, but the best I can do is say that it is a partial and inadequate rebate for what most people consider an offensive and regressive form of taxation. It will leave many important groups in society at a considerable disadvantage.
  I was in Aberdeen at the weekend; it is a good place to contemplate severe weather. I was attending a public meeting there and it was drawn to my attention forcefully and in a sensible way that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel will strike at certain groups who can ill bear an additional burden—we think immediately of the infirm and pensioners living in poverty, but we often forget people on low incomes with young families who find it particularly difficult to cope.
  There is another problem of which at least one Conservative Member is aware. The imposition of VAT on domestic fuel represents an erosion of zero rating in a way that makes the whole VAT system much more regressive.
  I shall not pursue the argument at great length, but it is worth reminding the Minister that at the time of the big hike in VAT, when Ministers were throwing money at the problems of the poll tax, we were told that we did not need to worry, and that VAT was not regressive as vital areas of expenditure for low-income families were zero-rated. It is unfortunate that the Minister offered no adequate compensation in the uprating statements; it means that the problem will get worse.
  Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it his own party's commitment, both unilaterally and by its signing of the European socialist manifesto, to transfer greater powers from the House to the European Community in the setting of our taxes? If we applied that to VAT, there is absolutely no doubt that the Community and Commission would seek to remove entirely the zero rating. For him to regret the potential demise of zero rating—something we have no intention of permitting—is pretty extraordinary when his party would hand over powers that would ensure its end.
  Mr. Dewar: One of the pleasant things about debating with the Secretary of State is that he never loses his ability to astonish me. The zero-rated areas, where they existed, were retained until 1996 by agreement with the British Government and the European Union. There would then have been further discussion. No one seriously believes that it would not have been possible to retain them. However, if we unilaterally withdraw them, of course there will be no prospect whatsoever of retaining them.
  992
  I know—and I pay tribute to it—no one in British politics more genuinely and passionately opposed to everything that European Union stands for than the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have heard him out loose in the country giving speeches to student audiences, and although I thought his views were perverse and extraodinary, I never doubted that they came from the heart.
  I find it astonishing that a member of a Cabinet that has just agreed to remove an area of zero rating in the knowledge that we can never return to it, should accuse me of being a traitor. It shows an effrontery which is endearing but totally implausible. I hope that he will not return to that.
  I return to the orders. Income support, housing benefit and family credit increase by 3·9 per cent., including the VAT compensation. In his uprating statement on 1 December last year, the Minister told us that the increase was higher than most people in work will receive. I understand that that is probably correct mathematically, but we all know that, even with the uprating, those on income support will find it extremely hard to make ends meet.
  I think that I am correct in saying that after April, a husband and wife with two children under 11 will get £113·05. I accept that there are passported benefits, of which housing benefit is the most significant, and that there are a number of other aids and additions, but a family of four living on that figure will have very little room for comfort. It does not represent a cause for pride after many years of stewardship by the Conservative party.
  The statistics on poverty tell a shameful story. The Minister will have studied the recent reports from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which showed that the richest 10 per cent. were £30 a week better off today than they would have been were the 1985 tax regime still in place, while the poorest 10 per cent. were £3 worse off.
  The Minister would probably say that taking the extremes of the argument sometimes produces a distorted picture. That is a danger. There is always that possibility in trying to extrapolate an argument from a small group, but the bottom 40 per cent.—a very large slice of population—is significantly worse off than they would have been under the 1985 tax regime.
  Against that background, I protest against any proposition that the present benefit rates are generous or allow people to sit back and think that they have no cares in the world and they can continue to jog along, not as the historical Earl of Durham did on £40,000 a year, but on £113·05.
  Mr. David Willetts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Institute of Fiscal Studies report says nothing about the living standards of any group of the population; it is about the impact of tax changes? If those tax changes were compensated for by increases in benefits, as happened with the community charge, there would be no fall in living standards, even if the IFS figures showed an increase in tax payments.
  Mr. Dewar: I understand the point that the hon. Member is making, and, as always, it is a sophisticated and perfectly fair one, but I think that he would also agree with my general proposition that the gap between those who have and those who have not has been exaggerated and broadened by Conservative tax policy. I am sure that he

  993
  would worry about—and I do him the credit of thinking that he would worry about it. Also, on the kind of rates that I have quoted, it is very difficult for people living on income support, particularly in a time of general recession when it is often impossible, with the best will in the world, to find work. It is not an easy situation.
  I am just protesting gently about the somewhat righteous air with which the benefit figures are paraded and we are asked to be grateful for what we have been given.
  The Minister also dealt, very properly, with pensions and their uprating. I must confess that I am not as happy—he would not expect me to be—with the situation as he is. He well knows—it has been much debated and advertised—that the basic state pension has been falling as a percentage of average earnings for a considerable time: 15 per cent. at the moment and likely to drop to 7 or 8 per cent. in 20 or 30 years' time.
  The Minister tried to tempt me in the debate and perhaps I can now tempt him a little into the interesting exchanges between his colleagues. The Chancellor, he may remember, in the press briefing reported in The Times of 2 December and very widely noted, made it clear that he thought that it would not be right to allow the state pension to be vestigial. He had said in the Budget speech that it was the cornerstone of the welfare state. so we have the Chancellor assuring us that it would not become vestigial, and three or four days later we have the Chief Secretary to the Treasury looking forward to the day when it would be nugatory.
  I am tempted to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to act as honest broker between his two colleagues, but it is probably a vain hope because I think I know where he lines up on this occasion—with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He told us in the corresponding speech last year:
  "We are committed to linking the basic pension to prices."—[Official Report, 10 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 1042.]
  The way in which he said it and the spirit in which it was said made it clear that, whether it became nugatory or not, he would not move from that position.
  That means—this is something about which we should all worry—that if we are to deal with pensioner poverty we must rely more and more on the pensioner premiums within the income support system, and that will be a growing feature of Conservative policy in the years ahead, together with all the problems that go with a heavily means-tested system, which I think are unacceptable to the public as a whole.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to criticise that policy if he wishes, but is he offering an alternative? Is he implying that there is more money in the pot somewhere with which to increase the basic state pension over and above inflation every year, in order to prevent what would otherwise happen to it?
  Mr. Dewar: I said something in an earlier exchange, and I do not want to tire the House by going over the same ground again; but I do not believe that the money that we have is being spent in the best possible way, because of the economic circumstances and the ever-increasing claims from the number of people who are dependent.
  The hon. Member will know that when the Conservative Government came to power there were 4·4 million people dependent on supplementary benefit. Now,
  994
  with the equivalent, which is income support, we are looking at close to 10 million people. I think that 9·9 million was the last figure that I saw. It has a dramatic effect on the economics and finances of the welfare state.
  After all, we have the Minister incurring considerable unpopularity in order to drive out of the benefit queue comparatively small numbers of people with his various adjustments and trimmings. Those are literally handfuls of people compared with the kind of growth to which I have referred. So there is a strong case for saying it is not a simple equation.
  May I also say to the hon. Member—we may have occasion to debate this at another time—that, in any event, it is not simply a matter of the basic pension. The basic pension ought to reflect increasing national prosperity, but it is clear that, for a long time, we must still wrestle with problems of pensioners in poverty. A number of schemes that the hon. Member will know about are under consideration and have been publicly discussed; they involve ways in which we can deal with pensioner poverty and with basic pensioners' incomes which are probably preferable—certainly in theory, and I hope workable in practice—to relying increasingly on a deepening tranche of income support premiums. In any case, there is a continuing debate in which I am sure the hon. Member and the Secretary of State will want to take part.
  It is in a sense ungrateful of me to say that this is no more than was promised, that the uprating has been just what we would expect and is all very routine. The Minister is entitled to ask whether he has not done well, because he has kept the promise. When we remember what was said, for example, about no more VAT increases and about tax cuts year on year, I suppose that the Minister might try to claim that he had performed rather better than the Government as a whole, since manifesto promises have gone up in flames left, right and centre.
  I find it just a little odd that the right hon. Gentleman should accuse me of abandoning pledges and promises, given the record of his own Government. He accused me of it last year as well. I suspect that he will accuse me of it next year and, when he is on the Opposition Benches, he will accuse me of it then. It is a form of words which is now in his head and in which he is well practised.
  I thought it interesting that in last year's debate, the accusation was levied not at me but at my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. What did the Secretary of State say about him? He accused him, at the previous election, of trying to increase national insurance contributions, a particularly hideous crime, I should have thought, and practically unthinkable. He added that not only was my right hon. and learned Friend trying to increase national insurance contributions, but, what was worse, he was trying to cut the benefits given to those who paid the contributions, another particularly unpleasant phenomenon and one about which he was quite severe.
  I do not know—I do know; let us not be coy about it. I remember distinctly, in the week before we rose for the Christmas recess, the Government bulldozing through a Bill to increase national insurance contributions by 1 per cent., which would produce considerably more revenue, as the Secretary of State will know, than a penny on the standard rate of income tax. We have also had the job seeker's allowance announced and the incapacity benefit Bill launched on its way.

  995
  It seems to me that if the thoughts of the Labour party were thus roundly condemned, it must be nothing to the personal unhappiness of the Secretary of State in having to implement exactly the same policies as a Minister.
  I should like to say a word or two, because the Secretary of State did, about the incapacity benefit that is being introduced. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, who, I understand, are sitting very unreasonable hours and well into the evenings on a measure where there has been no sign of obstruction or anything other than constructive discussion. I sympathise with them and regret the way in which the Government are conducting their business.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): Scandalous.
  Mr. Dewar: I think I heard the Under-Secretary saying, "Scandalous." I agree with him entirely; it is. We will agree that the word "scandalous" is applicable to the circumstances that I have described.
  Incapacity benefit is a way of excluding people from benefit. The Minister knows very well our doubts about the mechanical test, about the confusion between disability and the capacity to work. I am sorry that the outcome will be a considerable number of people added to the unemployment register. That is something which the Minister's own Back Benchers may want to worry about in the near future.
  The Secretary of State gave us an interesting estimate on Second Reading. He reckoned that, in the first year of incapacity benefit, 95,000 people would be added to the unemployment register as a result of the measure and that, in the second year, 190,000 would be added.
  The Department of Social Security is working hard to manufacture unemployment. No doubt it will be suggested that it was "Lilley's lump" that did it, but I suspect that the Government will experience some problems. As I have said, long-term unemployment is on the increase, and I fear that those in the category that we are discussing will be added to the list after 12 or 24 months—those being the subdivisions of the category. I hope that I am wrong, but I do not think I am.
  While the Government talk about how well they have done in regard to upratings, let me remind the House that some of those who survive the new test and receive the new incapacity benefit will be £30, £40 or even £50 a week worse off as a result of the hidden cuts in the formula. I need not cite extreme examples; it is easy to identify such cases. Those hidden cuts will make life much more difficult for people in a very vulnerable category.
  I am not remotely referring to lead-swingers, scroungers or people who have settled for a comfortable life with the aid of a doctor who is not quite as stringent as he should be. I am talking about people who have survived the hoops and hurdles of the new test, and are genuinely eligible for help. They will find that much of that help has gone. The job seeker's allowance will not be introduced until April 1996, which could be described as the medium term; but, as a result of the cutting of the period conferring automatic eligibility from 12 to six months, some 100,000 people will lose their entitlement to unemployment benefit. The income support dependency figures will rise, which I consider very unfortunate.
  May I ask the Minister some specific questions? The guaranteed minimum pension is being uprated again, but I
  996
  have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that the Government are thinking of abandoning it. I do not suggest that they are contemplating total abolition, with no replacement provision; but I am told that the Department has discussed with industry the possibility of a substitute. That, of course, applies only to occupational pensions. I am always open to arguments, but I should be interested to know whether any changes are in the offing.
  There is no equivalent of the guaranteed minimum pension in the private pensions sector. I know that regulation is Treasury-oriented, rather than social security-oriented; but investigations conducted by the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, and by KPMG Peat Marwick on its behalf—and work done earlier by the Consumers Association, whose views are neatly summed up in the title of its press release "The Billion Pound Rip-off"—suggest that the Minister's pride in announcing that, since 1988, some 5 million people have moved into the private pensions sector is another reason for examining the lack of regulation.
  We should also consider the number of people on very low incomes—perhaps below £9,000 a year—who have invested in private pension plans, despite the general advice of the industry that such action is unwise in view of the charges and commissions involved. It would not be fair to plunge into a debate on that; I am simply flagging my genuine concern about what is happening. It is difficult to achieve a satisfactory regulatory framework when pension plans are sold by people whose livelihood depends largely on commission.
  I hope that the Minister will also say a word about statutory sick pay. That will interest at least one hon. Member who is present:I understand that Lord Jenkin has featured prominently in debates in the other place, one of whose Members described him to me as a Tory grandee. I do not know whether Lord Jenkin himself would accept that description; I always associated him with the "brush your teeth in the dark" days of 1973–74, and I am not sure whether such conduct, or such advice, is becoming a grandee.
  Anyway, Lord Jenkin led the charge in the House of Lords. I am anxious to know exactly what is happening; I know that an amendment was brought to this House, and was dealt with ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), but I am not sure what the next stages will involve. I think that it is generally agreed that the vast majority of sickness-related absences in small businesses are limited to four weeks, which makes the 100 per cent. rebate granted after four weeks considerably less generous than it appears.
  I was genuinely surprised when Lord Astor—answering Lord Redesdale—said in the other place that a reduction to two weeks would increase the cost to the Treasury from £25 million to £30 million. The comparative modesty of the figures may illustrate how few employees will be covered, even with the increase in the national insurance contribution limit to £20,000.
  I should like to hear a progress report from the Minister, along with some indication of where we go from here. I hope that he will seriously consider the two-week measure; I know that the Federation of Small Businesses, and Bill Anderson and his colleagues in Scotland, are very keen for some progress to be made.
  If the Secretary of State hardens his heart and says no, what will happen to the report that will be substituted for an order or regulation? Presumably, it can be debated; but

  997
  under what auspices? Will the Government make time for both Houses to discuss a report that says no—despite the efforts that both Houses have made? If such a report is published and there is no opportunity for scrutiny, debate or consideration, it will be seen largely as a swiz.
  Sadly, many of the problems that featured in the corresponding debate last year are still with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Withington recently drew attention to the lack of progress on the independent living fund of 1993, and the fact that only £500,000 of an allocated £4 million budget had been taken up. The Minister of State says, "Ah, but that is worth £5 million or £6 million in a full year." If I remember rightly, the old scheme went up to £19 million or £20 million. It is a very disappointing result; people in social work tell me that there are immense practical difficulties, and that the scheme is just not working well. The Minister may well want to consider that aspect a little more closely than it has—apparently—been considered in the past.
  The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was given an interesting answer about the social fund and its administrative expenses. I accept that discretionary schemes are always expensive, but it is nevertheless startling to learn that those administrative expenses amount to 45 per cent. of the sum disbursed. That makes the case for a simplification of the scheme; we find the cash limiting particularly distorting.
  One thing has changed. In last year's debate, we heard a great deal about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Minister made considerable mention of the social security review that he had instituted, and I have the impression that he was a dominant figure. I realise that the Chief Secretary is now rather devalued: he made the mistake of making too many speeches. Worse still, quite a lot of them were read, and some very odd things emerged.
  I read with great interest the speech that the Chief Secretary made to the rather quaintly named Conservative Way Forward Group. I recommend the speech to the Secretary of State; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman probably knows it well. I do not know that the Chief Secretary's "back to basics" ideas will have been of much help to that group, but they were interesting.
  I had not realised—I do not know whether you had, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the decline of this country could be dated precisely to the time when we allowed Marx and Engels in to live and work freely here. I was interested td discover that some universities wallow in self-satisfaction. Apparently, they are good places from which to pour scorn on the world outside. We were told that through those universities had passed nearly all the people who enjoy influence today and that, as a result, a fine tradition of national tolerance had been corrupted into a new tendency to nihilism. I think that that must be a reference to Oxford and Cambridge. My understanding is that the Secretary of State went to Cambridge, as did the Chief Secretary. I hope that they were not in any way corrupted by nihilism. In any case, according to the Chief Secretary's interesting speech, a university education is the source of national decline.
  When we were dealing with last year's uprating, we were told that there was a grand design. At least that was the implication of every comment. Now the Secretary of State—and I understand why—is anxious to say that he
  998
  does not believe in the "big bang" approach. [Interruption.] I mean that, in terms of social security reform, he does not believe in the "big bang" approach.
  Lest the right hon. Gentleman think that I am being risqué, let me make it clear that this is a term that he himself has used. [Interruption.] I misunderstood. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was protesting about my language, but apparently he said this last year. In any case, the "big bang" approach is now unfashionable, and it seems to me that we are proceeding by way of opportunity cuts. We are taking little areas of the social security system. Hence the incapacity benefit and the job seeker's allowance.
  As these policies begin to unfold, it is clear that the Government are doing a great deal of damage. It is important that I should get this right lest I be accused of guilt by association. The ingenuity of the Secretary of State is becoming a byword—certainly in my circle—so I am anxious to get these matters straight.
  I should like to finish on an obvious but important note. The Government have accused me of being somewhat silent. This is a charge that is not comonly made against me, but I am always prepared to stand new types of abuse. The Secretary of State has put forward his version of Labour party policy. We shall have opportunities to debate the future of the pension system and the retirement age. We have made clear our belief that the important features are choice and flexibility, and in that regard we have the support of many people in the industry. I assure the Secretary of State that we have not made the commitments to which he referred rather briefly and, I thought, somewhat jokingly.
  If we are to talk about consistency in these matters, I have to congratulate the Secretary of State on one very important inconsistency. For a long time he talked about opting out of the basic state pension. Conservative Back Benchers who are in the Chamber will remember it. Working parties were set up, and there were specific references to at least the possibility of opting out. As I have done once before, I now record my thanks to the Secretary of State for having ruled that out as a possibility. The clarification was helpful.
  The right hon. Gentleman will remember "The Walden Interview" of 5 December, in which, despite a spirited plea from Brian Walden that he should not disappoint his fans—a small and select group—he made it very clear, as a pledge for himself for ever, that there would be no opting out of the basic pension. Many of us regarded that as important and helpful.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make other things clear.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I hope that he will make it clear that I was primarily ruling out means testing of the pension. Would he care to comment on the views expressed at the weekend—stated on television on Saturday evening and repeated on "The Frost Programme" at breakfast time on Sunday—by his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the former Leader of the Opposition? Was the right hon. Gentleman authorised in any way to float this idea? Is it in line with the original request of the current Leader of the Opposition that the Commission for Social Justice should consider the means testing of all conceivable benefits? Or is the former Leader of the Opposition just a maverick to be ignored?
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman has offered me a splendid series of options. The first point that I must make is that my right hon. Friend is entitled to float any idea he wants to float. I hope that the Secretary of State is not suggesting the introduction into the Labour party of the thought police concept that, presumably by implication, exists in the Conservative party.
  The former leader of my party is a very welcome entrant to the debate about the future of the pension system. I did not see the television programme to which the Secretary of State has referred, and I do not think that a transcript has been printed. Thus, I am not aware of the detail of my right hon. Friend's comments. No doubt the Secretary of State has a transcript. I can think of no industry—especially in social security—that has experienced more growth than the business of producing transcripts. Indeed, I have several here, so the right hon. Gentleman and I could play snap.
  It would be unfair of me to comment on something of whose details I am unaware, but I welcome any contribution to this debate.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman rule it out?
  Mr. Dewar: I cannot rule out something that I have not seen in detail. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions from anyone—not even from a Secretary of State.
  Mr. Dewar: In view of what I have just said, it would be ludicrous to rule anything out. I hear the Secretary of State say, "Very helpful."
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has just welcomed the fact that I ruled out means testing, but he refuses to rule it out. To say the least, it is an odd position for the Labour party's spokesman.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman is playing intellectual games of a particularly peelly-wally sort, and I am not impressed.
  My understanding of the proposal is that it made use of the tax system and certainly was not as dependent on any form of means testing as is the system employed by the right hon. Gentleman, who has condemned 1·6 million people to very heavy means testing by leaving them to make ends meet through income support. The Secretary of State's suggestion that his hands are clean does not bear examination.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to clarify his position. We now know that he has abandoned any hope of a system that would provide for opting out of the basic pension scheme. I cannot invite him to intervene, but he might like to tell us at some point whether he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that everyone was in favour of family values, but that the day-to-day practicalities of politics had to deal with society as it was. Society had changed a lot and would continue to change,
  "but I do not think we should use things like the welfare state as an instrument for trying to move these changes in any particular direction."
  Perhaps the Secretary of State agrees with that. I hope that, if he gets a chance, he will confirm his position. We should have an interesting background for future debates were we to know where he stands.
  There will undoubtedly be many more debates on this subject. There is a great deal of argument to come. I am not
  1000
  satisfied that the Secretary of State can take pride or satisfaction from the collection of instruments that we are considering today.
  Of course, the Secretary of State always has a little list when a Conservative party conference is looming. That is the trouble. He then usually produces something that is far from his finest hour. But the tragedy is that he has another list with a more serious intent—a list of trimming, cutting and undermining measures such as have been enacted in recent legislation. I suspect that even some Conservative Back Benchers have had to push and shove through measures about which they probably had considerable doubts.
  I accept that that has not been a big bang approach, but the incremental approach is no more acceptable if the end product is wrong. When the Minister says, as he did last year, that he has a coherent and sensible reform programme, few will agree. Many of the vulnerable people who have been, or will become, the casualties of his efforts will testify to that.
  7 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Before I start what I intended to say, I must tell the House that I too saw the broadcast on Saturday evening in which the former leader of the Labour party was shown some of the options by representatives of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The conclusions drawn and the implications of the programme, in terms of what the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said about means-testing pensions, were most interesting. I shall be keen to see what more he does with the idea, and whether he takes it forward.
  The Secretary of State knows—in fact, he keeps reminding me—that, at our party conference in Torquay, lost an argument about means-testing pensions. However, in retrospect I am happy to confess that it was right that lost. [Laughter.] How is that for baring one's soul and conscience? As we look at the future costs of pension increases—
  Mr. Lilley: It is embarrassing.
  Mr. Kirkwood: It is not embarrassing at all. We have free debates and make decisions at our party conference and we are honest enough to confess the circumstances in which we subsequently find ourseleves. I am now fairly persuaded that future increases in pension provision will have to be targeted to be meaningful.
  That does not go as far as the former leader of the Labour party went when he was being led astray by the IFS representatives, who draw simplistic straight lines down boards with fibre-tipped pens. Alas, if only the solutions to social security problems were that simple. A tempting prospectus was laid before the right hon. Member for Islwyn, and he acepted it a bit too glibly for my liking.
  The Liberal Democrats as a party are prepared to consider potential increases in the future provision of pensions being targeted. That is not to say that we would interfere with the existing universal state pension but, as has already been said, that is only 15 per cent. of national average earnings. If over a long period it were allowed to take its course in terms of its share of national wealth and earnings, and we considered carefully how to target increases, targeting could enable us to get help to the people over retirement age who are in desperate need of help, as some of them are.

  1001
  The Government are right to have considered the average position of people over retirement age, and they can take some credit for that. We supported the moves by the Government some years ago to encourage the provision of private pensions. It was the right thing to do. The sum spent on it—£6 billion or £7 billion—went a little over the top; they got the judgment wrong on the incentives. But although that was a substantial sum, the mistake was a detail in comparison with the policy decision to encourage private provision, which was right. That decision will pay handsome dividends in future when we examine the need for the state to supplement the provision made for people who are over retirement age.
  Having agreed with the Government and welcomed the increases available to people on what is now the average income for pensioners—I am happy to acknowledge the fact that that has increased—I still do not think that the Government are doing enough to look after the people who are left to exist on the state pension alone. If that is true now, it will be even truer after April, when the increase in VAT comes into play.
  We can argue about whether the package of measures intended to compensate people was enough. I do not think that it was, and I am now beginning to find both in my case work and in the letters that I receive that people are anticipating the prospect of the VAT increase with real apprehension and genuine fears about how they will make ends meet next winter. Whatever else the Minister says when he replies, I hope that he will spend a moment or two saying what he has in mind in terms of careful monitoring. Obviously it is too late to change the uprating orders, and the increases are welcome so far as they go, but they do not go anything like far enough.
  I am especially worried about the 2·7 million children identified by some pressure groups as being in families on income support who will be left short and may go cold next winter. The compensation package may well be enough for households in average circumstances; I do not deny that. However, the IFS work on the distribution of the tax advantages over the past few years, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), is right, and the statistics show that the distribution of wealth over that period has benefited the better-off sections of society. Households living on below average incomes are in for some hard times.
  The Government have not paid enough attention to people living on state pensions who suffer from disabilities of one kind or another, or to families on or around the poverty line—big families, with consequent additional costs, on low incomes. There is no extra help for people who are unemployed, for people just above benefit levels, or for people who do not claim their full benefit entitlements. So there are still some worrying areas. Those may not be complete groups in society, but large numbers of people are in those special circumstances, and I do not think that the uprating caters for them. A 3·9 per cent. increase across the board is welcome so far as it goes, but it does not deal with the difficulties that many of those groups will face.
  The Minister should take account, too, of the wider implications of the IFS tax distribution study. It reveals facts that the Department of Social Security should take to heart in the arguments at the broader national level
  1002
  concerning the share of national wealth that it is right to devote to social security spending, because those arguments are pinned back into the proposals in the uprating order.
  There is loose casual talk, much of it from the Minister's colleagues, about a crisis in welfare spending and the need to take precipitate emergency action to deal with it. If the expenditure devoted to that important area is measured as a share of national wealth, I do not believe that it is right to say that there is a crisis. There is no need for precipitate action, although there is an urgent need to keep the situation under close and careful review. Talk of crisis and great disasters immediately impending is not right, and we must keep that fact in mind. By and large, the percentage of national wealth devoted to social security has not increased dramatically. Nor need it be increased if sensible policies are adopted on a continuous basis.
  I am pleased that the Secretary of State is paying attention to the need to constrain fraud. However, he must be careful that he is not heavy-handed in the way in which he enforces measures. There are savings to be made. I met his colleague in another place and I was impressed by some of the work that is being done to try to save money so that we can be more generous in some of the uprating orders in future.
  The Secretary of State must also be careful when he sets targets. Of course there may be as much as £500 million to be saved, but he must not go at that figure too hard and too fast, as has the Child Support Agency. He could have saved himself a lot of heartache in the CSA contest if he had tapered that agency's targets for recovery in a less steep way. To try to recover £530 million in the first year of operation was far too ambitious, and he is paying the price. People such as myself are beginning to question the principle of the legislation because the practice is being so rigidly enforced.
  The Government deserve some recognition of the steps that they have taken in the overall uprating increase and of some of the longer-term policy changes, but there are three small areas that I would like the Department to consider. First, in the totality of Government policy, the question of carers and how they are catered for in the social security system as it exists at present is inadequate. The orders do not recognise some of the demands placed on people looking after people with disabilities.
  I acknowledge that the budget for benefits to people with disabilities has increased substantially in the recent past—not because the benefits are becoming more generous, but because more people are encouraged to claim eligibility and are being accepted. The provision for carers needs to be considered and, with a little ingenuity and creativity, a lot more could be done to help them.
  The second issue is not directly related to the orders, but is more a direct responsibility of the Department of Education. The withdrawal of income support for students during long vacations is having an adverse effect on the income available to students. In his previous incarnation, the Leader of the House, who is in his place, and I argued over whether it was right to pay for students through the income support system, and he persuaded me that it was not. However, that is not to say that the system which replaced the withdrawal of housing benefit and income support in the long vacations is anything like adequate.
  In considering some of the uprating orders before us, the Department of Social Security has a duty to consult the Department for Education and to be absolutely satisfied

  1003
  that the Department for Education is providing properly through the scheme which replaced the original social security assistance to students. There is emerging evidence, not only through my case work, but in information from national organisations and pressure groups including the National Union of Students, that some students are not completing academic courses because they cannot make ends meet. If the problem is as extensive as I believe, the Department should have urgent talks with the Department for Education to try to resolve the matter.
  Thirdly, I turn to the issue of statutory sick pay. It is not terribly convenient to discuss all the orders mixter-maxter. We always used to have a clear uprating debate, which I much preferred. Dotting about through all the orders makes it more difficult for the House to give proper attention to their detail and importance. I perfectly understand that, currently, the business of the House is not always under the control of the Leader of the House and that he has to deal with the nonsense that the Opposition land on him. That is a subject for another debate which will happen sooner rather than later.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden raised an important point about the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Order by adverting to the answer given in the other place to a question asked by Lord Jenkin. The Government revealed that it would cost only £10 million—not an insignificant sum of money—to reduce the four-week period of SSP to a two-week period for small businesses with effect from April 1994.
  If I were a Minister, I would be careful considering that. Taken as a package, industry may benefit, as the Government point out with statistics and arithmetic, which I accept, but tiny businesses with two, five or 10 employees, which may face flu epidemics or the like, will not be able to cope easily with the regulations as they stand. There is a good argument for spending that £10 million. It could address the entire issue once and for all and, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said, we should consider it carefully.
  An argument which raged 18 months to two years ago has raised its head again recently in a way in which worries me greatly. It concerns preserved rights of income support for people in residential homes. It is a technical area which affects a relatively small number of people, but I have come across a couple of cases—not only of constituents but of people in other parts of the country—in which people with preserved rights are finding it difficult to make sense of being unable to top up the income support that they receive. Not only are those people unable to top up their own income support, because of lack of money. but the health boards and local authorities in Scotland, England and Wales are not in a statutory position to help.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: That matter was discussed in the past year.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed: the question was raised in the past year and I accept that some changes were made. However, the changes made were to cope with circumstances such as evictions and emergencies. I make a plea that the Government consider the question again and give at least an element of discretion to health authorities or local authorities—I do not care which—to enable them, in certain compelling circumstances, in which people are
  1004
  no longer able to stay in the home of their choice despite arguing for a variety of reasons that that home is especially appropriate, to allow residents to stay.
  It seems extremely cruel to require people to move from that home for the sake of £6 or £7 top-up per week. It would not cost an enormous sum of money and if health authorities or local authorities were given that power, they would not go mad and be profligate.
  The legislation as it stands, even though it has been amended recently, is not sophisticated and sensitive enough to cope in a common-sense fashion with circumstances that affect old people who have lived with preserved rights for many years in places such as the Leonard Cheshire homes. Such homes provide an invaluable service and back-up support. At the moment, income support cannot help them, but the Department should talk to the Department of Health and to local government to try to achieve a more sensitive system which could cope in such circumstances.
  It would be helpful if the Minister would consider that point. It would not cost a lot of money to solve the problem and it would not affect thousands of people. The Minister could open the door and enable discretion to be used to provide immense relief to people who are currently caught in a statutory trap. That trap was created inadvertently; Parliament did not have it in mind to prevent the opportunity for topping up in certain circumstances when people are facing eviction.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will consider the consequences of the imposition of VAT on low-income households and families. Although the Minister was right to say that his package may well cater, on average, for the needs of the majority of people, large sections of the community—a figure of 2·7 million children has been referred to—will suffer greatly as a result of exposure to cold and hardship next year unless the Government urgently reconsider the scheme and introduce improvements in the very near future.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are having a debate on the orders, but I am disappointed that there are not more hon. Members here to participate in it. There is clearly much controversy about the issue, and the future of the welfare state is at stake. That future is bound up inextricably with the orders and with the onward march to the Valhalla of the Adam Smith Institute to which the Secretary of State for Social Security is trying to lead us.
  The Minister is a long-term conspiracy theorist and, to be fair to him, he sets out his theories in public. He is publicly trying to dismantle and destroy the welfare state. He is publicly trying to privatise as much of the welfare state as he can, and he is publicly trying to create a very divided Britain. He is being very successful at that.
  One need walk for only 10 minutes from this building to find large numbers of young people sleeping on the streets of our capital city. If one walked the same distance in another direction, one would find many people paying £100 a night for hotel rooms because they can afford to do that. One would also be able to see people eating meals in restaurants and paying bills that amount to more than the weekly income support giro cheque. The Minister is presiding over the division of the country. At least he has been open about that.

  1005
  The Minister has been very clever to shift the terms of the debate by claiming that this country can no longer afford universal welfare benefits, universal pensions and the welfare state. People like the Minister have cleverly pursued that point in the broadsheet press, and to some extent on radio and television, to the exclusion of all considerations of poverty. The voices of the homeless and the poor and the voices of those expected to subsist on a state pension are largely unheard. Instead, experts on huge salaries tell the poor how they should live and say that the poor are an increasing burden on our society.
  Year after year, as the Tory party conference approaches, the Minister, like his predecessors, searches around for a new scapegoat on whom to blame all the nation's problems. I recall when 16 to 17-year-old feckless youths were the target of that year and were accused of not seeking work. As a result, many of them now receive no benefit. Many end up on the streets, and many of those are then driven into drugs and prostitution. Ministers should think about such things before they set off in particular directions.
  The Minister attacked single parents at the Tory party conference last year. He has consistently attacked single parents, claiming that they are a drain on our society and that their children under-achieve. The Minister might try to deny it now, but he has consistently attacked the whole principle of single parents. He knows that that is the case, although when he appeared before the Select Committee he was remarkably coy on that subject.
  The Minister has approached benefit fraud as though someone, somewhere, actually approves of it. None of us approves of benefit fraud, but the Minister assumes that large numbers of people do. He should remember that London local authorities, the majority of which are Labour, are doing their best to stamp out conspiracies to defraud the public purse in respect of housing benefit. However, the Minister should consider the amount of housing benefit money that is paid into the pockets of private landlords and the owners of bed-and-breakfast hotels through the system of rent deregulation.
  The real fraud, as revealed in one of the orders, relates to the change in the unemployment benefit system. To reduce from one year to six months the time when unemployment benefit can be paid is a fraud on a massive scale. After all, it is a contributory benefit. It is something for which people have paid all their working lives. However, we are being told that this is some kind of advance.
  Who on earth is the Minister of State to decide that that change should be made? As the Minister's predecessor did before the war—those people had the same kind of blinkered mentality about the divisions of society and the rich and the poor—the Government are blaming the unemployed for being unemployed and making them the scapegoat for the recession that the Government created and advanced.
  The orders do not provide us with the opportunity to reduce or eliminate poverty. Instead, they are a further step on the road of division. We should think very carefully about this. If we want to live in a Britain in 10, 20 or 30 years' time with a permanently unemployed work force of
  1006
  3 million to 4 million, permanent divisions between rich and poor and a very small number of extremely rich people, we are heading in the right direction.
  The Minister has created hysteria about the cost of the welfare state. Fortunately, there are those who do not accept that hysteria. I refer the Minister to the excellent work of the Rowntree Trust carried out by John Hills at the London school of economics in which he sets out a range of options about the costs of the welfare state. However, he also sets out the consequences of not maintaining the welfare state.
  In a very good summary of John Hills's research, Will Hutton states:
  "it is vital to wrest the argument from those who insist that such is the financial stringency the only issue is to make each welfare pound most effective; rather the debate should be about how we choose to live as a society. The welfare system is just one of a series of building blocks, all of which interconnect to construct our common home."
  That surely should be the approach, but it is not. Instead, as the pension uprating order confirms, pensioners are being defrauded by the break of the link with earnings which was removed in 1980. In 1975, Labour passed legislation stating that the pensions should be uprated annually by the higher of either earnings or prices. That principle was broken in 1980 and substituted with prices. As a result, each pensioner is about £18 a week worse off.
  The Government glibly talk about the number of pensioners receiving occupational pension schemes and the number of pensioners who have investment income. They quote various average figures to show that no pensioners are worse off. However, they deliberately hide the serious plight of a considerable number of pensioners who have to live solely on the basic state old age pension. Those people may possibly receive housing benefit to assist with the rent, but they lead a pretty miserable existence. The Government should pay some regard to them. Perhaps they do not because the majority are old, women and do not have access to occupational pension schemes.
  We are told that, because of demographic trends, it is important to equalise retirement ages upwards to 65. That is absolutely extraordinary. The country is considerably wealthier now than it was in 1910, when pensions first came fully on stream, and wealthier than it was in 1948 when the universal welfare state was virtually completed. However, we apparently now cannot afford to allow people to retire at the lower age.
  I do not mind if people want to work beyond the age of 60. I have no problem with that. However, people should have the opportunity and the right to retire at 60. It is a monumental fraud on women workers to tell them that they will now have to work until they are 65 when they have been told all along that the retirement age was 60.
  In that respect, the Minister prayed in aid the fact that similar moves were taking place in other European countries. The fact that a bunch of right-wing monetarists around Europe are peddling the same nonsensical theories, which have driven Europe to its present level of poverty with 15 million people out of work, is hardly a reason for rejoicing. It should be a reason for shame for the Government. Instead, we should be looking to share the wealth so that people can retire at an earlier age if they so wish. I should like to see a proposal to equalise the retirement age downward for both men and women so that couples will have an opportunity to enjoy retirement together.

  1007
  Claims about costs are extraordinary. In population projections, there will indeed be a peak in the number of people of retirement age at about 2030—in other words, in about 36 years—but, after that time, the number starts to decrease, as the Secretary of State will be aware. Instead, the Government choose to end all their predictions at that point and claim that there will be an enormous increase in the cost of the state retirement pension unless something is done about it now. That is why the link was broken and that is why the Government tried to destroy the state earnings-related pension scheme as an option.
  The push towards private pension schemes, individual schemes and personal portable schemes is extremely dubious—dubious because of the methods in selling many of them, dubious because of the security of some personal schemes that are on offer and dubious because of the legal position of many pension schemes at present. I am a member of the Select Committee that is still examining the administration of pension funds. Some of the things that we hear make one's hair stand on end. The Maxwell pension fraud was just one example. Although this matter is slightly irrelevant, I hope that the Minister will give an inkling of when the Government will propose legislation on the control of pension funds.
  There is now 22 per cent. unemployment in my constituency, and a large number of people are unable to claim unemployment benefit and therefore are not included in the real statistics—the real figure is much higher. Such people do not lead particularly exciting lives; indeed, they lead very miserable lives. Annual rent increases, even those in local authority rents, particularly for people on low earnings, are much higher than the rate of inflation, although those paying them receive housing benefit if they are unemployed or on income support. Their children are not growing up in a particularly exciting environment, because they face more cuts and increased charges for school meals, trips and so on. Our children are growing up in an increasingly divided society. I hope that the Secretary of State will at least begin to address those issues.
  The Secretary of State talked glibly of the job seekers' allowance; he said that if only there were a different allowance that would encourage people to seek work. He seems to fail to understand that people do not like being unemployed. It is not a very exciting life, it is not a holiday camp, it is a time of great depression. Many of the long-term unemployed become extremely depressed. The longer they are unemployed, the harder it is to find work.
  The Secretary of State attacks people in receipt of invalidity benefit as though a monumental fraud is going on. People receive invalidity benefit because they have been invalided, often as the result of accidents at work. Instead, we are moving to an incredibly expensive system of examination of the detailed cases of people on invalidity benefit. Likewise, the Government have removed the single payment system. In 1986, the Prime Minister piloted through the House the legislation that established the social fund. Recently, in an answer to me, the Minister admitted that the social fund is the most expensive of all benefits to administer. It is probably the least effective for that.
  I do not welcome the measures, because they do not go far enough. Clearly, there are some increases for some people, and there are some improvements as a result of enormous pressure by some very effective pressure groups, but I do not believe that the Government or the Minister have any vision of eliminating poverty or of the maintenance of a universal welfare state. The Minister's
  1008
  vision is of an onward march towards privatisation and divisions in society. He should look at the record. A fifth of Europe's poor live in this country. Poverty and divisions are increasing. I hope that we return to the subject of the future of the welfare state and consider it not in the mealy-mouthed way that the Minister does but in the spirit of trying to eliminate poverty and provide real security.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: On Monday night, when I rose to speak on the local authority housing support grant, some of my colleagues questioned whether I was qualified to do so, as I represent the constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, which is generally reckoned to be fairly middle-class and well-heeled. It is described as a leafy suburb. Many people might wonder at my interest in the uprating of social security benefits. It is true that my constituency is reasonably well-off. If the boundary commissioners have their way, there will be virtually no public sector housing in my constituency after the next general election.
  I am particularly interested in the issues. In my constituency, a significant number of people rely on various benefits which, for many of them, are an important lifeline. I am also reminded now and again by constituents in the wealthier part of Bearsden just how adequate many benefits are. Often, people who have lived life in a fairly comfortable manner and are fairly comfortably off, for reasons not necessarily of their own making, suddenly find themselves on hard times and falling back on benefits. It is only then that they realise just how inadequate those benefits are. I am faced by irate constituents who ask, "How on earth am I supposed to live on this? How on earth is one expected to get by on these benefits?" Such questions would be asked by all of us in that position.
  For that reason, I wish to examine four aspects of the measures, but none more so than the one which hits many of my constituents—income support benefits for nursing and residential care. As we know, nursing and residential care are booming. Certainly in my part of the country, nursing homes and residential homes mushroom every day. One can be certain that, if a school closes, it will open the following week as a residential care home.
  Let us consider the costa geriatrica—the Ayrshire coast. Glaswegians no longer go "doon the water" for their holidays. Who does? Granny goes doon the water, into the geriatric home on the Ayrshire coast. Such homes have blossomed even in post-industrial areas—they are everywhere, and they are becoming an increasingly important part of our social structure.
  The measures are particularly important because the NHS withdraws from the nursing care of the elderly when it should not do so. Many individuals who should be looked after within the NHS and within long-term care are being sent to nursing homes. There have been recent cases of individuals with head injuries, brain diseases or other diseases being removed from long-term care and being placed in nursing homes. Money must be found for them, partly from benefit and, depending on the circumstances and the relevant home, partly from the resources of those individuals or their relatives.
  The matter is becoming increasingly important and it is throwing greater burdens on families who thought that it would not be a matter for them or for their relatives later in life. It will become increasingly obvious to many people,

  1009
  as their relatives grow older, that such care has been privatised without anything being done about it. I have constituents whose elderly relatives are decanted and placed in residential homes, and they find that they have to pay additional amounts. Although there are numerous residential and nursing homes for which income support is adequate through the social services, there are more in which the individual must make an additional contribution.
  I have two important questions for the Minister. I do not want to say the usual, "We do not have enough; give us more," and so on. We will take that as read and spare ourselves the boredom of going through it again, but there are two matters that we should consider.
  I was recently approached by a constituent whose relative had to go into a nursing home. He brought with him a file about 2 to 3 in thick, containing the paperwork—mostly relating to the financial implications—involved in having his relative put in the residential home. He was highly intelligent and articulate, but he had spent several months on the matter and had had to complete a large amount of paperwork. He and I wondered how the many others managed to cope. I plead with the Minister to consider making the provision of residential nursing care simpler.
  My constituent said that the finances demanded of him did not cause a problem. One of the first acts of the nursing home was to put the finances in order, but the medical side was allowed to slip. He faced difficult problems, including 2 or 3 in of paperwork from the Department of Social Security, the social services and the Department of Health. Everyone batted the paperwork around the residential home. Will the Minister consider how such matters can be dealt with more easily? Residential nursing provision is often sought at a time of great difficulty for families, who may have suffered recent bereavement and may have many other matters with which to deal. In addition, they face the catastrophic problem of dealing with multiple forms and individuals.
  The regulation of residential nursing homes is a matter for the Department of Health, but the subject should also concern the Department of Social Security, which provides large amounts of money. I should have thought that the Minister would want to ensure that the money was used properly and effectively.
  I am sure that the Minister would agree that the regulations are inadequate; many of them are out of date. They involve matters relating to fire escapes, the number of car parking spaces, the temperature of the tap water, what the carpets are like and whether the windows should be open. They do not deal adequately with the care of residents or contain powers to close homes. There are no means to deal with inadequate legislation. Often, a board or authority wishes to take action against a home but cannot do so because it is not within its powers.
  I accept that such matters are not the responsibility of the Minister's Department, but he should be concerned about them and he should have discussions with the relevant Departments. I want the Minister to consider regulations to cover those problems. I do not want to repeat the argument that there is not enough money available—we shall take that as read. It is an important matter and we
  1010
  need the regulations. My constituents, who live in the leafy suburbs of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, constantly come to see me about such problems.
  Some of my constituents also complain that they cannot live on the benefit provided. I live in a constituency with little public sector housing. If the boundary commissioner has his way, it will have no public sector housing, but will remain a Labour seat. I realise that that would be unusual in other parts of the country, but it is not in Scotland. On Monday, we discussed the relationship between the reduction in deficit funding and housing support grant, and the greater emphasis being placed on rents and housing benefit. I make a plea for more funds to prevent pockets of deprivation, even in my constituency.
  I also make a plea for the retention of child benefit. People who receive it throughout my constituency, including its better-off parts, appreciate its value—not only in financial terms, but for its recognition of the family and the integral part that it plays in our society. For many people, child benefit forms an important part of the budget and helps them to avoid poverty. It also recognises the importance of the family to children and the cost of having a family. The Government should recognise that and should constantly uprate child benefit. I realise that the issue is always at the forefront of Conservative ideology.
  Dr. Robert Spink: The hon. Gentleman said that he would like a general increase in benefits,particularly for housing. The hon. Gentleman has made some excellent points, with which I have some sympathy. But does not he realise that, since 1979, social security spending has increased in real terms by 75 per cent? If he wants to increase that budget, by how much would he incrase it and how would he fund it?
  Mr. Galbraith: I said that I would not repeat the usual litany of saying that there were not enough funds and please could we have more. I hoped that Conservative Members would not go through the usual litany of asking how we would pay for it. I shall not fall into that trap. It was worth the hon. Member giving it a try, but he will understand why I choose to ignore him. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) wish to intervene?
  Mr. Ian Bruce indicated dissent.
  Mr. Galbraith: Very well—I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman.
  The subject of workmen's compensation and industrial diseases benefits is a wide one. I understand that they are not the responsibility of the Minister, but I should like him to consider the general principles of those benefits and diagnosis in relation to such matters.
  I was involved in a long-running case and correspondence concerning asbestosis and mesothelioma., compensation for which was the responsibility of the Department of Employment, as the Minister will be aware. The Department was generous in dealing with compensation and making back payments, but the issue centred around whether compensation should be paid from the time of diagnosis or after the board. The issue involves the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment. We should consider the matter further. Officials at the Department of

  1011
  Employment tell me that they are considering and monitoring the subject, which generally means that they are not doing much.
  That is not a specifically political issue, so there need not be any disagreement between the parties. Many of the decisions on when compensation should be paid and when the diagnosis was made were based on criteria that were established many years ago. With improvements in technology, we can alter the criteria for diagnosis and we should be considering that.
  Mr. Corbyn: I have a constituent whose mother worked as a cleaner in a Glasgow bus garage and died as a result of asbestosis. Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the problems for people suffering from industrial diseases and illnesses brought about by working conditions, such as asbestosis, is that the settlement of fault often takes so long that the person who has suffered dies before he or she can receive any benefit? The case of the lady who worked at the Glasgow bus garage was a particularly serious example of that.
  Mr. Galbraith: Compensation made while people are still alive is double the amount of compensation made after death. Although the diagnosis may have been made by biopsy, if the individual dies before the board can confirm the diagnosis and make the award, the compensation is halved. It is the difference between £23,000 and £11,500. That is grossly unfair.
  The basis for the system is that, in the past, diagnosis was difficult. It was probably based on a physician listening to the chest and saying, "Say 99. Breath in and out. Let me look at your fingers for clubbing." If people were lucky, they may have had a chest X-ray. However, that is no longer the case for many people. Objective criteria can now be used in many cases.
  I would like the Minister to address the four issues that I have raised, especially the one relating to residential care. We should make it easier for individuals to deal with residential and nursing care and stop the need for everyone to have a 3 inch file. These issues transcend all sections of society. As I said, my constituency is mostly middle class and after the next election it is likely to be totally owner-occupied. However, these are major issues within it.The issues are not isolated in one pocket or confined to one group in society. They relate to everyone in our society. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at the issues.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It is a pleasure to speak briefly in this important debate on pensions and other matters. The subject of pensions occupies us greatly because, with the funds available, they represent a large slice of our national wealth. It is fair to say that we will be on an extremely dangerous path if we follow the line presented by the Government and accept their mythology.
  The greatest improvement to our pension policy took place in 1975 with the introduction of the state earnings-related pension scheme, which was supported by all parties. When the Conservative Government came to power, they changed that policy and announced that they would get rid of SERPS altogether. They did not do that, but in the mid-1980s they degraded the value of SERPS to a large extent—and that is continuing. After that, an inquiry into pensions was held. I believe that the Government made their great error in the way in which
  1012
  they proceeded from there, because they then announced that they would give the country a choice by making personal pensions available and they bribed people to take them.
  There are many examples of what was said in the House at the time. There was some disgraceful advertising. Rather than go for the sleazy operators, I took two of the principal banks—Barclays and Midland—to the Advertising Standards Authority for the advertising that they carried out in 1989. It was wickedly deceptive and, indeed, my case was proved. The banks advertised by saying, "You can have a gift of £5,000—don't be a SERP"—as if a SERP was a nasty, oily, unpleasant animal. They said that people should not be fools and should take the £5,000 gift—that was the word they used—from the Government.
  The gift consisted of people's contributions to the state scheme and the contributions made by employers, plus a little tax allowance, plus the alleged gift, which one would more accurately call a bribe, which was paid out of the national insurance fund. Many of the people who took that line—at least 2·5 million of them—now bitterly regret their choice. What happened was that the greedy sales people from the banks and the building societies—many of whom were employed for only a short period—largely oversold the policies, especially to people over a certain age. The policies were of no value to many people in their forties and fifties—indeed, they endangered their financial futures.
  That is one of the major scandals that will be revealed in the future. We already know about those who were persuaded to leave fine occupational schemes and go into personal pensions. Once again, they were oversold because the sales people involved received huge commissions on the sales. After a short period, many of them found that the £5,000 had gone altogether. At least £2,000 would have gone in commission and the rest in administrative expenses, and people were left with hardly any funds at all.
  The other point about personal pension schemes which has never been explained is that they are not pension schemes as people traditionally understand them; they are savings schemes. The amount that is paid at the end does not depend on what the person is likely to be earning at the end of his life—it depends on what is happening on the stock exchange. That would be good if the circumstances were similar to those in the 1980s, but it would be dreadful if they were similar to those in the 1970s.
  We must ask the Government to reassess their support for personal pensions and their whole pension policy because they did not provide people with a choice. They threw millions of people to the wolves.
  Another issue that will be raised in the debate on uprating concerns us all.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of personal pension schemes, is he aware that such schemes are heavily subsidised by the loss of income from the national insurance fund? We do not have a free market choice—we have a subsidy for private enterprise to set up personal pension schemes, many of which have proved to be less valuable than SERPS. Many people would have been well advised to remain in SERPS and not accepted the bribes to which my hon. Friend rightly referred.
  Mr. Flynn rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I suggest that he returns to the measures before the House. I do not mind passing references to other matters, but he must now return to the major themes of the measures.
  Mr. Flynn: I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The other measures affect the uprating of various benefits. This has been an uncertain story over the years. When we want to know whether benefits can be uprated, we look at the health of the national insurance scheme. Certain benefits have not been uprated over the years. The child dependency allowance, which represented 11 per cent. of the average wage in 1979, now represents 6 per cent. That allowance is paid to the sick, the disabled, war widows and their children. It is surprising to realise how many child dependency allowances are paid, and the reason is the health of the national insurance scheme.
  Something like £8 billion has been looted from the national insurance scheme to pay the bribes on personal pensions. That money has gone directly into the pension industry, which is fundamentally wasteful because of the number of people operating in the industry and the amount of money that goes in commission and administration charges. The national insurance scheme is, above all else, efficient because at the most only 5 per cent. of the money is taken out in administration charges. The amount can be as much as 50 per cent., as happened under Beveridge. That is the reason why we have the national insurance scheme, which was introduced by Lloyd George and improved by Beveridge.
  Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the new incapacity benefit will be uprated on a statutory basis every year and whether that will be part of the Government's policy. The reason given for the new incapacity benefit—it has been trumpeted aloud—is that many people who receive benefit are malingerers or scroungers who take money from the public purse when they are not entitled to it. It does happen. There are many cases of that and no one defends them. We should start with people who take money from the public purse on a large scale and who ask for some equality of treatment.
  One family in the country has five houses paid for by housing benefit out of the public purse, and the family already owns two houses. The daughter-in-law of the head of the household has announced that she is not going to do any more work. As far as I know, she is still to be paid out of the public purse, but she has not been subjected to the actively seeking employment test.
  Mr. Corbyn: Why not?
  Mr. Flynn: I would like an explanation for that and perhaps the Minister can tell us tonight. The members of that family receive huge amounts of money out of the public purse, but they are not treated as scroungers or as people who are living off the state. If the Minister wishes to write to that family, he will find that the address is Buckingham palace, London.
  A result of the one order that we are debating is that the basic pension will be uprated. The Labour party increased the real value of the basic pension by 20 per cent. That Labour Government are often accused of many things, but we did allow the basic pension to increase by a reasonable rate over the years. We could not maintain the full promise,
  1014
  as Government Members constantly remind us, but we honoured our pledge to increase the pension by a substantial amount.
  This Government have constantly pared away the basic pension with their salami cuts. I do not think that any debate on social security goes by without a Government Member repeating the familiar mantra that the Labour party could not pay the Christmas bonus for two years. That is something to which they return every time they are desperate.
  Dr. Spink: I will not repeat the mantra, but will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the average pensioner is now 42 per cent. better off in real terms than in 1979, when we took over the levers of power from the socialist Government? Does not that show the Government's commitment to pensioners and will the hon. Gentleman support the current uprating?
  Mr. Flynn: The statement proves the gullibility of the hon. Gentleman, who used the word "average" in his question. One must remember that, for instance, the Queen Mother is a pensioner.
  The hon. Gentleman must understand and study the figures carefully and he should also read the writings of thinking people in the Government—there are such people. It is a controversial and dangerous thing to say, but there are Conservative Members who write with knowledge on the subject. They never take part in debates such as this, nor do they sit on Committees. During the past 24 hours, I have copied three pages of a book written by a Government Member for Members of the Committee dealing with incapacity legislation.
  Yes, the average income of pensioners has gone up because the rich pensioners have become immensely richer and the poor pensioners have become relatively much poorer. There has been a redistribution of poverty among pensioners.
  Dr. Spink: Is it not a fact that, during the last decade or so, poor pensioners have improved their wealth? A greater number of pensioners now have refrigerators, central heating, cars, telephones, videos and television sets. Have not pensioners been increasing their wealth in real terms and their material value during the last decade?
  Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman must learn that, under the Conservative Government, those who survive on the basic pension plus a little income support have had their income increased, not along with earnings—the way in which the prosperity of the general population is measured—but in line with prices. In that respect, they have fallen behind every year.
  I will give a small example which may not strain the hon. Gentleman too much. The Christmas bonus is a nice, simple example, with easy figures to remember. What should the £10 Christmas bonus be worth now? I have already made the point that, for two years, the Labour Government did not pay the bonus. We failed, and we regret it greatly. The Government have cheated on that bonus on every one of the past 15 years. If the bonus had been increased in line with earnings, it would be £32—three times the value it was when the Labour Government were in power.
  The Government have spread what is accepted as the truth by the gullible souls among Conservative Members. There are times when we must have deep sympathy for

  1015
  Government Members. There is a story that soon there will be a line-up of single Government Members with the Chief Whip pointing a shotgun at them. They will all be taken down to the Crypt to have arranged marriages-with suitable women to avoid scandal. That seems to be going a little far, and it is a harsh price to pay for acting as accomplices to the Government's various crimes during the past few years. However, it is their choice, and there must be a time when all the scandals will come to an end.
  So shall I come to end. The whole movement in social security benefits during the past 15 years has been one of deception by the Government. There has been a continuous period of cuts and the Government have tried to exaggerate a demographic change which will happen in the next century, but to nothing like the extent that they suggest.
  My final point is that there was once a Committee which said that this country could not sustain the benefits system, or continue to pay pensions as it has done. It said that it was crucial that the age of retirement be increased to 63 for women and 68 for men. That was the Phillips committee, which reported in 1954. Its view then was that we could not afford the benefit system. It was as wrong as the view put forward by the Government now that we cannot afford a benefit system in the future. We can, and the will is there. A small amount of growth will allow us to pay for the benefit system, not dismantle it and hand the population over to the greed and waste of the insurance companies.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: In preparing for tonight's speech, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) re-read last year's debate. It was interesting that many of the issues of concern that have been raised tonight—as opposed to the general uprating principle with which the Government have complied—have flowed through the past 12 months until today. We are still waiting for the Government to respond effectively to the concerns and the gaps in policy which clearly still remain.
  In my winding-up speech last year, I said that the debate had been wide-ranging and thoughtful. Tonight, we have had relatively few speakers but quality has made up for lack of quantity. I welcome the speeches by my hon.Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). I welcome, as always, the thought-provoking speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I cannot promise that all his views will necessarily become party policy, but they will certainly be included in our continuing review and debate during the coming months.
  I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who raised some crucial points that were on record from last year's debate. The points are by no means diminished by that, and they need reinforcing year on year. I particularly welcome his comments about people in residential homes within the preserved rights category. That was raised in the debate last year, and I recommend to the hon. Gentleman the excellent report by the Local Government Information Unit on that group.
  That problem clearly has not gone away. Thousands of cases were brought to our attention. The hon. Gentleman says that only a few have been brought to him recently, but I assure him that, throughout Britain, a worried and large group of people want to ensure that their homes will
  1016
  remain their homes and that income support will be paid because their savings have rapidly diminished over the years.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also mentioned carers and students. I link with that point the income of 16 and 17-year-olds, who are a forgotten group. Although the Government claim that all 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed some sort of training and, therefore, some income, by the Government's own admission, that is not the case. Significant numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds have no income and the Government have made no provision for them to have any income.
  Although I welcomed the speech made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I was disappointed with his disingenuous attack on the Labour party for its tactics in the House. It is never my intention to fight like with like and I would never wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats have failed to put any Member on the Standing Committee that is considering the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill to fight that legislation with the Labour party. I would not take that course because I do not believe in disingenuous attacks, but the hon. Gentleman should be more careful about the way in which he approaches such matters with regard to the Labour party.
  It has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It was relevant that the Secretary of State began by trumpeting and triumphantly stating the claims that he has made about the compensation package for VAT on fuel. The context of the whole debate is clearly the Government's economic problems—the £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement. The Government had to impose VAT on fuel. It has to be remembered that the compensation package was introduced only because there was a massive public outcry against the imposition of VAT on fuel. It was not something which the Government intended to introduce as a natural consequence of their policy.
  The compensation package bears a little closer scrutiny, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said. It is deeply flawed. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the 2·7 million children who rely on income support. That group will be particularly sold short in this respect. As we know, the compensation package contains two main elements—advance compensation for the average rise in fuel costs reflected in the retail prices index and some recognition of the extra cost faced by pensioners and people with a disability.
  For a number of reasons, the package falls far short of adequately protecting people who live in or close to poverty. It is not a waste of the time of the House to identify the losers in the compensation arrangements. For example, the package provides no recognition of the particularly high costs of fuel for people living on low incomes or in poverty.
  A study by the Child Poverty Action Group based on calculations from the family expenditure survey in 1992 showed that the poorest 20 per cent. of people spent 11 per cent. of their weekly budget on fuel. That is £10·23 on average a week. In comparison, the top 20 per cent. of earners spent only 3 per cent. of their weekly budget, or £16·28, on fuel. The average expenditure on fuel is 5 per cent. of the weekly budget or £13·02 a week. The regressive nature of VAT on fuel is clearly identified by the disproportionate burden of fuel costs on people on low incomes.

  1017
  The deeply flawed compensation package does not recognise that families with children have extra heating costs which result from both the heating needs of children and the fact that families with children are likely to spend more time at home. Most important, the compensation package provides no help for people on unemployment benefit. It provides no help to people on low incomes but just above the benefit level. They are on very low incomes, but they receive no compensation under the schemes.
  No help whatever is provided for people who fall through the social security net and do not claim their entitlement to social security benefit. It can be argued that they should claim their entitlement, but the complexity of the scheme and people's changing circumstances mean that many people who are entitled to means-tested benefits do not claim. So, yet again, people lose out under the compensation package.
  Let us examine what the comparison package means for families with children on income support. It amounts to merely 40p for a couple with one child under 11 per week and only 5p for each extra child. It amounts to only 30p a week for a lone parent with a child under 11 and only 5p for each extra child. Although the Secretary of State is prepared triumphantly to announce the package, those figures show that considerable groups of people will be particularly disadvantaged and will suffer as a consequence of the imposition of VAT on fuel and the compensation arrangements.
  It is also worth examining the way in which the compensation package will affect disabled people. It is worth noting—the Secretary of State raised the point again today—that, in his review of the social security budget, one of the groups that the Secretary of State particularly targeted for savings was people with disabilities, in the widest context. He heralded that intention in his Mais lecture and it has been translated into policy initiatives that the Government have taken.
  Sticking for the moment to VAT on fuel, it is worth noting that fuel is the most common item of expenditure for disabled people. They use it for heating, for hot water for daily baths and laundry. They use electricity for such items as recharging electric wheelchairs and powering stair lifts put into their homes to help them.
  Figures for the average weekly increases in the fuel bills of people with disabilities have been produced by the Disability Alliance. I thank it for its help. The figures show that the extra charges amount to £1·30, rising to £2·80 when the full rate of VAT is payable. That is more than twice as much as the compensatory increases in some benefits. So disabled people, who need to use fuel extensively, will be particularly disadvantaged by the compensation package.
  Dr. Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that spending on disability benefits has trebled since 1979? How much more would he spend?
  Mr. Bradley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assiduous consideration of the debate. If he will allow me to come to the wider point about disability benefits when I deal briefly with incapacity benefit, he will recognise our view on the way in which the Government are cutting the money available for people with disabilities. If he will bear with me, I shall happily give way to him later on that point.
  1018
  Compensation through the benefits system for the imposition of VAT on fuel will fail many disabled people. Some benefits for disabled people have not been increased. There is no compensatory increase in the disability living allowance. Although many people who receive DLA will receive some compensation through other benefits, those who do not receive other benefits will lose out altogether.
  That group includes disabled adults with often small amounts of income from other sources such as occupational pensions. It also includes parents of disabled children who receive disability living allowance but no other benefit. One has to question why that particular group of people has been missed out of the compensation package.
  There is no compensatory increase in the standard rate of statutory sick pay. Some benefits have been increased by less than the promised 50p for a single person and 70p for a couple. For example, a single carer receiving invalid care allowance will receive only 20p—35p for a couple—yet invalid care allowance amounts to only 60 per cent. of contributory benefits. Furthermore, there is no evidence that carers' fuel bills are less than those of households receiving other benefits.
  The Government seem to have chosen to ignore that group when introducing the VAT compensation scheme and I urge the Under-Secretary of State to reconsider them and find out whether they can be helped, because they will suffer especially from the imposition of VAT on fuel.
  While we are talking about disabled people, it is interesting to note that, because of the imposition of VAT on fuel and the compensation package, three benefits—severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance and severe disability premium—which were paid at the same rate, will now receive different treatment and be paid at different rates. For example, severe disablement allowance has been uprated by VAT compensation of 50p, so the new rate will be £34·80 per week; invalid care allowance has been uprated by VAT compensation of 20p to £34·50 per week; but there is no compensatory increase for severe disability premium, so the new amount is £34·30.
  There will therefore be three different rates of payment for benefits that were paid at the same rate. It would also be sensible if the Under-Secretary of State studied the compensation package to ensure that such weekly payments are treated in exactly the same way.
  The Government's attempt to reduce social security benefits in the first round of the review of the social security budget has focused on the cost of people on invalidity benefit. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was right to say that the cost of invalidity benefit has increased considerably.
  I shall not restate the arguments about the Government's previous decisions—notably before the 1987 election, when every Department was asked to find any mechanism possible to take people off the unemployment register. The social security team therefore pushed as many people as possible on to invalidity benefit, which reduced unemployment significantly so that the Government could go into that election saying that unemployment was falling. The then chairman of the Conservative party identified that factor as the crucial indicator to the public of the Tory Administration's competence. The Government set in train the consequences that they must deal with now.
  I am not denying that some people are in receipt of invalidity benefit who should not be. We have never

  1019
  questioned that fact. We question strongly, however, whether the new medical test is the right mechanism to assess more sensitively those who are genuinely unable to work. During the coming weeks, we shall argue our case strongly in the Standing Committee of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill. We strongly disagree with the Government about those disabled people who get through the hoop of the medical test, convince the Government that they are incapable of work but then hit the double whammy—the amount of money available to them is reduced.
  If the Government are saying that invalidity benefit payments were reasonable, but that too many people were claiming, how can they say—after reducing the number of people eligible—that the benefit is costing too much money?
  Two groups of people in identical circumstances and with identical disabilities can pass the incapacity test, but receive different benefits. As I said, I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point if he can justify the fact that, under the present invalidity benefit scheme, one receives the full rate of payment after six months, but under the new scheme one will not do so until after 12 months; that under the old scheme, one received additions for adult and child dependants, but under the new scheme, those are severely curtailed; and that under the old scheme, one was entitled to additional pension, but under the new scheme, there is no additional pension. I shall give way to him if he can justify the fact that, although the numbers eligible have been reduced by the new medical test, the amount of money that they receive is also being reduced.
  I think that we can understand hon. Members' failure to understand the Government's legislation. They are reducing the number of people eligible for benefit and reducing the amount paid to one of the most vulnerable groups of people. For many months and years—probably for life—such people will have to rely on the new incapacity benefit, but they will receive less money than they were previously entitled to on invalidity benefit. That represents a straight political choice and the Government are using disabled people as a scapegoat for their economic mismanagement and public sector problems.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said so effectively, the consequence of that policy will be to reverse the trend that was set in motion before the 1987 election and to push people claiming disability benefit—the new incapacity benefit—back on to unemployment benefit. They have reversed the trend that was used to manipulate the electorate before that election. By the Government's own admission, during the next two years 200,000 of those people will claim unemployment benefit, at a tremendous cost to the social security budget.
  Those people will probably fail the medical test by a small margin, but, because of changes to statutory sick pay—the burden is being placed on businesses, which will recruit more carefully—they are less likely to gain employment and more likely to become long-term unemployed. That trend is increasing, as we have seen from the unemployment figures, and Government policies will add to the increase.
  I have spent a long time on the subject of disability, but disabled people are often a forgotten group in society and this sort of debate allows us to range widely over their needs. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said, quite honestly and openly—I commend him for it—that the number of people receiving disability working allowance had been a disappointment.
  1020
  From April 1995, people receiving disability working allowance will be eligible for help with their health charges. On 1 December, the Secretary of State said that people on that allowance "will automatically qualify" for such help. However, I understand that those people will have to undergo a savings test and only those with capital of less than £8,000 will qualify for help with the charges. Please could the Under-Secretary of State clarify whether all of them will qualify automatically—as the Secretary of State said—or whether the savings test will be applied and only those who pass it will qualify? Such clarification would be very welcome.
  The independent living fund was another significant area of debate last year. One year has gone by and it is clear that many organisations for the disabled and people with disabilities are outraged at the failure of the new fund to meet effectively their real needs. Very few people have received a grant under the scheme and although the Minister with responsibility for the disabled said that the roll-over costs significantly outstrip the new fund's budget, all that proves is how inadequate the fund is.
  When the extension fund and the new independent living fund were debated in the House, we highlighted the problem of administration and the fact that money comes from social services up to a cut-off point, at which it is topped up from the fund. That is causing administrative chaos. I urge the Government to look at that again, and particularly at the independent living fund so that it can make direct cash payments to disabled people, in conjunction with care packages drawn up by social services offices, to ensure that real care is provided, and the money can be used effectively, sensitively and imaginatively by recipients of the fund.
  The situation is becoming intolerable. In many ways, the fund has no relevance to the way in which the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is being implemented. We urge the Government to think again about the way that they have excluded people over 65, but particularly terminally ill people, from receiving money from the fund.
  Under the old system, 34 per cent. of the case load of the independent living fund were people over 65. They have benefited greatly from its provisions. It is outrageous to exclude them and terminally ill people. That is quite unacceptable. I hope that the Government will reconsider the workings, operation and funding of the independent living fund.
  It is always relevant to debate the social fund at this time of year, because it is absolutely clear and has been stated year on year since it has been in operation that people are treated differently depending on what day of the year they go through the revolving door to seek help from the fund. If one goes through it on 1 April, one stands some chance of receiving a grant or loan.
  At this time of year, the situation is chaotic, and the people—in identical circumstances to those who went through at the beginning of the financial year—are told that there is no opportunity to receive help from the fund. I back up those statements with information that I received from various offices around the country. In Greater Manchester, for example, a note went out from the social fund officers saying:
  "Please find enclosed a copy of your revised guidance on priorities for Social Fund Loans. You will note that, generally speaking, we are only in a position to consider paymetn for high priority items which avoid a risk to health. This situation is likely

  1021
  to continue to the end of this financial year unless more funds are forthcoming. Otherwise we would be heading for a large overspend."
  Revising the guideline is common in the operation of the social fund. As the year goes on, the money for care grants or loans is prioritised and continually limited. In Greater Manchester at the moment, one has not only to be in a high priority—many categories of people are—but face a risk to one's health. It is almost impossible to get a crucial element, the replacement of the old supplementary payments, which were for essential items such as clothing and household goods to enable people to set up in new home and maintain a certain standard. That is no longer on the agenda. One must have a risk to health, but nothing else.
  I have similar statements from other parts of the country. A note was sent to me from the Benefits Agency in Sheffield East. It says:
  "Following legal advice",
  it had to review the situation on the social fund,
  "but the criteria for which budgeting loans were to be awarded was as a result restricted to situations where there would be severe hardship or serious risk to the health and safety".
  Again, that limits the priority category to a particular group.
  I received a memo from the East Nottinghamshire office of the agency—it could have come from anywhere in the country. It stated quite clearly that only high-priority cases would be considered, and at a later stage those high-priority cases were limited to certain groups within the high-priority category. The Government recognised that there were high priorities, but then limited them as the year went by. That guidance on how social fund officers should operate the scheme is up to date.
  The Government have said loudly and clearly that they do not have the budget to meet the needs of people who may be in identical circumstances to those who previously received help from the social fund. I urge the Government to look at the funding through the social fund. They triumphantly announced that people would receive help to top up their meagre benefits through income support. It must be stressed that they are loans and that people must repay them.
  People are being given only a limited opportunity—an opportunity they may resist—to take out a loan, which is then taken out of their benefits to repay. Even that system is falling apart at the seams as we enter the last quarter of the financial year.
  One or two other points are worth raising. We welcome any attempt by the Government to look at child care costs and the way that child care can be an essential element in trying to enable mothers, particularly, to get back into the workplace. The announcment in the Budget of the disregard in family credit for that purpose is obviously to be welcomed.
  I press the Under-Secretary on exactly how much help will be given. On the cost of child care, the £40 disregard and the £28 net element is clearly not enough on a day-to-day basis. They may afford the opportunity for post-school help and perhaps offer some help on a day a week. But if one looks at the real child care costs, anywhere in the country, it is much more realistic to talk about £80, £90 or £100 a week to look after children.
  1022
  Although we welcome the step in the right direction, I urge the Government to look at the reality of their proposals to see whether more can be given.
  Lowest-income families already receive maximum family credit. As the arrangements on child care are based on a disregard, if one is already on maximum family credit one clearly cannot receive any more. There is no help with child care costs for the lowest-income families receiving family credit. It seems rather perverse that one does not help those in greatest need.
  As the scale increases, only a proportion of the £28 will be available. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us how many people will receive no help? How many people who receive £28 will receive only £10? How many will receive £20? how many will receive the full £28? That will be an interesting spread within family credit. I hope that he is able to gain that information before he replies. If not, I hope that he will write to me with that information as soon as possible.
  We have had a good deal of discussion on statutory sick pay. We have dealt with the amendment from the other place. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden asked how it will be dealt with when the Government have completed their consultation process. We raised that when we considered Lords amendments, but we continually seek reassurance on that point because the Government tend to operate by regulation and instrument rather than by primary legislation. We do not want the order to slip through without proper scrutiny and debate.
  Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman failed to address the issue that I presented to him, so I am reluctant to give way, but since he has sat through my speech quietly, I will be generous.
  Dr. Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We all want to help truly vulnerable people as much as we can and the hon. Gentleman has presented us with a wish list of many cost enhancements. Has he costed that list? Does he have authority from his colleagues to propose that additional spending?
  Mr. Bradley: I do not believe that I did present a wish list; I was commenting on Government policy. I do not need to cost the social fund, for example, because the Government say that it is self-financing, because it is based on a loan system. The money is paid back.
  Dr. Spink: What about child care?
  Mr. Bradley: I have cited the social fund as an example. The Government—not I—say that it is self-financing. I do not have to justify asking the Government to put more money into a fund that they claim to be self-financing. That seems reasonable to me. We do not have to make the obvious point about trying desperately not to put more people onto unemployment benefit, which costs an average £9,000 a year in tax and lost benefit per person on the unemployment register. We would try to set the economic conditions that would reduce unemployment and so free resources to fund other essential care and benefit packages.
  This has been a worthwhile and interesting debate. We welcome any increases in benefit levels, however meagre they may be. We have expressed our doubts about some benefits that have fallen through the net this time and about

  1023
  the way in which the VAT compensation package has been introduced. We are concerned that some benefits have not been compensated for in the same way as others, which means that certain benefits are no longer in kilter with others. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance about those benefits.
  When we re-run the debate in 12 months' time, I hope that we will not have to raise, yet again, the incredibly important matters of the independent living fund, the social fund, carers, preserved income support for those in residential homes and all those other categories of people who seem to be forgotten continually by the Government.
  8.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): This has been an interesting debate, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has pointed out. It has covered a wide range of subjects, some of them even related to the orders before the House, which is always a great consolation.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) opened the debate for the Opposition by saying that the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State contained few surprises. I had intended to intervene then to say that there would be no surprises in the speech by the hon. Gentleman, but, as it turned out, it did contain one or two surprises.
  One of the surprises was that the hon. Member for Garscadden was unable to be very specific in response to questions from my hon. Friends about what Opposition policy might be on certain matters. The hon. Gentleman was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) whether the level of social security spending was enough. The answer was rather like a version of, "We wouldn't have started from here." The hon. Gentleman suggested that economic circumstances would be magically different in the future. He suggested that the economic cycle would be abolished and that there would not be unemployment under a Labour Government, so spending priorities could be different. That was not a credible answer.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that a great deal of money was being spent in the wrong way, but he did not go on to say where the sweeping reductions, which were presumably implied by that statement, might be made.
  When my right hon. Friend asked the hon. Gentleman about the schemes for pensions proposed by the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), it was surprising that the hon. Gentleman did not feel that he should rule out the means-testing of the pension, or whatever it was that his right hon. Friend proposed.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister has made my point by saying, "or whatever it was". The proposition that he is putting to me is that I should have ruled out my right hon. Friend's suggestion, but I made it clear that I had not had the opportunity to study it. The proposal had been verbally presented on a television programme which I had not seen. I suspect that the Minister is in the same position because he said that I should have ruled out that proposal "whatever it was". That seems an odd position to take up.
  Mr. Hague: The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) clearly suggested that there would be some adjustment to the pension as people's incomes rose. To me that is equivalent to means testing, whatever the detail behind the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. We will await the time when the hon. Member for Garscadden receives advice from the Commission for Social Justice in order to clarify that matter.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the guaranteed minimum pension and what discussions may have taken place. The problem of the complexity of that pension and the way in which it interacts with SERPS was raised by the Goode committee as one of the areas in which the Government might seek to simplify arrangements for occupational pension schemes. The Government fell it right to issue a series of consultation papers to take forward discussions on the recommendations of the Goode report.
  The Government issued one of their consultation papers about the future of the guaranteed minimum pension, which raised the question of whether there should be an alternative test of how to contract out of SERPS. That alternative test would have to offer security for the rights of occupational pension scheme members. That is what the discussions were about. The Government are now analysing the results of that consultation exercise. If we have any proposals to bring forward as a result, we will do so in due course.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also asked about the guaranteed minimum pension and whether there was any equivalent in personal pensions. There is an equivalent, in that the contracted-out rebate is paid as a minimum contributions into a personal pension. It is then used when a personal pension is turned into an annuity with similar rights to a guaranteed minimum pension.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister is perhaps flattering me, because I said that there was no comparable mechanism in the private pensions sector. I also went on to ask him whether he was satisfied with the present level of regulation, given the problems that have emerged in recent times. Could he address that question?
  Mr. Hague: There is an equivalent in that the minimum contributions are paid into personal pensions and personal pensions are turned into an annuity with similar rights in terms of inflation increases up to a certain level, widows' benefits and so on as a guaranteed minimum pension.
  The question of regulation is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend at the Treasury. The Securities and Investments Board is currently reviewing what has happened and the alleged mis-selling of personal pensions. It will produce its findings and thoughts on the matter later in the year.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked what is happening to statutory sick pay. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to be listening to my answers, but no doubt the hon. Member for Withington will write it all down for him. The Government will consult industry, unions and other interested bodies now that the amendment on it, which was passed in the other place, has been agreed by the House.
  The hon. Member referred to the alternative of a two-week period rather than a four-week period for the reimbursement of small employers as costing "only £10 million". We occasionally get such references from the Opposition about things that will "only" cost

  1025
  £10 million. The trouble with tens of millions of pounds is that they add up to rather a lot. If the hon. Gentleman thought it through, I am not sure whether he would consider that alternative an appropriate use of an additional £10 million, especially when small employers and employers in general stand to gain from the changes to statutory sick pay, when the reductions in national insurance contributions are taken into account.
  Small employers in particular stand to gain because they tend to have lower sickness rates and they tend to employ many people for whom they are paying the lower rates of employers' national insurance contributions.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister so often tempts me to intervene. However, he is being a little unfair. I said that I considered the figures to be surprisingly low, which illustrates or underlines the fact that only a small percentage of the work force was covered by the provision. Will the Minister give us some idea of what is in the ministerial mind? I recognise that consultation is taking place, but presumably it is a concession granted on the basis that there is a need for action. Is that a fair assumption?
  Mr. Hague: The Bill was changed and the Government are consulting industry and trade unions in an effort to make the alternative scheme work. If such a way can be found, we shall lay regulations before the House. If it cannot, there will be a report, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There would be little point in giving a commitment now that there must be a debate on that report if in the meantime employers agreed that for some reason such a scheme would not work. There are many mechanisms in the House and in the other place for securing a debate and no doubt they can be pursued if necessary.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the job seeker's allowance and the reduction from 12 to six months in contributory payments. Two thirds of people who become unemployed leave the count within six months and many of those who remain will be able to claim job seeker's allowance on a means-tested basis or national insurance credits. The measure targets resources on those in need. That is one of the themes that the Government pursue in their reform of the social security system.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) began his speech by saying that he had lost an argument that he was right to lose. That comment could have come only from the Liberal Democrat Bench. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that little unfairness to him.
  He talked at some length about pensioners' living standards. That raises the debate which often arises during Question Time and other times in the House about pensioners' living standards which, as one of my hon. Friends observed, have improved by 42 per cent. on average over the past 15 years. The percentage of pensioners in the bottom quintile of income distribution has fallen from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 24 per cent. on the latest figures. Therefore, some of the points that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made earlier are not valid. His comments about pensioners incomes are not true.
  In general, pensioners have benefited greatly in the past 15 years. The Government, recognising that not all have
  1026
  shared equally in that, have directed additional resources to those at the bottom of the income scale—£1 billion in extra resources since 1988.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I understand the Minister, but in relation to the changes in VAT, relatively small proportions of retired people are suffering terrible adverse financial hardship. What specifically is he doing to address that?
  Mr. Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, all pensioners are receiving the additional amounts to help with VAT—50p in the first year for single pensioners and 70p a week for couples—a substantial piece of assistance which will pay the lion's share of pensioners' increased fuel bills as a result of value added tax.
  Like those on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also implied that social security spending should be higher, but again it is not clear how he proposes to finance it and from where he proposes to take the larger share of the gross domestic product that he would spend on those measures.
  The hon. Member raised a number of points about residential care. They are matters for my ministerial colleagues at the Department of Health that I shall draw to their attention. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) also raised a number of matters relating to the Department of Health and the Department of Employment. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who sadly is not with us—
  Mr. Dewar: He has been committed.
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Member for Garscadden says that his hon. Friend has been committed; I am not sure where.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North referred to a caricature of the Government's position as no longer being able to afford the universal pension or the welfare state. That is not the case. The Government's objective is to ensure that the welfare state is sustainable and affordable in future.
  Like many Labour Members, he called for the state pension age to be reduced to 60, although that is not the policy of the Opposition Front Bench. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman considers that to be the best use of £12 billion—that is what it would cost to equalise the state pension age at 60 instead of 65. That money would go to men between 60 and 65, many of whom would still be in employment or have occupational pension schemes in addition to anything they might receive from the state.
  Most of the comments of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred to my colleagues in other Departments and I shall draw his remarks to their attention. He also made a plea for child benefit to continue. The Government's manifesto commitment to child benefit is clear, but I advise the hon. Gentleman to have a word with his hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench before the Social Justice Commission concludes its deliberations.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West has left the Chamber, so I shall move to some of the other remarks made during the debate.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as interested only in costs and not in a sensible and coherent set of reforms. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out very clear principles for the reform of the social security system: to focus help on those in greatest need, to diminish

  1027
  disincentives, to improve the delivery of benefits, to bear down on fraud and to encourage personal responsibility. The measures that he has announced are in line with that.
  The Government's commitment to the system has been shown by our record since 1979. Extra help has been focused on those in greatest need, such as less well-off pensioners, to whom I have referred, and low-income families who have had extra help over the past few years totalling £1 billion. Extra benefits to disabled people have totalled £5 billion since 1978–79 in real terms.
  The focus of those policies is continuing with the uprating statement: to be generous to those in need while being realistic about what the nation can afford. The uprating will provide a typical low-income working couple with two children with an increase of £4·30 per week. The income of an unemployed couple with two children will also increase by £4·30 per week; that of an unemployed lone parent with one child will increase by £2·90 per week. A typical unemployed family will be £17 a week better off in real terms, after allowing for inflation, than in 1979.
  We should compare that with the record of the Government in the 1970s, when spending on families fell by 7 per cent. in total. They have little right to criticise us on these matters.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Where were you in the 1970s?
  Mr. Hague: I was at school, but I was watching closely the activities of the Labour Government. I recall writing down these figures at the time.
  As my right hon. Friend has described, therefore, we have kept our manifesto pledges to pensioners and to families. We have gone beyond that in providing substantial extra help with the cost of VAT on fuel. We are laying the foundations for reforms of social security which will preserve and sustain it in the future, and in doing so we are moving in step with many other countries of the western world who are also reforming their social security systems; countries throughout the European Community and across the rest of the world.
  They are raising contributions in France and in most other member states of the European Community; they are linking the uprating of benefits to prices rather than to wages in the Netherlands, France and Italy; reducing unemployment benefit in Germany, France and Spain and reducing its duration in Denmark and Germany; reducing disability benefits in the Netherlands and Ireland; tightening up on sickness benefits in Italy, Spain and the Netherlands; reforming pensions by raising the pension age in Italy, Portugal, Germany and Greece; freezing family benefits in France and the Netherlands, or targeting them more closely in Germany; tackling fraud in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal; and encouraging more private provision of pensions in Italy, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain.
  Alone in the European Community, the Labour party is content not to have a policy for the reform and improvement of the social security system and content to make complacent criticisms of Government policy without having an alternative to put in its place. If this is not the right percentage by which to uprate benefits, what is the right percentage? Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have not told us. If it is not the right way to reform incapacity benefits, what is the right way?
  If ours is not the right approach to the state pension age, how would they finance the alternative approaches which
  1028
  they are themselves divided about adopting? If our proposals for ensuring that the social security system can be sustained in the future are not the right ones, what are the alternatives?
  The speeches of those on the Opposition Front Bench always draw back from a definitive policy. They always leave the implication that spending would be higher if they were in office, but they are all the time fearful of the brooding presence of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has told them not to make any specific commitments.
  We bring to the House tonight orders which provide specifically for the uprating of social security benefits, for the indexation of guaranteed minimum pensions provided by employers, for the reduction of employers' national insurance contributions, for a new system of assisting small employers with the cost of statutory sick pay; and we do so in the context of policies that will ensure that our social security system is affordable and well targeted in the future. They are policies which are realistic and well judged, to which no alternative has been expressed in the debate and which we are confident will therefore enjoy the approval of the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 53.

  Division No. 129]

  [9.01 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Conway, Derek

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

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

  Ashby, David

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baldry, Tony

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Elletson, Harold

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowden, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowis, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butcher, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butler, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hague, William

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  1029

  Harris, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hawksley, Warren

  Richards, Rod

  Hayes, Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Hendry, Charles

  Robathan, Andrew

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

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jack, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Shersby, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sims, Roger

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Knox, Sir David

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Steen, Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Stephen, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Stern, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lidington, David

  Sykes, John

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thomason, Roy

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Maclean, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maginnis, Ken

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

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tracey, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Trend, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Trimble, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Merchant, Piers

  Viggers, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Walden, George

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Wallace, James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Ward, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waterson, Nigel

  Needham, Richard

  Watts, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Norris, Steve

  Willetts, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wood, Timothy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Page, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Paice, James

  Pawsey, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Pickles, Eric

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Byers, Stephen

  Cryer, Bob

  Callaghan, Jim

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dixon, Don

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dowd, Jim

  1030

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Etherington, Bill

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mullin, Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Olner, William

  Home Robertson, John

  Parry, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum

  Soley, Clive

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spellar, John

  McWilliam, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Madden, Max

  Wise, Audrey

  Mahon, Alice

  Marek, Dr John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Jim Cunningham.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Meale, Alan

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Sir Teddy Taylor (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the event of the motion being defeated, would it be possible to allow an emergency debate to assist my pensioners in Southend? I understand that the Opposition are now voting to stop a pension increase greatly needed by poor people.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Why are Labour blocking it?
  Sir Teddy Taylor (seated and covered): If the increase is blocked, there will be huge hardship for pensioners in Southend and throughout the country. If the Opposition win the vote, may we have an emergency debate about what we can do to help the pensioners deprived of their pension increase?
  Mr. Arnold: Pensioners of Jarrow.
  Sir Teddy Taylor (seated and covered): This is a serious question.
  Mr. Arnold: Jarrow pensioners.
  Sir Teddy Taylor (seated and covered): Pensioners are having a difficult time these days—
  Mr. Arnold: Why are Labour trying to block the pension increase?
  Sir Teddy Taylor (seated and covered): Please keep quiet. [Interruption.] This is serious; this is not funny.
  Mr. Arnold: We are being serious.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) well knows that the Chair never anticipates a situation.
  Sir Teddy Taylor (seated and covered): This is a very serious matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept that it is an entirely serious matter, but the point is that the Chair does not anticipate a situation. Let us see whether that situation evolves.
  Mr. Matthew Banks (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?
  Mr. Banks (seated and covered): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you for an emergency debate to discuss the motion before us, and that which the House voted on a few moments ago, concerning the fact that Labour Members, with the apparent connivance of the Opposition Chief Whip, have been voting against the uprating of social security benefits and against pension increases in general?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are voting on motion No. 3 on the Order Paper. That is all that we are doing at the moment. Anything else is pure conjecture.
  Mr. Banks (seated and covered: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am referring to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With or without respect, that is my ruling.
  The House having divided: Ayes 231, Noes 50.

  Division No. 130]

  [9.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Conway, Derek

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Elletson, Harold

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hague, William

  Colvin, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  1032

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Pickles, Eric

  Hannam, Sir John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Harris, David

  Richards, Rod

  Hawkins, Nick

  Riddick, Graham

  Hawksley, Warren

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hendry, Charles

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

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

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sims, Roger

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

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

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knox, Sir David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Steen, Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Stephen, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Stern, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lidington, David

  Sykes, John

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thomason, Roy

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Maclean, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

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

  Malone, Gerald

  Tracey, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Trend, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Walden, George

  Mills, Iain

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wallace, James

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Ward, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Needham, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Willetts, David

  Norris, Steve

  Wood, Timothy

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Yeo, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Pawsey, James

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Bayley, Hugh

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Callaghan, Jim

  Connarty, Michael

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  1033

  Cox, Tom

  Madden, Max

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Mahon, Alice

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marek, Dr John

  Dixon, Don

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Etherington, Bill

  Meale, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mudie, George

  Gapes, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  George, Bruce

  Olner, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Parry, Robert

  Gunnell, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Spellar, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Macdonald, Calum

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  McMaster, Gordon

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 10th February, be approved—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. David Lidington (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always understood it to be the procedure in the House that votes had to follow the voices. Will you therefore rule on whether it is in order for Opposition Members who have called with their voices for compensation for VAT now to vote against that compensation, presumably on the ground that it is more than the 50p a week, which they regard as adequate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Voices on a Division are specific to that Division.
  The House having divided: Ayes 227, Noes 52.

  Division No. 131]

  [9.26 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Congdon, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Conway, Derek

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Bowis, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Elletson, Harold

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Butcher, John

  Faber, David

  Butler, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  1034

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Nelson, Anthony

  Forman, Nigel

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Page, Richard

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Gallie, Phil

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Pawsey, James

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gill, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rendel, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Richards, Rod

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hague, William

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Harris, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Hendry, Charles

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shersby, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Sims, Roger

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jack, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Spring, Richard

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knapman, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Stephen, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stern, Michael

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

  Stewart, Allan

  Knox, Sir David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sykes, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Legg, Barry

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Leigh, Edward

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Lidington, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lightbown, David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lord, Michael

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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Tracey, Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Maclean, David

  Viggers, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walden, George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Wallace, James

  Maginnis, Ken

  Ward, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Malone, Gerald

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Watts, John

  Marland, Paul

  Wells, Bowen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Whitney, Ray

  Mills, Iain

  Whittingdale, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Willetts, David

  1035

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Barnes, Harry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Bayley, Hugh

  Macdonald, Calum

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McMaster, Gordon

  Boateng, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Madden, Max

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Marek, Dr John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Meale, Alan

  Connarty, Michael

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mudie, George

  Cox, Tom

  Mullin, Chris

  Cryer, Bob

  O'Hara, Edward

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Olner, William

  Dixon, Don

  Parry, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Patchett, Terry

  Etherington, Bill

  Pike, Peter L.

  Flynn, Paul

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Gapes, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Spellar, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wise, Audrey

  Gunnell, John

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours and Mr. Terry Lewis.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 10th February, be approved—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  The House having divided: Ayes 221, Noes 46.

  Division No. 132]

  [9.37 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cash, William

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Alton, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clappison, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Congdon, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Elletson, Harold

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butler, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butterfill, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forth, Eric

  1036

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Page, Richard

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Paice, James

  French, Douglas

  Patnick, Irvine

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Gale, Roger

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gallie, Phil

  Pickles, Eric

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Rendel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Richards, Rod

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Riddick, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hague, William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Harris, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shersby, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Hendry, Charles

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Jack, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Stern, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Stewart, Allan

  Knapman, Roger

  Sweeney, Walter

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sykes, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

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

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Knox, Sir David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Thomason, Roy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Legg, Barry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Leigh, Edward

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lidington, David

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

  Lightbown, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tredinnick, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Trend, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Maclean, David

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Wallace, James

  Maginnis, Ken

  Ward, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Malone, Gerald

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Watts, John

  Marland, Paul

  Wells, Bowen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Whitney, Ray

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Whittingdale, John

  Mills, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Willetts, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Yeo, Tim

  Nelson, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  1037

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Bayley, Hugh

  Macdonald, Calum

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McMaster, Gordon

  Callaghan, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Marek, Dr John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Meale, Alan

  Connarty, Michael

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Cox, Tom

  Olner, William

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Parry, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Patchett, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Pike, Peter L.

  Etherington, Bill

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Flynn, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Skinner, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Spellar, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wise, Audrey

  Gunnell, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. George Mudie.

  Illsley, Eric

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the draft statutory sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1994 which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 44.

  Division No. 133]

  [9.48 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Colvin, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Congdon, David

  Alton, David

  Conway, Derek

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dover, Den

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Bob

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Elletson, Harold

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Faber, David

  Bowis, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butler, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butterfill, John

  French, Douglas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gallie, Phil

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carttiss, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Cash, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  1038

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Hague, William

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Rendel, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Richards, Rod

  Hannam, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Harris, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hendry, Charles

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Horam, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sims, Roger

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hunter, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Knapman, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stephen, Michael

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

  Stern, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Stewart, Allan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sykes, John

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Legg, Barry

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thomason, Roy

  Lidington, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Lightbown, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Maclean, David

  Trend, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyler, Paul

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Maginnis, Ken

  Viggers, Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Walden, George

  Malone, Gerald

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Mans, Keith

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Marland, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ward, John

  Mates, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Merchant, Piers

  Watts, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wells, Bowen

  Mills, Iain

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Whitney, Ray

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Whittingdale, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nelson, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wood, Timothy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Page, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paice, James

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Pawsey, James

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Barnes, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim

  1039

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McWilliam, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Mahon, Alice

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Marek, Dr John

  Connarty, Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cox, Tom

  Meale, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dixon, Don

  Mudie, George

  Dowd, Jim

  O'Hara, Edward

  Etherington, Bill

  Olner, William

  Flynn, Paul

  Parry, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Gunnell, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Wise, Audrey

  Lewis, Terry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Macdonald, Calum

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  PETITION

    London Cab Trade
    9.58 pm
    Mr. Jim Dowd: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Alan Howes, and 35 other London licensed taxi drivers.
    It concludes:
    Wherefore your petitioner prays that your honourable house will consider the following remedy; that minicab drivers register for "the knowledge" of the area where they at present work and that after acquiring the necessary standards they then be anchored to that area in order that other areas are not flooded with taxis. This process of integrating both factions into a one tier system would require that the Public Carriage Office take on additional (temporary) staff in order to cater with the additional workload. This process to cease midnight, 31st December 1999, at which stage we should have a fleet four times its present size but spread over the whole of the metropolis able to serve London's public not only as they would wish but as they both deserve and demand.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Pennine Wind Farms
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10 pm
  Sir Donald Thompson: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at the appropriate hour—dead on time. This is an important debate. As many hon. Members will know, my constituency is in a most beautiful part of the country, and the Haworth moors have strong Bronte connections. I will not rehearse with the House tonight the objections to the wind farms that my constituents are voicing to Calderdale council, as that is a matter for the local council and local people. I must thank my local parish councils for all the help that they are giving to this cause.
  It is important that hon. Members declare their interests. My interests in the energy industry are wide. I am a member of the Council of Europe's scientific and technology committee. I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I am chairman of the Back-Bench sub-committee on industry and I am part of an all-party team which advises the industry sector of the nuclear energy industry—I met the unions only the other day.
  However, the interest that is paramount is that of my constituents and their welfare. Their welfare is being threatened by wind farms. I say farms because we already have one at Ovenden moor. Two more are planned: one at Cock hill, known to the nation as Fleight hill, has 44 turbines and is a huge affair; the other is in the shadow of Stoodley Pike across the Pennine way. A third is already built and lies on my boundaries at Cliviger. A further wedge of land marching along my boundary has been earmarked for wind farm development by Lancashire county council.
  We will live on a porcupine's back. It is an environmental disaster based on what seemed to be a good idea at the time; or, to use that well-known phrase, "it worked elsewhere". Wind farms are set to become the next great folly of the planet. They will be compared in future to that other folly—high-rise flats. They will go into the annals of well-intentioned mistakes. Stop it now, Minister.
  I am glad to see my colleague from the Department of Trade and Industry here. He has been here before when I have had the Adjournment debate. Surely we should also have a Minister from the Department of the Environment. On cue, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has arrived. My constituents would be happy, gentlemen, if the council and planners would take the Ministry's own guidance set out on 5 December 1991, which says that where a proposal would have a detrimental effect on the locality generally and on the amenities that ought in public interest be provided, those amenities should be protected. If that were to happen, there would be no more wind farms in Calder Valley.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Donald Thompson: No. Two of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Gentleman made a number of declarations. Most of them
  1042
  were non-remunerated, but it should be made clear that the hon. Gentleman is in receipt of remuneration from the cross-party team of advisers to the British Nuclear Forum.
  Sir Donald Thompson: That is why it is listed in the Register of Members' Interests. The book is designed to help those hon. Members who have outside interests.
  According to a document produced by the Wind Energy Association, 30 per cent. of people in Cornwall, where construction has already taken place, still say that wind farms spoil the countryside.
  The details of y constituents' objections have been set out to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs by the chairman of the Fleight hill wind farm opposition group, Mr. Michael Denton. He has argued that the time scale for determining the application on the 600-acre site, which will have a profound effect on the ecology of the area, has been no longer than that provided for considering an extension to a semi-detached house. He has also said that there has been no proper prior consultation, no account taken of recent experiences, and no court of reinstatement, and that the guidance issued has been out of date. His document will be available to the House when the Select Committee reports.
  To disregard the historical connections, scale and outstanding location of Fleight hill would be a mistake. Bramwell Bronte worked at the local railway station and his sisters made the moors around the town world famous. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who represents Haworth, is sitting in front of me.
  Many local people and national organisations have objected to the plan. The list of objectors includes Ted Hughes, the poet laureate, Lord Savile, Lord Houghton, David Bellamy, Bernard Ingham, English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, the Ramblers Association, the Pennine Way Co-ordinated Project, the Open Spaces Society, the Civic Trust, the National Trust, the South Pennine Pack Horse Trail, the Agro-Gen Resistance Organisation of Wales and many more.
  Lord Houghton has reminded us that some time ago people for ever wanted to dam streams, but now they want to spoil our mountains with wind farms.
  I have with me a letter from a constituent of mine, Mrs. Barker, signed by more than 60 of the country's leading literary figures—a staggering number. That letter is against the despoliation, the rape, of the Bronte moors. It will be published in full in The Times Literary Supplement on Friday.
  You will tell me, Minister, that all those groups will have their objections considered when the application is the subject of a public inquiry. You will tell us—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that he should be addressing the Chair, not the Minister.
  Sir Donald Thompson: The Minister will remind me that he is acting in a quasi-judicial role. I know how much his boss, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of State for the Environment like to be proactive. I know that they are listening tonight. Surely they could reappraise their policy in the light of the reversal of public, environmental and scientific opinion about wind farms. They are objected to because, among other things, they cause noise, tourist blight and damage to water courses.

  1043
  If the application is persisted with, it will surely be called in to the Department of the Environment for consideration. Ministers should change their policy before the application reaches them. I should like an early meeting to be held between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry to instruct the planning officers and their inspectors that wind farms in areas such as Calder Valley should be considered obtrusive. They should also rework the premium on unbuilt wind farms.
  The planning guidance policy for renewable energy is now out of date. The mood of the country has changed. A document issued by Department of the Environment, written in 1991 at the height of the era of embellishment, when every directive from Europe or elsewhere became a Christmas tree to hang things on, stated:
  "The United Kingdom Government's policy is being pursued through: a continuing programme of research, development and demonstration in collaboration with industry; ensuring the establishment of a legal and administrative framework which allows renewable energy promoters to compete equitably in the market with conventional sources of energy."
  Some of my constituents do not consider a profit of £600,000 a month for one small wind farm at Ovenden moor to be equitable competition.
  The guidance published in 1991 set the premium for landfill gas at 5·7p, for sewage gas at 5·9p, for municipal gas at 6.·5p, for hydro-electricity at 6p, and for other waste at 5·9p as opposed to the wind premium of 11p. The producers should use a proportion of renewable energy, but the premium of 11 p per kWh has seduced them into spoiling our countryside.
  Landfill gas, sewage gas and waste could and should supersede the easy option of ruining green field sites, moorlands, hills and mountains. If the premium were lowered and redistributed amongst the less easy options, the advantages would apply to other renewable energy sources which would properly come into play.
  On 26 January this year, there was an interesting exchange of ideas in the Trade and Industry Select Committee, when the Minister for Energy said:
  "Clearly there is a level of controversy about wind farms …We have, as you know, got at the moment a bidding round out for renewables that includes wind farms. I think we have had something between 10 and 20 times the amount of bids for the renewable subsidy in terms of capacity which we are actually going to be able to subsidise or the consumers will be able to subsidise and clearly one of the issues is going to be how we allocate that capacity to different renewable sources and I have to say that I will be taking into account the concern about environmental aspects of wind farms when we come to make those allocation decisions".
  That is a step in the right direction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) said:
  "do you not think it might be a good idea to avert the subsidy away from wind farming?";
  and the Minister replied:
  "It is interesting how the environmental argument has shifted with regard to wind farms. It was not very long ago that people were arguing that this was the best possible way of generating electricity".
  We have tried wind farms and surely reached the conclusion that they are viable at sea or along a harbour wall. "Harnessing the Wind" by the energy technology support unit states that current estimates suggest that, in Britain, offshore wind turbulence could ultimately produce more than three times as much electricity as onshore machines. Wind speeds are good off shore and such sites might be environmentally more acceptable than those on land.
  1044
  My constituents agree wholeheartedly with that. But the wind farm industry will not, because it would rather use the llp subsidy to build wind farms near the collecting points and take the profit. That is not what the 11p subsidy was for; it was for wind farms to be environmentally friendly.
  New players are now moving into the game. Defence companies seeking to diversify will try anything for tuppence—or in this case 11p. According to an editorial in "Windfarm Monthly" in December 1993, they will not necessarily succeed. It stated that the Government would welcome big names but warned that a whole list of big companies
  "have left Europe and America littered with the corpses of their failed endeavours".
  That is from their own magazine. He even makes the point that one of the companies in the Hebden Bridge project is only arguably acceptable.
  Wind farming is now based on an over-generous premium which is drawing companies nearer towns. It is based on opportunist environmental policy. It is based on the idea of some people that they should wear a hair shirt to remind them of their environmental credentials and piety. My constituents are being asked to don the green hair shirt of wind farms, and they will not wear it. Now is the time for reappraisal, consultation, cessation. This is not a case of "not in my backyard"; it is a case of "not in my front garden".
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency Dickinson's dairy has had one windmill on its site for some time and, as far as I know, there has been no local opposition? It is seen as something of a novelty. Is he further aware, however, that a wind farm comprising 13 windmills has recently been sited at Ingbirchworth, near Penistone, and that it is noisy, unsightly and unpopular with the locals? Is it not clear that in areas of natural beauty wind farms are becoming blots on the landscape and should not be encouraged?
  Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. His constituency is next to mine, as is that of the hon. Gentleman I see sitting opposite, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley are bitterly opposed to 13 turbines. I already have one wind farm, 41 more planned, another seven in the offing and those at Cliviger. My constituents do not want those wind farms, which can be seen from all over the country.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) in the concern that he has expressed about the development of wind farms and wind turbines. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said in his intervention, some turbine developments are popular while others are much less so. There is, in my view, a place for wind-powered energy, but turbines need to be sited extremely sensitively, and I am afraid that many of the developments that have taken place at an increasing pace in recent months are not in the right position.
  In February last year, the Department of the Environment, together with the Welsh Office, published a planning policy guidance note on renewable energy. On visual intrusion and other matters about which people are concerned, reference was made to the introduction of

  1045
  environmental assessments. It was made clear that wind generators would "shortly"—I emphasise the word "shortly"—be added to the categories of projects for which applications must be accompanied by an environmental statement
  "if the particular development proposed is likely to have significant environmental effects."
  Although the word "shortly" was used, a great deal of time has gone by, a very large number of further applications have been submitted and we still await a statement. Apparently, the responses are still being considered. I believe that far too much time has gone by.
  I would also say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. McLoughlin) that an environmental statement should be published in much broader categories of applications than those that the Government had in mind. For instance, it referred to developments within a national park or areas of outstanding natural beauty, those including more than 10 wind generators or where the total installed capacity was more than 5 MW. One generator or turbine badly placed can be extremely distracting and irritating to many people and particularly to visitors in an area like Haworth, the Bronte country and the Pennines, which are a great attraction for visitors to the north of England.
  I would like to see many of these applications called in, because local authorities have a duty to notify the Secretary of State of any development which, by reason of its scale or the nature of the location of the land, would significantly prejudice the implementation of the development plan's policies and proposals. It is clear that, in any development plan for a local authority in our area, the attraction of tourists will be extremely important. I believe that any development involving wind turbines would prejudice that objective.
  When he opened a wind farm recently, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy said that the Government did not have a specific target for wind energy, and that its success would depend on developers finding sites that were acceptable to the public and to planning authorities. Piecemeal development of that kind, however, is simply not acceptable to many of my constituents. We need a strategy: we need to ensure that wind farms and wind turbines are put in the right places. The more time goes by before we develop such a strategy, the more we shall regret the bad mistakes that blight the lives of many of our constituents.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller). The four of us share some of the most outstanding countryside in the nation, which just happens to fall within the curtilages of our constituencies. Mine abuts those of my hon. Friends, and I well understand the vigour with which they have expressed their views: people feel strongly about these issues.
  The development of renewable energy forms a central part of the Government's commitment to the principle of sustainable development. Our policy is to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy technologies, but only where they have prospects of making an economic
  1046
  contribution to our energy supplies, and where they do not make an unacceptable impact on the environment. In the case of wind, this means that wind farms must not be allowed to make an unacceptable intrusion on to sensitive and treasured landscapes.
  I think few would disagree with the principle behind the Government's energy policy—that the promotion of diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies at competitive prices is absolutely necessary for a strong and viable economy. A key part of the Government's policy seeks to reduce the emission of harmful pollutants, and wind obviously has a role to play in this.
  Renewable energy is currently supplying about 2 per cent. of United Kingdom energy, mainly from hydroelectricity in Scotland. In its report to the President of the Board of Trade, the Renewable Energy Advisory Group concluded that, by 2025, that figure could rise to between 5 and 20 per cent. The actual contribution will depend upon the extent to which the different renewable technologies can be made competitive and gain public acceptance. As some of the points made by my hon. Friends demonstrate, public acceptance is very important, especially in relation to the environmental impact on wind farms.
  My hon. Friends raised a number of points that I consider more relevant to the duties of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley rightly pointed out, our hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) has some comments to make; I will ensure that those comments are brought to the attention of both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose judicial planning role is relevant.
  We have repeatedly stated and reaffirmed our intention to work towards a figure of 1,500 MW of renewable electricity generating capacity in the United Kingdom by the year 2000. The principal instrument for implementing this intention is the making of orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation, and the parallel arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The so-called "NFFO" is proving to be a considerable success and one of which we are rightly proud. Already, over 250 MW of declared net capacity are operational, of which nearly 60 MW are wind. In most cases, the planning permission for these projects has been granted locally.
  I am very encouraged by what has been achieved so far. It does credit to both the foresight of the Government in giving this opportunity to the industry, and the skill and enterprise of the many pioneering companies and organisations behind the projects. In July last year my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy announced a third order, which is expected to be for between 300 and 400 MW, depending on the quality and cost of the prroposals received.
  There has been a very encouraging response to the inivitation to register interest in the current "NFFO round", with a large number of applicants in all the technologies, including wind. But the interest of developers and the keenness of their bids are not the only factors that will decide the prospects for wind energy. Progress will crucially depend on developers finding acceptable sites and then gaining planning consent for them. The holding of an NFFO contract does not confer any special presumption in favour of gaining this consent.
  I should say a few words in reply to some points concerning the planning system. Renewable energies differ

  1047
  from the more established forms of generation in terms of land use and other material planning considerations. Recognising this, we have issued specific planning guidance on renewable energy—PPG 22'. This reiterates the fundamental principles of planning and deals with particular issues raised by the renewables.
  It states that planning decisions have to reconcile the interests of development with the importance of conserving the environment—the issue at the heart of sustainable development. In relation to energy, it states that the Government's general aim is to ensure that society's needs for energy are met in a way that is compatible with the need to protect the environment, both global and local.
  We have said that planning authorities must weigh carefully the Government's policies for developing renewable energy sources with those for protecting the environment. The guidance states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the structure plans of the county council or the strategic planning authority and the local plans of the district council—plans that are required to include policies for conserving wildlife and the natural beauty and amenity of the land. PPG requires that they also now take account of the Government's policy on renewable energy.
  Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend has just catalogued the matters of which the local authorities must take note. Were Ito cross-examine him now, he would tell me that these were matters for the Department of the Environment rather than for his Department. The Department of the Environment would tell me that they were in a quasi-judicial category. My hon. Friend's Department and the Department of the Environment should meet urgently—and certainly before the submission of any plans in the next round—so that the guidance may be brought up to date.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. On these matters, I am always willing to take note of his advice. If he feels that there is a need for contact between the relevant Ministers in the two Departments there will certainly be such contact. We know that, otherwise, my hon. Friend will find many ways of bringing up the subject again.
  I genuinely believe that planning is done best at local level. In particular, it would be quite wrong for central
  1048
  Government to decide precisely where wind farms should or should not be built or to direct developers to, or away from, particular areas, such as the Pennines. My hon. Friend would hardly want us to do that. All proposals must be treated on their merits.
  Nor would it be right for me to comment on particular proposals or decisions made at local level. Where there are issues of wider than local importance they will, of course, be referred to the Secretary of State, but this will be the exception rather than the rule. We all know how controversial all kinds of planning applications can be, and we are aware of the judicial role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  On the environmental impact of wind energy, the first thing to note is that wind farms produce none of the greenhouse gases or waste products that threaten sustainable development. This is probably the main justification for promoting their development. However, all forms of energy generation have their impacts, and wind is no exception. Most concern is expressed about noise and—a matter to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention—visual impact.
  Well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation and, with careful siting, should not be a nuisance. However, rural background noise can be extremely low and, in some sheltered locations, may remain low, even as the wind picks up. So the siting of wind farms requires careful consideration. PPG gives specific guidance on the technical issues involved, and my Department has set up a working group with developers and planners to consider what lessons might be learned from the actual operating experience now being accumulated.
  Of course, wind farms have to be in exposed locations to catch the wind, so it is inevitable that they will be seen. They therefore need to be sited sensitively and in sympathy with local features. Whilst objective measures of visual intrusion exist, this remains a subjective issue with which the planning authorities have to deal. Strong feelings can be expressed for or against any particular development.
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court of Appeal
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) whether either or both of the parties in the case Martin v. Watson in the Court of Appeal on 21 January were in receipt of legal aid;

  (2) how much time was taken in the Court of Appeal on 21 January by the Martin v. Watson case.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the Martin v. Watson case in the Court of Appeal on 21 January, neither party was in receipt of legal aid. The judgment, which counsel had already seen, was handed down and the question of costs was dealt with. This occupied 10 minutes of court time.

  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost per hour of a case in the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The average cost per hour of a case in the Court of Appeal is not known. However, the average hourly cost of a bench in 1993 consisting of three Lord Justices of Appeal and necessary supporting court staff is estimated at £694 per hour. It does not include the costs of accommodation and other overheads.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Insolvency Rules Advisory Committee.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current membership of the Insolvency Rules Committee is: the hon. Mr. Justice Chadwick (Chairman), His Honour Judge Mosely QC, the Chief Bankruptcy Registrar (Mr. Registrar Pimm), M. Crystal QC, G. C. Stewart and C. G. Bird.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Family Proceedings Rules Committee.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current membership of the Family Proceedings Rules Committee is: Mr. Justice Thorpe, Senior District Judge Angel, Her Honour Judge Norrie, Her Honour Judge Downey, District Judge Andrew, J. Holman QC, J. M. Appleby and D. A. Salter.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the County Court Rule Committee.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current membership of the County Court Rule Committee is: His Honour Judge Frank White (Chairman), His Honour Judge Neil Butter, QC, Her Honour Judge
  764
  Paling, District Judge Wilby, District Judge Vincent, Peter Birts, QC, Henrietta Manners, Edward Gee and R. J. Winstanley.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Land Registration Rule Committee.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current membership of the Land Registration Rule Committee is: the honourable Mr. Justice Knox, J. R. Thomas, W. R. Stewart-Smith and P. Marsh.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Supreme Court Rule Committee.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current membership of the Supreme Court Rule Committee is: Lord Justice Leggatt, Mr. Justice Phillips, Mr. Justice Moffitt, S. J. Sher, QC, Miss J. Ritchie, QC, J. A. Wall and K. Gibson.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Crown Court Rule Committee.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current membership of the Crown Court Rule Committee is: Lord Justice Russell, Mr. Justice Rougier, His Honour Judge Henham, His Honour Judge Geoffrey Rivlin, QC, P. F. Guggenheim, JP, M. Kalisher, QC, D. A. Jeffreys, QC, Miss V. Garner.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 7 February.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 7 February.

  The Foreign Affairs Council began with an open session on Presidency priorities. A copy of the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be placed in the Library of the House as part of the new procedure of depositing video recordings of Presidency open sessions.

  The Commission introduced the draft work programme of follow up action on the growth White Paper. The Council noted that the group of personal representatives of Heads of Government, established to review work on trans-European networks, would decide on priority projects and discuss financial requirements, and would submit an interim report to ECOFIN on 8–9 April. The Council agreed the Commission's 19 nominations to the high level group on information infrastructures; the United Kingdom representatives are Peter Bonfield (ICL) and Peter Davis (Reed Elsevier). It was agreed that ECOFIN, and other Councils which have a role to play, would monitor progress of follow up activity.

  The Council approved the nominations of six members of the Court of Auditors.

  A ministerial meeting of the accession negotiations with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden took place on 8

  765
  February. In preparation for this meeting, member states agreed a common position on agriculture and regional policy aspects of the negotiation.

  The Council agreed to a decision on the ombudsman, together with the text of a letter to the President of the European Parliament outlining the Council's concerns that the EP's rules of procedure on the ombudsman go further than the treaty. The Council also agreed a short statement on the Commission's legislative programme.

  In order to inform the Council's review in Janaury 1995 of the application from Cyprus to join the European Union, the Council agreed to appoint a Commission official, Mr. Serge Abou, as the Union's observer on Cyprus. He will report periodically to the Council on the implications of political developments in Cyprus for this 1995 review.

  Following a discussion of the latest events in the former Yugoslavia, the Council issued the following statement:
  "The European Union expresses its revulsion at the renewed brutal shelling of civilians in Sarajevo which has taken place in recent days.
  Bearing in mind the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, the decisions of the North Atlantic Alliance most recently reiterated at the NATO Summit of 11 January and the recent request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, it supports a very early meeting of the North Atlantic Council. In concert with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the aim should be to bring about the immediate lifting of the siege of Sarajevo, using all means necessary including the use of airpower.
  The measures taken would be the first step in the implementation of the action plan of the European Union. The Council of the European Union reiterates its support for the efforts of the co-chairmen to place the administration of Sarajevo under the authority of the United Nations."

  A co-operation council with Algeria was held in the margins.

  The Council agreed the EC's negotiating mandate for the mid-term review of the fourth Lomé convention. The mandate contains provisions to strengthen the human rights elements of the convention, and to make the convention work more effectively. It includes a commitment to help the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries benefit more from the trading advantages available to them under the convention. Negotiations with the ACP countries will begin in May and must be finished by March of next year.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority a package of measures to implement parts of its 15 December decision on trade policy instruments. The United Kingdom voted against the package, as our concerns on imports of toys and shoes from China, and on changes to certain decision-making procedures were not met. But the package included some welcome features, notably the lifting of some 6,000 member state national quantitative restrictions on imports from third countries.

  The Council adopted a declaration reaffirming its desire to see Russia admitted to the Council of Europe as soon as the criteria for membership have been met.

  The Council adopted a statement welcoming the Ukrainian Parliament's approval of the tripartite agreement on nuclear weapons.

  The Council announced the European Union's willingness to facilitate an observer mission to the forthcoming elections in Ukraine on 27 March.

  The Council approved negotiating directives for EC free trade agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

  Visits Abroad
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits abroad each Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), made 20 official visits abroad to 33 countries during 1993 at a total cost of £27,667. Ten visits were for bilateral discussions, five for international conferences and five for European Community meetings.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) made 11 official visits abroad to 17 countries during 1993 at a total cost of £20,550. Five visits were for bilateral discussions, three for European Community meetings, two for international conferences and one to the European Parliament.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made 19 official visits abroad to 23 countries during 1993 at a total cost of £21,504. Ten visits were for European Community meetings, eight for bilateral discussions and one to the European Parliament.

  My right hon.Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), made eight official visits abroad to 14 countries during 1993 at a total cost of £46,090. These visits were primarily for bilateral discussions but included attendance at one international conference.

  I made eight official visits abroad to 11 countries during 1993 at a total cost of £29,147. Six visits were for bilateral discussions and two for international conferences.

  FCO Ministers are always accompanied by an official or officials whose costs are not included in these figures. Details of the overseas visits made in 1993 by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be given in answer to the hon. Member's separate question on that subject.

  Paedophiles
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 123, when was the last occasion that Ministers or officials of his Department discussed with members or officials of the appropriate foreign Government the problem of British paedophiles visiting (a) Sri Lanka, (b) Thailand and (c) the Philippines to abuse children.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have a regular dialogue with Thailand and the Philippines on the problem of the sexual abuse of children.

  Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health discussed the problem when she visited Thailand in September 1993. Her Majesty's chargé d'affaires in the Philippines raised the issue with the Department of Social Welfare and Development in Manila on 21 January 1994.

  We last discussed the issue with the Sri Lankan authorities in 1987—the year in which the latest known case involving a British citizen occurred.

  British Virgin Islands
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many companies were registered in the British Virgin Islands at 31 December 1993; and how many companies were registered there for the first time between 1 January and 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 31 December 1993 there were approximately 110,000 companies registered in the British Virgin Islands, of which 30,000 were first registered between 1 January and 31 December 1993.

  External Relations Budget
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the main heads and amounts of the other external relations budget of his Department; from which heads in this budget he is proposing to reduce expenditure in each of the next three years; and what criteria he has adopted in deciding to reduce expenditure in that budget.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The main heads and amounts of class II, vote 2 (Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Other External Relations) for 1993–94 (total provision, including supplementary estimates) are as follows:

  £ thousand

  Section A

  Grants and subscriptions, etc. to international organisations

  303,690

  Section B

  General expenses and grants, etc. to nongovernmental and statutory organisations

  7,274

  Section C

  General expenses

  37,409

  Section D

  Military assistance

  13,800

  Section E

  Unallocated

  0

  Other expenditure not included in the control total:

  Section F

  Reimbursement of certain duties, taxes and licence fees

  39,884

  TOTAL

  402,057

  Against the background of increased subscriptions to international organisations and higher priority claims on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's resources, I decided that the grant-in-aid to the Commonwealth Institute should cease after 1995–96.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's current policy on Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our current policy on Kashmir, reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during his visit to India in November, consists of three points on which we believe there should be simultaneous progress—a dialogue between India and Pakistan as provided for under the Simla 768
  agreements; an improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political process there; and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir.

  Bananas
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations underlie the differences between the treatment of Martinique and Guadeloupe as compared with Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean in respect of imports of bananas into the EC.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Martinique and Guadeloupe are Overseas Departments of France and are therefore part of the European Community. The Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean are not.

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The following items of equipment have been reported stolen from the FCO and ODA in the past three years:

  Items

  £

  2 keyboxes (£245 each)

  490

  2 answering machines (£60)

  120

  1 mobile telephone

  200

  1 lap top computer

  3,500

  4 standard telephones (£22 each)

  88

  1 Superset telephone

  322

  TOTAL

  4,720

  Liberia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the activities of the Economic Community of West African States ceasefire monitoring group have been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in partnership with the United Nations, the European Commission or directly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ECOMOG is deployed in Liberia on behalf of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and is working in cooperation with the UN observer mission (UNOMIL). The UN Secretary General's special envoy for Liberia provides regular reports to the UN Security Council on the progress of the peace process. We support strongly all the efforts to achieve a peace settlement in Liberia.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation Her Majesty's Government have in Liberia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We closed our embassy in Monrovia in 1991 and we therefore have no resident representation. Non-resident coverage is provided by our embassy in Abidjan.
  769
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to hasten a ceasefire in Liberia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have given strong political support to the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the United Nations (UN) to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Liberia.

  We have contributed US$1 million, earmarked for humanitarian purposes, to the trust fund which the UN has established to support the peace process. Since 1990 we have separately given some £8·8 million of humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the effects of the conflict.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held with representatives of Charles Taylor's forces in Liberia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We wish to see a settlement of the appalling conflict in Liberia, and have listened to views from a number of those most concerned. The last meeting with one of Mr. Taylor's representatives was in May 1993, when his then spokesman for Defence met FCO officials in London.

PRIME MINISTER

  Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister which advisers to his office since 28 November 1990 have been seconded from other organisations; and what were the organisations and the lengths of the secondments.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on 4 February at column 970. In addition, Alan Rosling served on secondment in the policy unit, from Hanson plc, for the period 1991–93.

  European Funds
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the representations he has made to the European Union for funds and support in each of the last four years and state(a) how much was claimed for each project, (b) the programme under which the claim was being made and (c) the amount of funds received by the business;

  (2) if he will list the names of the chairman and directors of each company on behalf of which he has made representations for funds from the European Union, in each of the last four years;

  (3) how many representations he has made to the European Union for funds (a) for England as a whole and (b) for specific projects in the past four years.

  Place

  Purpose

  Date

  Cost (£)

  China Hong Kong

  Visit counterpart Minister of State for Disabled. Meeting with Mr. Patten. Visit to Rehabilitation Services for Disabled. Meeting with Secretary of State for Health and Welfare of Hong Kong.

  27 May to 6 June 1993

  13,926·30

  Brussels

  Informal meeting of Social Affairs Council.

  9 to 10 November 1993

  550·62

  770
  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  So far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made no representations to the European Union in relation to the structural funds.

  Cabinet Ministers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister which Cabinet Ministers have served in the armed forces.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Five Cabinet Ministers have served in the armed forces.

  Upper Limb Deformities
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 736, concerning children born with upper limb deformities, what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Health about a national study of these defects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's private secretary has written separately to the hon. Member on this subject, following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's oral answer on 1 February at col. 736.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) gave to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on 11 February, Official Report, columns 537–38.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Administration)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the impact on the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the privatisation of the assessment of benefits, Giro order book issue and national insurance contribution recording.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 8 February at column 212.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many visits abroad the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Scott
  I made two journeys abroad.

  The details are in the table:

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 215, about applications to the Independent Living Fund turned down, in which local authority each of the applicants who were refused assistance reside.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the Independent Living (1993) Fund that the 11 individuals whose applications to the fund were unsuccessful on the grounds that their existing or proposed care package was valued in excess of £500, are resident in the following local authority areas (one person resident in each).

  Norfolk

  Essex

  Lambeth

  Brent

  Clwyd

  Tameside

  Hammersmith

  East Sussex

  Devon

  Barnet

  Bolton

  Incapacity Assessment
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from the Terrence Higgins Trust in regard to the Consultation Panel of 80 (Incapacity Benefit); what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Terrence Higgins Trust has written to me asking why no member of the assessment panel has experience of medical incapacity for work in relation to people with AIDS or symptomatic HIV infection. I have explained that the new medical incapacity test will assess the effects of all medical conditions. It is not based on particular diagnoses. The members of the panel have been selected for their individual expertise, not as representatives of particular organisations.

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Hague
  This Department does not separately maintain centralised records of individual items stolen. Losses due to theft, fraud, arson or sabotage are recorded in a single category. The number of individual losses within this category, and the total value for each of the last three years for which information is available, is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of individual cases

  Total value

  £

  1990–91

  364

  89,799

  1991–92

  411

  72,315

  1992–93

  94

  84,500

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Caerphilly may expect a reply to his letter of 23 August 1992 in respect of Mr. A. J. Silcox, of 3 Bryn Huelog, Penyrheol, Caerphilly.
  772
  Mr. Hague
  I have no trace of this outstanding correspondence. If the hon. Member will provide me with further details I will look into the matter.

  Child Maintenance Deductions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents in receipt of income support are currently having deductions made from their benefit in respect of child maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) by the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency on 9 February at columns 377–80.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how many people the Child Support Agency has recently increased its staffing level; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the Chief Executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 16 February 1994:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about staffing levels in the Child Support Agency.

  Recruitment of staff to the Agency has continued during 1993/94 in order to meet a projected staffing level of 5,220 by the end of March 1994. At 31 December 1993, there were 4,982·5 whole time equivalent staff in post.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 68, regarding the water projects funded by the Overseas Development Administration in Indonesia, which companies have won the contracts for work on the water projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The company which is implementing the general research programme into canal system maintenance in a number of countries, including Indonesia, is Hydraulics Research Limited, Wallingford. No companies are involved with village-based water schemes as they are being undertaken by local communities.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which water projects the Overseas Development Administration has funded in Indonesia over the last five years; which companies have won those contracts; what was the value of those contracts; and which of those projects were funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following water projects in Indonesia have been supported with bilateral aid over the last five years:
  773
  — Project management of the Madura Groundwater project. Company: Groundwater Development Consultants (International) Ltd. Value: £2·99 million (all but some £500,000 of this expenditure occurred before 1989).

  — Water Quality Improvement Planning Study for the Kali-Sunter River. Company: Binnie and Parners Ltd. Value: £0·60 million.

  — Lake Toba Water Level study. Company: Institute of Hydrology. Value: £0·10 million.

  — Research into canal system maintenance (part of a wider project involving a number of countries). Company: Hydraulics Research Ltd. Wallingford (covering all the countries involved). Value: £0·46 million.

  Eighteen projects were jointly funded with non-governmental organisations during this period at a total cost of £137,000. In addition, 11 small water projects were funded during this period at a total cost of £42,000. No companies were involved with these 29 projects as they were small, mainly village-based, schemes undertaken by local communities.

  None of the projects mentioned was funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the eligibility of the proposed construction of a second airport at Kuala Lumpur for support under(a) the aid and trade provision and (b) the United Kingdom aid programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government are still considering the request from the Malaysian Government for grant finance from the aid and trade provision budget to develop a new airport at Sepang.

  Aid Targeting
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider targeting aid to countries which renounce the arms trade.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We target aid on countries which need it and can use it effectively in support of sound policies for economic and social development and the reduction of poverty. Most of our bilateral aid goes to countries with which we have close historical ties. It is for each country to assess and provide for its own legitimate defence needs.

  The United Kingdom actively supports the increased emphasis placed by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank on analysing the implications for economic and social development of the composition of public expenditure. We consider the setting of an appropriate level of military expenditure to be an important part of good government. It is one of the factors we take into account when deciding our allocations of bilateral aid.

  Russian Federation
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out details of the disbursements from the sum of £11,201,000 which was allocated to the Russian Federation during 1992–93.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A list of all know-how fund projects to date, including disbursements under the 774
  1992–93 programme for Russia, was recently placed in the Libraries of the House. Details of know-how fund activities are placed in the Libraries on a regular basis.

  Madagascar
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will allocate emergency relief for the people of Madagascar, following the cyclone resulting in deaths and homelessness.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In addition to a donation of 500,000 ECU by the EC, we have provided the non-governmental organisation CARE with a grant of £31,267 in support of its emergency programme of agricultural rehabilitation in Brickaville. We are ready to consider any further requests.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Cloisters (Allocation of Areas)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the policy and intention of the Committee on the allocation of areas in the Cloisters for(a) hon. Members and (b) secretaries.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The Accommodation and Works Committee has yet to reach firm decisions on the use of accommodation released by recent additions to the parliamentary estate. Proposals for the future of the Cloisters and other areas will be included in that consideration.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Newton
  There is no record of any equipment having been stolen from the Privy Council Office in the last three years.

TRANSPORT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members currently appointed to Trinity house.

  Mr. Norris
  The current membership of the board of the Trinity House Lighthouse Service is as follows:

  Captain P. M. Edge—Chairman, and Deputy Master of Trinity House

  Captain D. J. Orr—Chief Executive

  Captain N. MacD Turner RD

  Captain P. H. King

  Mr. W. A. C. Thomson

  Captain M. J. F. Rawlinson OBE, RN

  Mr. M. J. Faulkner

  Mr. K. W. Clark FCA

  Mr. D. A. S. Vennings BSc (Eng), C Eng, MICE

  775
  A further appointment is pending, following the retirement of Sir Michael Colman Bt.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Lighthouse Board.

  Mr. Norris
  The current membership of the Northern Lighthouse Board is as follows:

  Mr. J. Hann CBE (Chairman)

  Sheriff-Principal R. C. Hay CBE, WS

  Mr. T. Macgill

  Captain A. F. Dickson, OBE, RD, ERIN

  Mr. A J. Struthers

  Sheriff-Principal N. D. MacLeod QC

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry QC, Lord Advocate

  Mr. W. F. Hay CBE

  Sheriff-Principal C. G. B. Nicholson QC (Vice-Chairman)

  Sheriff-Principal J. J. Maguire QC

  Sheriff-Principal D. J. Risk QC

  Sheriff-Principal G. L. Cox QC

  Captain D. N. Cowell (Isle of Man)

  Mr. T. Dawson QC, Solicitor General

  The Rt. Hon. Norman Irons, Lord Provost of Edinburgh

  Mr. W. A. E. Fraser, Provost of Inverness

  The Rt. Hon. Robert Innes, Lord Provost of Glasgow

  Mr. J. Wyness MA, Lord Provost of Aberdeen

  Mr. G. McMillan, Chairman of Argyll and Bute District Council

  Air Misses
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air misses there have been in each of the last five years involving aircraft taking off from or landing at each of(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick, (c) London City and (d) Birmingham airports.

  TV Advertising

  Radio Advertising

  Newspaper Advertising

  Other Promotional Campaigns

  Department of Transport

  Road Safety Campaigns

  Drink Drive

  None

  None

  Coastal Safety

  Kill Your Speed

  Marine Safety

  Rear Seat Belts

  Other Road Safety Topics Booklet to complement the BBC 'Drive' programme

  Department Agencies—DVLA

  Road Tax Evasion

  Road Tax Evasion

  Road Tax Evasion

  None

  Vehicle Registration Numbers

  Vehicle Registration Numbers

  Vehicle Registration Numbers

  None

  The objectives for road safety campaigns are to reduce road casualties by a third by the year 2000. Coastal and marine safety campaigns are designed to promote sea safety messages and awareness of coastguard services. The road tax and sale of vehicle registration numbers scheme campaigns are intended to encourage people to re-license their vehicles and to increase the sale of personalised numbers. The Department commissions independent research on all major campaigns to establish the effectiveness of its advertising.

  For 1994–95 the Department plans to run television advertising on Drink Drive and Kill Your Speed and promotional campaigns on other road safety topics.

  The Department's agencies plan to run television, newspaper and radio advertising on road tax evasion and sale of vehicle registration numbers and promotional campaigns on coastal and marine safety.
  776
  Mr. Norris
  According to the records of the Civil Aviation Authority, reports of air miss type incidents submitted by pilots and air traffic controllers over the past five years, involving aircraft taking off from or landing at the airports in question, are given in the table. These figures include all reports, including those which were subsequently judged to involve no risk of collision:

  Year

  Airport

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Heathrow

  3

  5

  8

  7

  4

  Gatwick

  3

  3

  4

  5

  1

  London City

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Birmingham

  1

  2

  1

  0

  2

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Norris
  The following publicity campaigns costing more than £10,000 have been or are being carried out in the current financial year by the Department and its agencies.

  London Transport Projects
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the Government's principal proposals for new(a) rail, (b) underground, (c) road and (d) river projects in London; and on which of them progress is expected in 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  On Network SouthEast, work continues on the Kent link route modernisation at a total cost of £800 million, involving infrastructure upgrading and rolling stock replacement. On the London, Tilbury and Southend line, an £83 million contract for the major physical works on the line was signed with GEC Alsthom Signalling Ltd. in January last year. An £85 million re-signalling scheme on the Great Eastern is steadily being extended on lines out of Liverpool Street. We expect good progress to be made on all of these schemes in 1994, including the completion of the Kent link and much of the London, Tilbury and Southend work.
  777
  On the existing London Underground network, further progress is being made on a range of schemes in 1994 including the £750 million modernisation of the Central line and the train refurbishment programme. Construction of the Jubilee line extension is under way, and we expect the Crossrail Bill to continue its passage through Parliament, with a view to the project proceeding as a joint venture with a substantial private sector contribution. The DLR extension to Beckton is expected to open by the end of March, and the Lewisham extension is being taken forward as a private finance initiative.

  Progress with implementing the London trunk road schemes in "Trunk Roads, England: Into the 1990s" is continuing. The A406 Harrow road and A40 Long lane trunk road schemes will be completed this year. The Department has also let contracts for the advance and main works on the Al3 Thames avenue to Wennington scheme, two of the three main contracts have also been let for the A406 Silver street to Hall lane scheme and the main works contract has been let for the A406 east of Falloden way to east of Finchley road scheme. Implementation of the 315-mile red route network will begin later this year. We are conducting a review of the trunk road programme, and we shall make an announcement when the results of the review are known.

  The River Thames working group, which I chair, is examining the benefits and potential of maximising transport on the Thames. I hope to publish a report of the group's findings in the summer. The Thames festival is now being planned for 1995 by the London Arts Board and the London Council for Sport and Recreation, with Government support towards the planning stage. This will be a major cultural and recreational celebration embracing many events on the River Thames and its banks.

  A303 (Stonehenge)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to the proposal advanced by English Heritage, the National Trust and the Council for British Archaeology to tunnel the A303 trunk road under the Stonehenge world heritage site.

  Mr. Norris
  I am considering the proposal for a tunnel very carefully and the implications of its construction and future maintenance for the world heritage site. At more than 4 km, it would be the longest road tunnel in the United Kingdom by a substantial margin.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what objections he has received to his proposals to upgrade the A303 road at Stonehenge in respect of(a) the yellow route and (b) the grey route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Our public consultation in 1993 has attracted many helpful comments which are now being analysed. The question of objections does not arise since no draft orders under the Highways and Acquisition of Land Acts have yet been published. The next step is the announcement of the preferred option on which further development work can take place.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many metres of tunnel there are on the channel tunnel rail link in Kent; what percentage of the channel tunnel rail 778
  link route length in Kent this represents; and if he will list, with their lengths, the channel tunnel rail link tunnels in Kent.

  Mr. Freeman
  The route of the channel tunnel rail link to be safeguarded very shortly has the following tunnels in Kent:

  Metres

  Thames tunnel (portion in Kent)

  1,505

  North Downs tunnel

  3,175

  Park Wood West tunnel (Boxley)

  330

  Hollingbourne tunnel (Eyhome Street)

  240

  Sandway tunnel (under Headcorn road)

  170

  Tunnel at Church Road, Mersham

  160

  Sandling Park tunnel

  90

  Decisions will follow on the route at Pepper Hill and Ashford which may involve further tunnels. The route for consultation issued last year had the following tunnels at these two locations:

  Metres

  Pepper Hill tunnel

  910

  Tunnel at Ashford Junction (Leacon Lane)

  205

  Tunnel at Ashford Junction (A20)

  450

  Sandyhurst Lane tunnel

  135

  Willesborough Lees tunnel

  1,150

  The total length of tunnels on the route in Kent, including the 1993 route for consultation at Pepper Hill and Ashford, is approximately 8,520 metres. This is 11.3 per cent. of the total length of the route in Kent.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the minimum length of a tunnel on the channel tunnel rail link is for it to be defined as a tunnel, rather than a bridge.

  Mr. Freeman
  The terminology chosen by Union Railways defines a tunnel as any structure over the railway longer than 50 metres. Shorter structures are defined as bridges.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations which made representations to his Department in support of the Boxley long tunnel on the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  The organisations which in response to an invitation for formal comments made representations to the Department in favour of a long tunnel in mid-Kent were as follows:

  Kent County Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Kent Association of Parish Councils

  Aylesford Parish Council

  Boxley Parish Council

  Detling Parish Council

  Thrunham Parish Council

  Bearsted Parish Council

  Bluebells Action Group

  Kits Coty Action Group

  North Aylesford Action Group

  Boxley and Penenden Heath Rail Concern

  Detling Rail Action Group

  Thumhan Action Group

  Sandling Residents' Association

  Cuxton and North Hailing Rail Action Group

  Association of Men of Kent and Kentish Men

  779

  Kent Action Group

  Council for the Protection of Rural England (Kent Branch)

  Kent Trust for Nature Conservation

  Mid-Ken Long Tunnel Joint Committee

  Weald of Kent Preservation Society

  Public Transport (Financial Inducements)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to give travellers financial inducements to use public transport in line with Her Majesty's Government's policy.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not Government policy to offer travellers direct financial inducements to use public transport. The Government believe that the prices people pay for transport should reflect the costs and benefits of their use. However, local authorities have discretion to provide concessionary fares for pensioners and some other groups of people, which are funded with central Government assistance.

  There are also substantial grants and subsidies available to public transport operators. In 1992–93, British Rail received £1·15 billion in PSO grant, representing an increase of 40 per cent. in real terms on 1991–92. The 1993 autumn Budget settlement will provide nearly £3 billion in support to London Transport over the next three years. This includes funds for the Jubilee line extension.

  The bus industry will also benefit from fuel duty rebate. In 1993–94 this will total around £200 million. Bus operators can also reclaim all VAT paid on the pump price of fuel provided they are VAT registered. VAT on passenger transport is zero rated. The Government are also working with the bus industry and local authorities on ways to make bus travel more attractive, for example through traffic management measures to speed up journey times.

  The Government have also introduced other measures which should indirectly encourage the use of public transport services. These include the commitment in the 1993 autumn Budget to increase road fuel duties in future Budgets by at least 5 per cent. in real terms which should act as an incentive to road users to minimise their transport costs through the use of more fuel efficient vehicles and, where appropriate, the use of public transport alternatives.

  In addition, central Government and local authorities are carrying out research on the feasibility of city congestion charging. If implemented this could significantly improve the viability and attractiveness of public transport.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he has had discussions with the chairman of London Underground on improving the service on the Central line.

  Mr. Norris
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the Chairman of London Underground.

  Blackwall Third Crossing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement about the Blackwall third crossing.

  Mr. Norris
  I will make an announcement once I have considered all the views put to me.

  East London Line
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further work he expects to be undertaken in the next year on plans for the extension of the east London line.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground Ltd submitted an application to the Secretary of State for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to grant it powers to construct the proposed northern extension to the East London line on 30 November 1993. If powers are granted, it is envisaged that the scheme would be taken forward as a joint venture with the private sector.

  Traffic Growth
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify the range of measures to reduce environmental impacts of transport and influence traffic growth that the Government are pursuing.

  Mr. Key
  In the November Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an 8–10 per cent. increase in road fuel duties. He also announced that in future Budgets he will increase duty on all road fuels by at least 5 per cent. in real terms. This will encourage all motorists to use fuel more wisely.

  Tight new EC emission standards for both cars and lorries are coming in over the next few years. Most new cars have needed catalytic converters since the beginning of 1993. These reduce harmful emissions by about 80 per cent.

  The MOT emissions check introduced for cars in November 1991 is helping to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Since 1 September 1993 there has been a metered smoke test in the annual test for heavy diesels. Since 1 February 1994 there has also been a metered smoke test for diesel cars.

  Measures to reduce congestion in urban areas will also help—these involve a mix of traffic management, parking controls and better public transport. The Department is undertaking a programme of research on congestion, which includes an assessment of the possible role of road pricing.

  In London, for example, the Department is introducing a network of red routes designed to improve the movement of traffic. Journeys on these routes will be smoother with less stopping and starting. This will mean less pollution. Associated traffic management and parking guidance includes proposals for moderating traffic growth and the opportunities for parking in London which have a part to play in containing pollution.

  The introduction of the "package approach" encourages local authorities to develop a coherent strategy for dealing with urban traffic problems and provides more flexibility for funding between modes.

  Carbon Dioxide Emmissions
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives he is taking in the transport sector which, although primarily designed to achieve other ends including reducing traffic congestion or improving road safety, will have a beneficial effect on carbon dioxide emmissions.

  Mr. Key
  The most important measure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector is the commitment to raise fuel duties by at least 5 per cent. in real terms. This will save some 2·5MtC in the year 2000.
  781
  Other measures which will have a beneficial effect on carbon dioxide emissions include the introduction of an emissions check into the MOT test which encourages people to keep their engines in tune.

  We have required speed limiters for new heavy lorries since August 1992 and for many of the heaviest existing lorries from August 1993.

  We are also discussing with our partners in the European Union how best to encourage manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient cars.

  The Government are supporting high investment in rail and it is working with the bus industry and local authorities on ways to make bus travel more attractive eg through traffic management measures to speed up journey times.

  Together with the Department of the Environment, we are together looking at how planning controls can encourage new development to be located where it can reduce the need for car travel and increase transport choice.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members currently appointed to the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Norris
  The current members of the board of the Civil Aviation Authority are:

  Executive members

  The right hon. Christopher Chataway (Chairman)

  Mr. Thomas Murphy, CBE

  Mr. Michael Willett

  Mr. Cliff Paice

  Mr. Derek McLauchlan

  Non-executive members

  Mr. Raymond Birdseye

  Mr. Leslie Priestley

  Mr. Richard Sturt

  Mr. Peter Grant

  Captain Gilbert Gray

  Ms Ann Burdus

  Mr. Anthony Blackman, OBE

  Air Vice-Marshal Bertrand Brownlow, CB, OBE, AFC

  Mr. Frank Vibert

  Mr. Roderick Lynch

  Defendant/Appellant

  Offence

  Date

  Khan Hassan

  Robbery

  23 February 1990

  Edwards John

  Robbery

  2 November 1990

  Wellington Constantine

  Robbery

  25 March 1990

  Cheetham Geoffrey

  Conspiracy to rob

  30 July 1992

  Gall Ronald T.

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  14 January 1992

  Gall Gerard

  Robbery

  14 January 1992

  Lynch Daniel

  Robbery

  14 January 1992

  Cooke Valentine P.

  Robbery

  14 January 1992

  Haughton Robert

  Conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm

  14 May 1992

  Hare Delroy

  Robbery

  19 May 1992

  Bromell Michael T.

  Unlawful wounding

  22 June 1992

  Binham Gary M.

  Theft

  28 January 1993

  Horobin Leslie B.

  Robbery

  1 April 1993

  Wilcox Kevin

  Robbery

  1 April 1993

  Fryer Raymond

  Robbery

  1 April 1993

  Francis Adolphus

  Robbery

  27 April 1993

  Jeffers Elvis

  Robbery

  27 April 1993

  Lindo Paul R.

  Grievous bodily harm

  12 October 1993

  Hinds George A.

  Theft

  2 December 1993

  Smith Patrick

  Robbery

  20 January 1994

  Williams Seymour

  Robbery

  20 January 1994

  London Underground
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing, separately for men and women and as an overall total, the number of incidents of(a) violent crime and (b) sexual assault on London Underground for 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  [pursuant to his answer, 31 January 1994, col. 505]: There were some errors in the figures quoted for violent crimes and sexual offences on London Underground in 1992 and 1993. The correct figures are shown in the table.

  Violent crimes

  Sexual offences

  Year

  Robbery

  1Assault

  Male

  Female

  Overall total

  1992

  479

  636

  11

  251

  1,377

  1993

  495

  628

  7

  248

  1,378

  Source: British Transport Police figures supplied to London Underground.

  1Figure includes all assaults on passengers, staff and the police (not all of which in the latter category being necessarily of a violent nature).

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  West Midlands Serious Crime Squad
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the cases still pending before the Court of Appeal involving members of the West Midlands serious crimes squad.

  The Attorney-General
  Currently, there are five cases before the Court of Appeal. They are as follows:

  Martin P. Foran

  Roy Meads

  Anthony M. Jones

  Trevor McCalla

  Abdul Rasheed

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 833, if he will list the cases involving members of the West Midlands serious crimes squad where convictions have been quashed on appeal.

  The Attorney-General
  The 23 appellants whose appeals have been allowed by the Court of Appeal are as follows:
  783

  Defendant/Appellant

  Offence

  Date

  Lewis George G.

  Robbery

  4 February 1994

  Tanochan

  Murder

  27 January 1994

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General how many documents, and how many pages, have now been submitted to the Scott inquiry by the legal secretariat to the Law Officers.

  The Attorney-General
  A total of 288 documents, amounting to 1,697 pages, have been submitted by the legal secretariat to the Law Officers.

  Combat 18
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions publications issued by Combat 18 which urge the public to make nuisance telephone calls to named individuals, with a view to prosecuting those responsible for publishing and printing such publications.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that the police service, which is responsible for the investigation of alleged criminal offences, is aware of the activities of Combat 18, including the publications to which the hon. Member refers. The role of the Crown Prosecution Service, when involved at the investigation stage, is to provide legal advice to the police relevant to their inquiries, and thereafter to conduct any criminal proceedings which may be appropriate.

  Equipment Theft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from the Law Officers' Departments in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  The Attorney-General
  No equipment has been stolen from my own office during the last three years. Equipment stolen from the Treasury Solicitor's department, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service is listed in the table.

  Date

  Items

  Approximate value of items £

  July 1991

  1 Video recorder

  400

  October 1991

  1 Personal computer and 5 Printers

  8,300

  January 1992

  4 Personal computers

  7,250

  February 1992

  4 PC system boxes

  4,700

  March 1992

  1 Personal computer

  1,000

  May 1992

  1 Facsimile machine

  1,400

  July 1992

  2 Dictaphones

  100

  August 1992

  3 Printers and 1 Dictaphone machine

  3,009

  September 1992

  1 Laptop computer

  300

  December 1992

  11 Personal computers and 1 Printer

  17,250

  January 1993

  1 Personal computer, 1 Printer and 1 Telephone handset

  2,130

  February 1993

  1 Personal computer and 1 Printer

  2,000

  March 1993

  1 Personal computer, 2 Printers and 1 Video recorder

  3,450

  April 1993

  1 Computer monitor

  200

  May 1993

  1 PC system box

  600

  June 1993

  6 Dictaphones

  600

  784

  Date

  Items

  Approximate value of items £

  August 1993

  3 Calculators

  12

  December 1993

  4 Personal computers, 4 Printers and 1 Facsimile

  9,000

  January 1994

  4 PC system boxes

  2,400

  Total

  64,101

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Agriculture and Food Research Council.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current members of the Agricultural and Food Research Council are as follows:

  Sir Alistair Grant (Chairman)

  Professor T. L. Blundell, FRS

  (Secretary and Deputy Chairman)

  Dr. P. J. Bunyan

  Mr. C. R. Cann

  Professor E. C. D. Cocking, FRS

  Professor J. R. Coggins, FRSE

  Professor P. James, CBE

  Sir Sam Edwards, FRS

  Mr. D. F. R. George, OBE

  Mr. A. B. N. Gill

  Professor R. M. Hicks, OBE

  Professor G. Horn, FRS

  Mr. R. M. Knapman, MP

  Professor J. R. Krebs, FRS

  Professor C. J. Leaver, FRS

  Professor R. Leech

  Dr. T. Little

  Professor T. A. Mansfield, FRS

  >Mr. K. MacKenzie

  Mr. J. L. C. Provan

  Mr. G. T. Pryce

  Dr. D. W. F. Shannon

  Professor W. V. Shaw

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the various sources used to compile the public appointments unit central list, what categories are used by the public appointments unit to sort these names and if he will list them by percentage; and what per cent. of the names on the public appointments unit central list are self-nominated.

  Mr. David Davis
  The public appointments unit receives names of suitable candidates for registration on the central list in a number of ways including nominations from other Government Departments, professional and representative organisations, and recommendations from individuals including Members of Parliament from all parties, who know of the work of the unit. Self-nominations are also welcome and account for 38 per cent. of the names on the list. The categories used to sort the names are as follows:
  785

  Source of nomination

  Percentage of names on the central list (February 1994)

  Self-nomination

  38·3

  Departmental

  32·6

  Professional/representative organisations

  16·1

  Personal recommendation

  11·6

  Ministerial, MPs and political groups

  1·4

  Executive Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all executive agency chief executives, their age on appointment, their current salaries, including bonuses, and the salaries of analogous civil service grades.

  Mr. David Davis
  A list of all agency chief executives is reproduced in the table. The national salary ranges of grades 1A to 6 are as follows:

  Grade 1A

  £82,925

  Grade 2

  £64,307–75,328

  Grade 3

  £51,360–59,599

  Grade 4

  £44,390–53,740

  Grade 5

  £36,019–53,740

  Grade 6

  £27,660–46,122

  Information on the age of chief executives on appointment and their current salaries is not held centrally.

  Agency Chief Executives

  EXISTING AGENCIES

  1. Accounts Services Agency: Michael Hoddinott

  2. ADAS: Dr. Julia Walsh

  3. Army Base Repair Organisation: Brigadier Jim Drew

  4. Building Research Establishment: Roger Courtney

  5. CADW: John Carr

  6. Central Office of Information: Mike Devereau

  7. Central Science Laboratory: Dr. Peter Stanley

  8. Central Statistical Office: Bill McLennan

  9. Central Veterinary Laboratory: Dr. Tony Little

  10. Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment: Dr. Graham Pearson CB

  11. Chessington Computer Centre: Bob Edwards

  12. Civil Service College: Miss Marianne Neville-Rolfe

  13. Companies House: David Durham

  14. Compensation Agency (N. Ireland): John Robinson

  15. Defence Accounts Agency: Mike Dymond

  16. Defence Analytical Services Agency: Paul Altobell

  17. Defence Animal Centre: Colonel Paul Jepson

  18. Defence Operational Analysis Centre: Dr. David Leadbeater

  19. Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency: Brigadier Michael Browne

  20. Defence Research Agency: John Chisholm

  21. Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: Stephen Curtis

  22. Driver and Vehicle Licensing (N. Ireland): Brendan Magee

  23. Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency: Brian Watson

  24. Driving Standards Agency: Dr. John Ford

  25. Duke of York's Royal Military School: Colonel Gordon Wilson

  26. Employment Service: Mike Fogden

  27. Fire Service College: Brian Fuller CBE

  28. Forensic Science Service: Dr. Janet Thompson

  29. Government Property Lawyers: Tony Osborne

  30. Her Majesty's Prison Service: Derek Lewis

  31. Historic Royal Palaces: David Beeton

  32. Historic Scotland: Graeme Munro

  33. HMSO: Dr. Paul Freeman CB

  34. Hydrographic Office: Rear Admiral John Myres

  35. Insolvency Service: Peter Joyce

  36. Intervention Board: Guy Stapleton

  37. Laboratory of the Government Chemist: Dr. Richard Worswick

  38. Land Registry: John Manthorpe

  786

  39. Medicines Control Agency: Dr. Keith Jones

  40. Meteorological Office: Professor Julian Hunt

  41. Military Survey: Major General Mike Wilson

  42. National Physical Laboratory: Dr. Peter Clapham CB

  43. National Weights and Measures Laboratory: Dr. Seton Bennett

  44. Natural Resources Institute: Anthony Beattie

  45. Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation: Captain David Symonds

  46. NEL: William Edgar

  47. NHS Estates: John Locke FRICS

  48. NHS Pensions Agency: Alec Cowan

  49. Northern Ireland Child Support Agency: Pat Devlin

  50. Occupational Health Service: Dr. Elizabeth McCloy

  51. Ordnance Survey: Professor David Rhind

  52. Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland: Michael Brand

  53. Patent Office: Paul Hartnack

  54. Paymaster: Keith Sullens

  55. Pesticide Safety Directorate: Geoff Bruce

  56. Planning Inspectorate: Stephen Crow

  57. Public Record Office: Mrs. Sarah Tyacke

  58. Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre: Marcus Buck

  59. Queen Victoria School: Julian Hankinson

  60. Radio communications Agency: Dr. Jim Norton

  61. RAF Support Command's Maintenance Group Defence Agency:

  62. Rate Collection Agency: David Gallagher

  63. Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency: Michael Geddes

  64. Registers of Scotland: James Barron

  65. Royal Mint: Roger Holmes

  66. Royal Parks Agency: David Welch

  67. Scottish Agricultural Science Agency: Dr. Robert Hay

  68. Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency: Andrew MacLeod

  69. Scottish Office Pensions Agency: Norman McLeod

  70. Scottish Prison Service: Edward Frizzell

  71. Scottish Record Office: Patrick Cadell

  72. Security Facilities Executive: John King

  73. Service Children's Schools (NWE): Ian Mitchelson

  74. Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland): Alec Wylie

  75. Social Security Benefits Agency: Michael Bichard

  76. Social Security Child Support Agency: Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite

  77. Social Security Contributions Agency: Miss Ann Chant

  78. Social Security Information Technology Services Agency: Ian Magee

  79. Social Security Resettlement Agency: Tony Ward

  80. Teachers' Pensions Agency: Mrs. Denyse Metcalfe

  81. The Buying Agency: Stephen Sage

  82. Training and Employment Agency: Julian Crozier

  83. Transport Research Laboratory: John Wootton

  84. UK Passport Agency: John Hayzelden

  85. Valuation and Lands Agency (N. Ireland): David Bell

  86. Valuation Office: Rex Shutler CB

  87. Vehicle Certification Agency: Derek Harvey

  88. Vehicle Inspectorate: Ron Oliver

  89. Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Dr. Mike Rutter

  90. Warren Spring Laboratory: Dr. Douglas Cormack

  91. Wilton Park Conference Centre: Richard Langhorne

  AGENCY CANDIDATES

  1. Highways Agency: Lawrence Haynes

  2. Marine Emergencies Organisation: Chris Harris

  3. Marine Safety Agency: Robin Bradley

  4. Medical Devices Directorate: Alan Kent

  5. Ministry of Defence Police: John Reddington

  6. Public Trust Office: Julia Lomas

  7. Royal Air Force Training: Air Vice-Marshal Chris Coville

  8. Social Security War Pensions Directorate: Peter Mathison

  9. Student Awards: Ken MacRae

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has for the expenditure incurred in administration and collection of insurance premium tax.

  Sir John Cope
  It is a priority in the implementation of insurance premium tax to minimise the compliance and administrative costs associated with it, recognising that there are a wide range of interests within the insurance sector. Discussions since the Budget between Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and representatives of the insurance industry have been very much directed toward this end. When firm conclusions have been reached on the actual operation of the tax, a revised compliance cost assessment will be issued. However, it is clear that in terms of the likely costs of administration by Customs the tax will be highly cost effective; whilst the compliance costs of the insurance industry should not in practice prove burdensome.

  Division of Telecommunications
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to respond to the claim presented by Civil Service Unions for Treasury underwriting of the severance terms for Home Office DTELS employees when that division is privatised; and if he will make it his policy that DTELS employees are offered the same severance and redundancy terms as PSA employees and Forward Catering employees have been offered.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has responded to the civil service unions' representations.

  On the second point, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 8 February 1994 at column 120.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pages of evidence have now been provided by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to the Scott inquiry.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise has to date supplied in the region of 15,100 pages of evidence to the Scott inquiry.

  Domestic Fuel Consumption
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the reductions in consumption of domestic fuel resulting from the imposition of value added tax.

  Sir John Cope
  It was estimated that over the next two years imposing VAT at the standard rate on domestic fuel and power would reduce consumption by around 3 per cent. overall.

  Public Appointments
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total number of public appointments which he makes.
  788
  Mr. Nelson
  Details of the number of public appointments which my right hon. and learned Friend makes are listed in the publication "Public Bodies", which is available in the Members' Library.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the takeover of British industry by foreign firms has on the exchange rate.

  Mr. Nelson
  The effect is uncertain. The purchase of British assets by foreign firms will tend to raise sterling. Similarly, when United Kingdom firms acquire overseas assets, this will tend to lower the exchange rate. In the 10 years to 1992, the most recent complete year for which data are available, direct investment overseas by United Kingdom residents has been £122 billion, while direct investment in the United Kingdom by overseas residents has been £91 billion.

  Caribbean (Offshore Companies)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports(a) the Treasury and (b) the Bank of England have prepared in the last five years on banking, financial services or offshore companies operating in British dependent territories in the Caribbean; what recommendations were made in those reports; what action has been taken on the recommendations; and if he will ensure that a copy of each of those reports is placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has responsibility for offshore financial regulation in the Caribbean Dependent Territories. It published a Survey of Offshore Finance Sectors in the Caribbean Dependent Territories in 1990. A copy is in the House of Commons Library. Work is proceeding on enhanced regulation in the offshore finance sector to which both Her Majesty's Treasury and the Bank of England contribute.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gross domestic product per head in each county for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates for gross domestic product by county are only calculated for years when there is an Annual Census of Employment. The latest available information for GDP per head by county is for 1987, 1989 and 1991 which was published in the December 1993 issue of Economic Trends, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Inheritance Tax (Works of Art)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of those works of art which must be made available for public access by reason of inheritance tax exemption.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 28 January 1994 at column 454.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number and percentage of taxpayers who had incomes of(a) £5 million or more, (b) between £1 million

  789
  and £5 million, (c) between £500,000 and £1 million and (d) between £100,000 and £500,000 in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Reliable estimates are available only for the numbers of taxpayers with incomes in excess of £100,000 and are as follows:

  Total number of taxpayers

  Number of taxpayers with incomes1 in excess of £100,000

  Percentage of taxpayers with incomes1 in excess of £100,000

  Thousands

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  1991–92

  25,700

  100

  0·4

  1992–932

  25,100

  110

  0·4

  1 Total income for income tax purposes

  2 Provisional

  British Aerospace
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what United Kingdom tax regime will apply to any payment received by the chairman of British Aerospace as a result of the increased value of his shareholding with that company.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For reasons of confidentiality, I cannot make any comment on the specific tax affairs of any individual.

  Banks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the legal restrictions governing the use of the term "bank".

  Mr. Nelson
  The statutory restrictions governing the use of banking names and descriptions, including the use of the term "bank", are contained in sections 67–73 of the Banking Act 1987, as amended by the Banking Co-ordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3218).

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing for each region the change in total tax in each year since 1978–79 as against the 1978–79 indexed regime broken down into the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent., and bottom 70 per cent., 50 per cent., 30 per cent. and all taxpayers, giving the number of taxpayers in each category.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: Available information was provided in the answers which I gave to the hon. Member on 20 January at column 777 and to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on 29 November 1993 at columns 337–38. The analysis sought for the later years is not available and the analyses for the earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to write to every pensioners group in the country giving details of the 790
  compensation package he announced in the Budget for all pensioners as a consequence of tax increases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: Efforts were made on Budget day to make the details available to pensioner groups.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to publicise the compensation package he announced in the Budget for all pensioners as a consequence of tax increases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The package of assistance with fuel bills announced in the November Budget was the subject of a press release, and has received widespread publicity at the time of the Budget and since. All pensioners will have received notification of the increase in the state retirement pension by 1 April 1994.

  Leaflets offering information on the home energy efficiency scheme (HEES), which is to be extended to cover all pensioners, are supplied free of charge to local authorities, housing benefit offices, housing associations, citizens advice bureaux, the Benefits Agency, jobcentres, Age Concern and other organisations which have contact with HEES client group. The Energy Action Grants Agency (EAGA), which is responsible for administering the HEES, also encourages installers to promote HEES locally by means of advertising, press publicity and distribution of their own leaflets.

  The Department for National Savings ran advertisements in the national press for the new pensioners' guaranteed income bond between 21 January and 13 February. The prospectus for the bond is available from all post offices and on request from the DNS office in Blackpool.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) who are the members currently appointed to the Board of the Registrar of Public Lending Right;

  (2) who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee for the Public Lending Right.

  Mr. Sproat
  There is no PLR board, since the registrar (appointed by the Secretary of State) is a corporate sole. The current registrar is Dr. James Parker.

  The public lending right (PLR) advisory committee advises the Secretary of State and/or the registrar on PLR matters.

  The present members of the committee are:

  Philip Ziegler CVO (Chairman)

  Lee Langley

  Keith Crawshaw

  Clive Grenyer

  Janet Hurrell

  Gillian McClure

  Roger Palmer

  Lavinia Trevor

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

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the Wallace collection are:
  791

  Hon. Simon Sainsbury (Chairman)

  Lord Egremont DL

  Prof. Francis J. H. Haskell FBA

  James Joll Esq

  Dr. Jennifer I. R. Montagu FBA

  Lady Shaw-Stewart.

  Consultants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1992, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department and its two agencies have awarded consultancy contracts to the value of £5·13 million in 1992–93 (£5·3 million at constant 1994 prices) and £3·15 million in 1993–94.

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Sproat
  Since the establishment of the Department of National Heritage on 13 April 1992 we have had one lap top personal computer stolen. The approximate value was £2,500.

  British Library
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what is the estimated completion date for the British library project;

  (2) if he will publish the report of his Department's consultants, Kennedy and Donkin, into the British library project.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 7 February at column 40.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was his Department's total expenditure on the royal parks in each year from 1978–79 to 1991–92.

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

  Letter from Mr. D. Welch to Mr. Nick Raynsford, dated 11 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question of 9 February 1994 about expenditure on the royal parks for the period 1978–879 to 1991–92, originally addressed to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Prior to 1988–89 Royal Parks was not separately accounted for so expenditure figures before this date are not available. However, the figures for spend from 1988–89 to 1991–92 are as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  16·2

  1989–90

  16·0

  1990–91

  20·1

  1991–92

  25·4

  792
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was his Department's total expenditure on the royal parks in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what is the budgeted expenditure for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

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

  Letter from Mr. D. Welch to Mr. Nick Raynsford, dated 11 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question of 9 February 1994 about expenditure on the royal parks.

  The figures for spend on the Royal Parks are as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  122·80

  1993–94

  222·91

  1994–95

  323·87

  1995–96

  325·75

  1996–97

  325·75

  1 (Outturn).

  2 (Forecast outturn).

  3 (Planned).

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to commission a research study into useage of the royal parks from the University of North London; and what will be (i) the cost, (ii) the duration and (iii) the terms of reference of the research.

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

  Letter from Mr. D. Welch to Mr. Nick Raynsford, dated 11 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question of 9 February 1994 about a research study into usage of the Royal Parks.

  In December 1993 the Centre for Leisure and Tourism studies, University of North London, won a competitively tendered three year contract to undertake a market research study of people using The Royal Parks. This will cost £94,600 in year one. The terms of reference include estimation of visitor numbers, development of a questionnaire, interviews and production of reports. The volume of work to be ordered in years 2 and 3 of the commission will be influenced by the results obtained during the first year.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much his Department has spent on (i) consultancy and (ii) research relating to the royal parks in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what is the budgeted expenditure for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  793
  Letter from Mr. D. Welch to Mr. Nick Raynsford, dated 11 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question of 9 February 1994 about spend on consultancy and research.

  The Royal Parks figures for spend on consultancies, including market research, are as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1992–93

  1749

  1993–94

  2744

  1994–95

  3760

  1995–96

  3750

  1996–97

  3750

  Department of National Heritage—1992–93 prices

  £ million

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Provisional Outturn

  1994–95 Plans

  1995–96 Plans

  Executive Bodies

  Arts Council

  194·1

  212·9

  221·2

  218·5

  173·2

  167·8

  British Film Institute

  14·0

  14·6

  15·0

  14·5

  15·9

  15·3

  British Library (including St. Pancras)

  120·6

  127·6

  127·3

  104·7

  123·7

  116·8

  British Tourist Authority

  30·4

  30·3

  30·9

  31·0

  30·0

  30·5

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission

  0·0

  0·0

  0·5

  0·5

  0·6

  0·5

  Broadcasting Standards Council

  0·0

  0·0

  1·3

  1·4

  1·2

  1·2

  Crafts Council

  2·8

  2·9

  3·0

  3·3

  3·0

  3·0

  English Tourist Board

  16·7

  16·8

  13·9

  10·9

  9·3

  9·0

  Football Licensing Authority

  0·1

  0·8

  0·8

  0·9

  0·8

  0·8

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

  87·8

  94·7

  102·0

  96·9

  96·9

  95·0

  Museums and Galleries

  British Museum

  30·9

  32·6

  32·4

  33·0

  31·9

  30·1

  Geffrye Museum

  0·0

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry

  1·9

  2·0

  2·2

  2·1

  2·1

  2·2

  Horniman Museum

  0·0

  2·4

  2·6

  2·8

  3·1

  3·0

  Imperial War Museum

  10·6

  11·2

  11·0

  10·5

  10·5

  10·0

  Museum of London

  3·8

  4·0

  4·1

  4·1

  4·1

  3·9

  National Gallery

  18·0

  17·8

  17·2

  17·6

  17·1

  16·5

  Natural History Museum

  27·9

  28·9

  28·9

  27·5

  25·7

  25·8

  National Maritime Museum

  12·0

  11·6

  11·6

  10·3

  10·2

  9·7

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  13·6

  13·1

  13·4

  13·5

  15·3

  12·1

  National Museum for Science and Industry

  20·4

  20·5

  21·9

  20·7

  20·4

  19·5

  National Portrait Gallery

  4·7

  6·4

  5·5

  4·6

  3·6

  4·6

  Sir John Sloane's Museum

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  0·7

  0·6

  Tate Gallery

  15·2

  15·8

  16·0

  16·2

  16·0

  17·1

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  28·5

  29·3

  29·3

  30·2

  29·6

  28·4

  Wallace Collection

  2·1

  2·0

  1·9

  1·9

  1·9

  1·7

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  11·5

  11·8

  8·8

  8·7

  8·4

  8·1

  National Film and Television School

  1·9

  1·9

  1·9

  1·8

  1·7

  1·7

  National Film Development Fund

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  3·3

  12·5

  12·0

  11·6

  8·1

  7·9

  Registrar of Public Lending Right

  3·9

  4·9

  4·8

  4·8

  4·6

  4·4

  Royal Armouries

  4·0

  3·9

  5·4

  5·6

  3·6

  3·6

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  1·0

  Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)

  7·4

  8·3

  11·9

  14·0

  12·8

  10·3

  South Bank Theatre Board

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Sports Council

  49·4

  48·5

  48·6

  49·0

  46·4

  43·9

  Notes:

  i. From 1 April 1994 responsibility for the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils will be transferred from the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales respectively. Whilst the above figures take account of all three Arts Councils for the years prior to 1994–95, from that year they represent the Arts Council of England only.

  ii. The British Library figures include payments in relation to the building of the new British Library, St. Pancras.
  794

  1 Outturn.

  2 Forecast outturn.

  3 Planned.

  The Royal Parks do not currently intend to spend any moneys on research other than the £95,000 market research to be carried out by the University of North London during 1994. The response to your Question of the same date as this one refers.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each one the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has conducted no advertising or other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 in the current financial year. For 1994–95, the Department is planning a programme of civilian events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the D-day landings on 6 June 1994.

  I have asked the chief executives of the Historic Royal Palaces and Royal Parks Agencies to write to the hon. Member about the position in their agencies.

  Letter from Mr. D. Welch to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 10 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question of 8 February 1994 about advertising and promotional campaigns, in so far as the question relates to this Agency.

  Neither in the current financial year nor in our 1994–95 plans do we have any advertising or other promotional campaign that will cost over £10,000.

  Letter from Mr. D. Beeton to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 14 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has requested me to reply to your Written Question as far as it affects my Agency.

  I am enclosing a schedule setting out the requested information. These promotional campaigns are aimed at protecting and enhancing our business income, which is forecast to total £28 million in 1994–95, having risen from £11 million on the establishment of the Agency in 1989–90.

  In answer to your written Parliamentary Question, please find below a list of all television advertising, newspaper advertising and other promotional campaigns for Historic Royal Palaces, with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 in the current financial year, and those planned for 1994–95

  1993–94

  TOWER OF LONDON

  To contribute towards target visitor numbers of 2·32 million;

  To continue to reposition the Tower to the domestic audience.

  Campaigns:

  1–30 April—cross track poster campaign on the London Underground; Total budget £100,000 (includes production).

  27 July—12 August: London radio campaign on Capital FM: Total budget £40,000.

  2 August—11 September; London television advertising campaign; Total budget £215,000.

  Evaluation:

  Advertising Track Study set up to evaluate the effectiveness of the television advertising against objectives by means of an omnibus survey. Conducted by BMRB Research.

  Analysis of visitor numbers.

  Annual Summer Visitor Survey comprising 300 on-site face-to-face interviews with visitors.

  1994–95

  TOWER OF LONDON

  To contribute towards achieving target visitor numbers of 2·5 million
  796
  Campaigns:

  12 July—30 August; London Television advertising campaign. Total budget £190,000.

  26–31 December; London Television advertising campaign. Total budget £36,000.

  Evaluation:

  Advertising Tracking Study set up to evaluate the effectiveness of the television advertising against objectives by means of an omnibus survey conducted by BMRB Research.

  Analysis of visitor numbers.

  Annual Summer Visitor Survey comprising 300 on-site face-to-face interviews with visitors.

  1994–95

  HAMPTON COURT PALACE

  Advertising objectives:

  To contribute towards achieving target visitor numbers of 586,000.

  Planned campaigns:

  10–28 August; London Television advertising campaign: £92,000. Please note: neither budget nor timing confirmed.

  Evaluation:

  Advertising Tracking Study set up to evaluate the effectiveness of the television advertising against objectives by means of an omnibus survey conducted by BMRB Research.

  Analysis of visitor numbers.

  Annual Summer Visitor Survey comprising 300 on-site face-to-face interviews with visitors.

  1993–94

  CORPORATE SALES PROMOTION—Total budget £100,000

  The corporate sales promotion activity comprised the Royal Pass, entitling visitors to entry to all the Palaces for £15, plus a souvenir guidebook, the joint Palaces leaflet promoting the Royal Pass and the Sovereign Trail competition.

  Evaluation:

  H H & S, the incumbent sales promotion agency, provide analysis of results based on targets agreed at the outset.

  1994–95

  CORPORATE SALES PROMOTION—Total planned budget £86,000

  Pitches yet to be received from competitive tendering exercise. However, plan to further consolidate the Royal Pass, improve the design and usefulness of the joint Palaces leaflet, i.e. multilingual and develop appropriate business partnerships.

  Evaluation:

  Selected consultancy will be asked to provide detailed evaluation of their campaigns against targets set at the outset.

  I do hope this answers your questions.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total rent rceived for accommodation provided at Kensington palace and St. James's palace.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: The total annual rent receivable at the present time from this accommodation is £26,348.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library a list of all the tenants of the grace and favour accommodation in the occupied royal palaces and of the offices these tenants held or hold.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: I refer to the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member on 19 January at column 652 in response to a similar question.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the (i) Government and (ii) Government-funded voluntary sector resources currently available for victims of sexual harassment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Government funding helps the victims of sexual harassment in a wide variety of ways.

  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the Equal Opportunities Commission incurs legal expenses for the purpose of giving advice and assisting those who have been discriminated against on grounds of sex to seek redress in industrial tribunals. Some of the assistance goes towards sexual harassment cases. Examples of Government funding, where violence occurs, include the criminal injuries compensation scheme, victim support schemes and police and health service facilities.

  It is not, however, possible to identify separately the extent of Government funding, whether direct or through the voluntary sector, in support of victims of sexual harassment.

  Number of persons aged 10 to under 16 cautioned and found guilty at all courts of indictable sexual offences by type of offence 1987 to 1992 England and Wales

  Offence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  16 Buggery

  33

  30

  30

  52

  26

  30

  17 Indecent assault on a male

  99

  98

  100

  123

  112

  102

  18 Indecency between males

  16

  14

  15

  27

  10

  9

  19 Rape

  17

  24

  20

  24

  11

  10

  20 Indecent assault on a female

  671

  847

  820

  728

  666

  674

  21 Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  41

  28

  55

  34

  29

  26

  22 Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  198

  211

  201

  145

  114

  91

  23 Incest

  16

  4

  13

  11

  11

  9

  24 Procuration

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  25 Abduction

  4

  2

  3

  —

  —

  4

  26 Bigamy

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  27 Soliciting by a man

  6

  1

  1

  —

  1

  4

  74 Gross indecency with children

  37

  39

  35

  55

  35

  27

  Total sexual offences

  1,140

  1,298

  1,294

  1,201

  1,015

  988

  Prison Food
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish the cost of food per prisoner week by prison in England;

  (2) what is (a) the cost of food per prisoner week at the Wolds private prison and (b) the cost standard required in repsect of Doncaster prison when that becomes privately managed.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond dated 16 February 1994:

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to continue funding projects currently in receipt of section 11 funding; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received with regard to the future of section 11 funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received many representations about section 11 funding from local authorities and associations, teaching unions, ethnic minority communities and other interested parties, mainly supporting its continuation. Commitments to projects currently in receipt of section 11 funding will be honoured. In the future the particular needs of ethnic minorities will be met either through section 11 funds, or through wider regeneration programmes under the single regeneration budget.

  Sexual Offences
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sexual offences were committed by people under the age of 16 years in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Maclean
  The readily available information for 1987 to 1992 on the number of offenders aged under 16 years found guilty or cautioned for sexual offences is given in the table.

  Cost of food for prisoners

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your two recent Qeustions about the cost of food for prisoners at both publicly and privately managed prisons in England.

  The information requested in respect of prisons whose management has not been contracted out is given in the attached table.

  Contracts applying to those prisons managed by the private sector, including Wolds and Doncaster, do not directly specify the cost of food for prisoners. Contracts specify outputs and the requirements and standards which contractors much meet, rather than inputs which are left to contractors to determine.

  The requirements and standards laid down are set out in the operational specification and performance criteria contained in the invitation to tender (ITT) documents issued to each bidder and subsequently in the contracts themselves. A copy of the operational specification from the ITT for each prison whose management has been contracted out has been placed in the Library of the House.
  799
  The requirements include the provision of three meals a day, one of which must be hot; a choice of dish for the main meal of the day; a hot meal for all reception prisoners; and suitable refreshment for prisoners at court or on escort outside the prison. In addition, meals must meet the daily amounts of food, energy and nutrients, recommended by the Department of Health; modified diets must be provided as necessary for medical,

  Establishment

  Inmate cost per week

  Establishment

  Inmate cost per week

  £

  £

  Acklington

  9·03

  Albany

  9·24

  Aldington

  9·73

  Ashwell

  9·24

  Askham Grange

  9·52

  Aylesbury

  9·24

  Bedford

  10·01

  Belmarsh

  9·03

  Birmingham

  9·66

  Blantyre House

  9·94

  Blundeston

  10·57

  Brinsford

  9·17

  Bristol

  9·66

  Brixton

  9·17

  Brockhill

  9·31

  Bullingdon

  9·17

  Bullwood Hall

  9·59

  Camp Hill

  9·31

  Canterbury

  9·31

  Cardiff

  9·73

  Castington

  9·24

  Channings Wood

  9·17

  Chelmsford

  N/a

  Coldingley

  9·24

  Cookham Wood

  N/a

  Dartmoor

  9·45

  Deerbolt

  N/a

  Dorchester

  9·31

  Dover

  9·52

  Downview

  N/a

  Drake Hall

  9·52

  Durham

  9·31

  East Sutton Park

  N/a

  Elmley

  9·10

  Erlestoke

  9·73

  Everthorpe

  9·73

  Exeter

  9·38

  Featherstone

  9·17

  Feltham

  9·03

  Finnamore Wood

  10·50

  Ford

  9·31

  Frankland

  9·45

  Full Sutton

  10·57

  Garth

  9·52

  Gartree

  10·29

  Glen Parva

  9·10

  Gloucester

  9·66

  Grendon

  9·45

  Guys Marsh

  9·59

  Haslar

  9·24

  Hatfield

  9·31

  Haverigg

  9·59

  Hewell Grange

  9·38

  Highdown

  9·24

  Highpoint

  9·03

  Hindley

  9·10

  Hollesley

  9·52

  Holloway

  9·80

  Holme House

  9·17

  Hull

  9·31

  Huntercombe

  9·45

  Kingston

  10·78

  Kirkham

  9·10

  Kirklevington

  9·24

  Lancaster

  9·59

  Lancaster Farms

  N/a

  Latchmere

  12·11

  Leeds

  9·24

  Leicester

  9·66

  Lewes

  10·08

  Leyhill

  9·59

  Lincoln

  9·03

  Lindholme

  9·24

  Littlehey

  10·01

  Liverpool

  9·10

  Long Lartin

  10·99

  Low Newton

  9·17

  Maidstone

  10·36

  Manchester

  9·24

  Moorland

  9·17

  Morton Hall

  9·31

  Mount

  10·29

  New Hall

  9·59

  Northallerton

  9·24

  North Sea Camp

  10·50

  Norwich

  10·08

  Nottingham

  , 10·15

  Onley

  9·31

  Parkhurst

  9·59

  Pentonville

  9·10

  Portland

  9·10

  Preston

  9·38

  Pucklechurch

  9·38

  Ranby

  9·31

  Reading

  9·24

  Risley

  9·45

  Rochester

  9·87

  Rudgate

  9·24

  Send

  9·31

  Shepton Mallet

  9·24

  Shrewsbury

  9·73

  Springhill

  9·66

  Stafford

  9·10

  Standford Hill

  9·24

  Stocken

  9·38

  Stoke Heath

  9·10

  Styal

  10·36

  Sudbury/Foston

  10·01

  Swaleside

  9·24

  Swansea

  9·45

  Swinfen Hall

  9·24

  Thorn Cross

  9·31

  Thorp Arch

  9·38

  Usk

  9·24

  The Verne

  9·31

  Wakefield

  9·52

  Wandsworth

  9·31

  Wayland

  9·59

  Wellingborough

  10·29

  Werrington

  9·24

  Wetherby

  9·24

  Whatton

  9·17

  Whitemoor

  9·52

  Winchester

  9·31

  Woodhill

  10·01

  Wormwood Scrubs

  9·38

  Wymott

  9·10

  800
  religious or other reasons; and food must be prepared and served to high standards of food handling and hygiene to ensure proper temperature, appearance and palatability.

  Performance to the standards required is monitored by the on-site Prison Service Controller. Remedies for failure to deliver the required standards include withholding payment of part of all of the contractor's management fee. This is a powerful incentive for contractors to maintain standards and is one which is not available in the publicly managed part of the service.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his policing priorities for the Metropolitan police authority for 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend's policing priorities for 1994 are reflected in the Metropolitan police corporate strategy priorities document which he announced on 7 February at col 22.

  Date

  Minister

  Cost

  Purpose

  £

  27–28 May

  Peter Lloyd

  1,703

  Italian ministerial conference on European drug trafficking routes, Rome.

  1–2 June

  Charles Wardle

  875

  TREVI/immigration ministerial meeting, Copenhagen

  28–29 September

  David Maclean

  441

  European ministers of justice meeting, Brussels.

  21–22 October

  David Maclean

  792

  Third European ministerial conference on equality between men and women, Rome.

  17–19 November

  Charles Wardle

  903

  5th conference of European ministers responsible for migration affairs, Athens.

  28–29 November

  Charles Wardle

  527

  Interior/Justice Council meeting, Brussels.

  Police Authority Members
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make it his policy that all members of a police authority shall be elected representatives.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Traffic Police
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to contract out any of the functions currently discharged by the traffic police.

  (2) what plans he has to contract out the convoy escort service for very heavy vehicles.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The possibility of using private escorts is being examined with the Association of thief Police Officers as one way of reducing the police's involvement in the escorting of abnormal loads of up to 150 tonnes. There are no current plans to change the escort arrangements for very heavy loads of over 150 tonnes. However, as part of the review of police core and ancillary tasks there is to be a review of traffic policing whose terms of reference are:To review the role of the police in enforcing the traffic laws and, taking account of the impact of new technology on the most cost effective use of resources, to consider what changes are desirable consistent with the maintenance of high standards of road safety and traffic management.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits abroad each Minister of State made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Howard
  The cost and purpose of each visit made by the Ministers of State for the Home Department during 1993 were as follows:

  other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by (a) the Home Office and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Howard
  In the current financial year advertising campaigns for the Home Office costing in excess of £10,000 are:

  (a) HOME OFFICE

  Television

  Electoral Registration

  Smoke Alarms

  Crime Prevention

  Special Constables Recruitment

  Press

  Special Constables Recruitment

  Police Graduate Recruitment

  Crime Prevention

  Posters

  Special Constables Recruitment

  Crime Prevention

  Promotions

  Crime Prevention

  Radio

  Crime Prevention

  (b) AGENCIES

  Press

  Passport Agency

  Campaigns planned for 1994–95 are:

  Press

  Fire Safety

  Police Graduate Recruitment

  803

  Special Constables Recruitment

  Crime Prevention

  Television

  Special Constables Recruitment

  Table A lists campaign objectives:

  Ministerial Travel

    TABLE A
    Electoral Registration
    Increase awareness of the need to register in order to vote, especially among young people and ethnic minorities.
    Smoke Alarms
    Increase to 70 per cent. the number of households fitted with working smoke alarms.
    Car Crime Prevention
    Raise awareness among motorists of the need to take preventative measures; encourage a partnership approach to fight crime; stimulate business support; help encourage car manufacturers to improve vehicle security.
    Passport Renewal
    To encourage renewal of applications during the Autumn period.
    Special Constables Recruitment
    To increase the numbers of Specials.
    Police Graduate Recruitment
    To increase the numbers of recruits.
    With the exception of passport renewal and police graduate recruitment, campaign effectiveness is measured by independent survey research and a range of other relevant measures which demonstrate response to advertising.
    The effectiveness of the buying efficiency of television advertising is independently audited.

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Kilfoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Commission for Racial Equality.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The members of the Commission for Racial Equality are as follows:

    Chairman:

    Mr. H. Ouseley

    Deputy Chairmen:

    Mr. R. Sondhi

    Mr. T. Ward

    Members:

    Rev. E. Brown

    Dr. M. Chan

    Dr. R. Chandran

    Ms M. Cunningham

    Mr. M. Hastings

    Mr. T. Khan

    Dr. Z. Khan

    Ms Z. Manzoor

    Mr. D. Neil

    Mr. R. Purkiss

    Mr. A. Rose

    Mr. Kilfoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who are the members currently appointed to the Gaming Board for Great Britain;

    (2) who are the members currently appointed to the Horserace Totalisator Board;

    (3) who are the members currently appointed to the Horserace Betting Levy Appeals Tribunal for England and Wales;
    804
    (4) who are the members currently appointed to the Horserace Betting Levy Board.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The information is as follows:

    GAMING BOARD FOR GREAT BRITAIN

    Chairman

    Lady Shirley Littler

    Members

    Sir Richard Barratt

    Mr. W. B. Kirkpatrick

    Lady Carolyn Trethowan

    Mr. M. H. Hogan

    HORSERACE TOTALISATOR BOARD

    Chairman

    Lord Wyatt of Weeford

    Members

    Mr. J. Sanderson

    Mr. B. M. McDonnell

    Mr. T. J. Phillips

    Hon. D. Sieff

    Hon. J. W. Deedes

    Mr. C. Sporborg

    HORSERACE BETTING LEVY APPEAL TRIBUNAL

    Chairman

    Hugh Bennett, QC

    Members

    Mr. B. W. Waters

    Mrs. R. Dean

    HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BOARD

    Chairman

    Sir John Sparrow

    Members

    Mr. J. W. Robb

    Mrs. A. McCurley

    Mr. Kilfoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Community Development Foundation.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The current trustees of the Community Development Foundation are:

    Mr. Alan Haselhurst MP (Chairman)

    Ms Beverley Bernard

    Mr. Amir Bhatia

    Professor Walter James CBE

    Mr. Michael Meadowcroft

    Mr. Eddie O'Hara MP

    Mr. David Owen

    Mr. Gerry Wade

    Equipment Thefts
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

    Mr. Howard
    Equipment recorded as stolen from the Home Office during the past three years is as follows:

    Equipment

    Value £

    1991–92

    40 floppy disks

    20·00

    Various IT items

    2,050·00

    1 printer

    1,200·00

    Various tools

    3,500·00

    Gardening equipment

    480·00

    805

    Equipment

    Value £

    Electrical equipment

    1,935·00

    Cassette tape recorder and amplifier

    1,700·00

    Video camera and video recorder

    1992–93

    23 heat lamps

    7,050·00

    1 lawn mower

    250·00

    Various tools

    910·00

    3 strimmers

    500·00

    Rotary mower

    504·00

    2 motor mowers

    1,088·00

    Horsebox and tools

    6,500·00

    1 computer

    1,000·00

    Fax machine

    230·00

    1993–94 (to date)

    Trailer

    2,470·00

    3 strimmers

    740·00

    Power washer

    525·00

    Various tools

    2,400·00

    Various equipment

    410·00

    Combat 18
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what reports he has received from the chief constable of West Yorkshire about police action being taken to stop Combat 18 from issuing publications inciting the public to make nuisance telephone calls;

    (2) what representations he has received about the activities and leadership of Combat 18; what complaints have been made under the Public Order Act or other legislation against Combat 18; what reports he has received about publications, issued by Combat 18, inciting the public to cause a nuisance against listed individuals and organisations; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    My right hon. and learned Friend has received no reports from the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police about Combat 18. I understand that the Chief Constable has received a letter from the hon. Member and that he will be investigating the complaint it contains. The West Yorkshire Police have received no other complaints. My right hon. and learned Friend has received 10 representations from hon. Members, and a number of letters from the general public about the undesirable activities of Combat 18.

    Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
    Mr. O'Hara
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what penalties are incurred by a fire and civil defence authority which exceeds its capping limit in the necessary pursuit of its statutory responsibilities;

    (2) what action he intends to take to ensure that the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority is financially able to fulfil its statutory duties;

    (3) what was (a) the budgetary requirement and (b) the provisional standard spending assessment for 1994–95 of the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority's budgetary requirement for 1994–95 is a matter for the authority. Its standard spending assessment for next year is £46·116 million. It is for the authority to set its budget taking account of all appropriate considerations 806
    including its statutory duties. Under the provisional capping criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 2 December, Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority would be able to increase its budget by 1¼ per cent. Any major precepting authority which is required to set a substitute budget as a result of capping may be liable for any administrative expenses incurred by a billing authority as a consequence of that substitute budget.

    Mr. O'Hara
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the report of the inspection by Her Majesty's inspector of fire services of the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority which took place on 5 July 1993 was published; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will make a statement on the value of annual inspections carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services when its findings can be reversed by another inspection team within a period of five months;

    (3) in what circumstances the findings of an annual inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services in respect of a particular authority may be reversed, following inspection by another team in the period before the next annual inspection; and if he will make a statement;

    (4) what representations he has received about the inspection carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services which reversed within five months his professional assessment of the establishment requirements of the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    The report of the special inspection of the Merseyside fire brigade which took place during the week commencing 5 July 1993 was published on 11 January. My right hon. and learned Friend does not accept that the report reverses the findings of Her Majesty's inspector of fire services' 1993 annual inspection of the Merseyside fire brigade. Annual inspections of fire brigades serve the purpose of reporting to my right hon. and learned Friend and informing the fire authority on how effectively the brigade concerned is carrying out its statutory functions.

    The 1993 annual inspection of the Merseyside fire brigade identified a number of concerns about the way in which the brigade was carrying out its functions, and about its financial position. The special inspection was carried out in the light of those concerns, and of the concerns of the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority itself about the brigade's financial position in the 1993–94 financial year. The special inspection was carried out by a team led by the inspector who had conducted the 1993 annual inspection. The detailed findings of the special inspection reflect the fact that the enlarged inspection team, which included independent financial and accountancy consultants, was able to examine the brigade's organisation and effectiveness in considerably greater detail than is possible in annual inspections of fire brigades. My right hon. and learned Friend has received correspondence from a number of hon. Members about the special inspection.

    Inspectorate of Fire Services
    Mr. O'Hara
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a thorough audit of the role and functions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services; and if he will make a statement.
    807
    Mr. Charles Wardle
    No. My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the role and functions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services are appropriate and that the inspectorate carries them out effectively.

    Police Duties
    Sir Ivan Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to define the core duties of the police service.

    Mr. Howard
    I have asked for a review of policing duties to be undertaken in consultation with the police service and police authority representatives. I share the concern of the police service that the extent of the burdens being placed on them needs examination. I have made it clear that I want to see a police service freed from non-essential tasks so that officers may have the time to concentrate on the tasks which really matter to the public. I shall want to listen very carefully to what the police have to say about the extent of the work they are asked to carry out, and how it might be organised differently.

    I expect to receive a report on this exercise in the autumn. I shall consider the impact of any changes proposed on operational efficiency and the quality of service that the police offer the community. I shall also wish to consider how best to consult the public if any changes are proposed that would affect the police interface with the public.

    Number of offenders, and percentage cautioned, for the offence of possession of cannabis, by police force area, United Kingdom,1 1989–92

    Offenders 1989

    Percentage cautioned

    Offenders 1990

    Percentage cautioned

    Offenders 1991

    Percentage cautioned

    Offenders 1992

    Percentage cautioned

    Avon and Somerset

    128

    20

    158

    18

    744

    88

    890

    82

    Bedfordshire

    76

    66

    219

    58

    297

    68

    217

    82

    Cambridgeshire

    94

    73

    251

    44

    193

    48

    200

    72

    Cheshire

    166

    45

    298

    12

    525

    46

    727

    64

    Cleveland

    47

    64

    139

    59

    230

    67

    236

    67

    Cumbria

    75

    23

    279

    10

    404

    28

    380

    37

    Derbyshire

    61

    66

    240

    40

    191

    45

    243

    60

    Devon and Cornwall

    255

    62

    849

    39

    659

    40

    781

    72

    Dorset

    29

    41

    139

    15

    159

    30

    292

    60

    Durham

    29

    38

    48

    27

    53

    25

    146

    48

    Essex

    335

    82

    717

    70

    889

    66

    850

    75

    Gloucestershire

    112

    71

    280

    66

    415

    71

    470

    82

    Greater Manchester

    476

    35

    1,035

    26

    1,104

    32

    1,066

    52

    Hampshire

    349

    86

    596

    77

    558

    86

    268

    81

    Hertfordshire

    77

    43

    337

    26

    603

    49

    518

    64

    Humberside

    160

    61

    358

    55

    335

    60

    370

    56

    Kent

    214

    85

    221

    76

    562

    67

    586

    87

    Lancashire

    180

    63

    546

    27

    520

    46

    600

    62

    Leicestershire

    68

    54

    239

    34

    342

    51

    284

    67

    Lincolnshire

    64

    64

    183

    32

    309

    44

    237

    38

    Merseyside

    795

    78

    1,745

    53

    1,971

    48

    1,593

    54

    City of London

    35

    86

    206

    75

    151

    75

    158

    86

    Metropolitan Police

    8,403

    88

    13,386

    69

    12,393

    70

    10,950

    75

    Norfolk

    93

    56

    365

    37

    412

    52

    497

    67

    Northamptonshire

    51

    86

    134

    66

    214

    67

    347

    73

    Northumbria

    142

    73

    209

    39

    227

    52

    364

    77

    North Yorkshire

    61

    75

    123

    35

    76

    18

    164

    57

    Nottinghamshire

    124

    65

    204

    56

    302

    56

    364

    59

    South Yorkshire

    251

    69

    529

    64

    756

    67

    817

    69

    Staffordshire

    52

    29

    226

    18

    287

    39

    280

    57

    Suffolk

    177

    68

    320

    53

    465

    64

    488

    76

    Surrey

    184

    80

    474

    41

    644

    63

    451

    79

    Sussex

    166

    28

    742

    15

    788

    18

    677

    52

    Thames Valley

    242

    62

    1,147

    39

    1,043

    55

    1,359

    68

    Warwickshire

    134

    76

    271

    56

    280

    66

    281

    73

    West Mercia

    46

    2

    250

    0

    450

    55

    507

    68

    West Midlands

    287

    46

    1,174

    17

    1,013

    40

    539

    58

    Remand
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for ihe Home Department for the latest year available, how many people were remanded in the west midlands area; and how many were(a) black males and (b) black females.

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 15 February 1994]: Reliable information on the total numbers of defendants remanded in the west midlands is not available centrally. Neither is any regular information collected regularly on the ethnic origin of those proceeded against in court. Some information on the ethnic origin of those remanded in custody in the west midlands was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 25 January at columns 155–56.

    Cannabis
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority area, the number of people arrested for possession of cannabis in each year since 1989; and what percentage of those was(a) prosecuted and (b) cautioned.

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 2 February 1994]: Information on the number of persons arrested for possession of cannabis is not collected centrally. Information on the total number of persons dealt with for the offence of unlawful possession of cannabis, and the percentage of those persons who were cautioned, from 1989 to 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, is given in the table.
    809

    Offenders 1989

    Percentage cautioned

    Offenders 1990

    Percentage cautioned

    Offenders 1991

    Percentage cautioned

    Offenders 1992

    Percentage cautioned

    West Yorkshire

    115

    12

    859

    11

    488

    19

    595

    22

    Wiltshire

    325

    92

    193

    66

    231

    68

    363

    75

    England—other

    140

    80

    269

    70

    148

    82

    286

    96

    Dyfed and Powys

    53

    79

    194

    34

    284

    55

    465

    77

    Gwent

    12

    8

    192

    49

    166

    69

    254

    78

    North Wales

    81

    26

    373

    20

    403

    53

    309

    59

    South Wales

    243

    22

    505

    11

    323

    7

    292

    40

    Wales—other

    0

    —

    2

    0

    4

    75

    10

    80

    RUC

    44

    41

    110

    53

    69

    38

    129

    33

    Northern Ireland—other

    0

    —

    0

    —

    0

    —

    1

    100

    United Kingdom

    15,620

    75

    33,753

    48

    35,622

    54

    34,705

    63

    1 There is no cautioning in Scotland

    Police Officers
    Mr. Hain
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of police officers per 100,000 population for each year since 1979 for the South Wales, Thames Valley, Kent, Lancashire, Avon and Somerset and Hampshire police authority areas; and what were the comparable totals for all non-metropolitan and Welsh non-metropolitan police authority areas.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Information on ratios of police officers to population levels are contained in the appendices to the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, copies of which are in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what submissions he has received on the local government boundaries for Somerset and Dorset.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received a large number of representations about the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Somerset, Avon and Gloucestershire.

  Submissions about the boundaries for Dorset are at present a matter for the Local Government Commission, which began its review of the area on 13 December 1993.

  Council House Rents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes have taken place since 1979 in real terms in the average rent per dwelling per week of council houses.

  Sir George Young
  The average weekly rent for local housing authority dwellings in England increased from £6·41 in April 1979 to £33·50 in April 1993, an increase of 98 per cent. in real terms.

  London Policy
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has had to the consultation document on London policy.
  810
  Mr. Gummer
  Approximately 10,500 completed questionnaires from "London—Making the Best Better" have been returned and I have also received over 250 letters in response to the publication.

  City Challenge (Leicester)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the progress of the city challenge project in Leicester so far; and what communication he has received from board members or employees of city challenge which may cast doubt on its future success.

  Sir George Young
  My Department has monitored the progress of the Leicester city challenge action plan since it was approved last March. A mid-year progress review meeting in October identified a number of problem areas which required action. These issues will be discussed further at the formal annual review on 28 February with the sponsor Minister, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Technology. Future funding will depend on the outcome of the annual review.

  Cash Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the operation of the cash incentive scheme.

  Sir George Young
  Cash incentive schemes grants are a cost-effective measure which enable local authorities to improve the supply of affordable housing for rent to people in need. They also provide a boost to the housing market. Since its introduction in 1989 the cash incentive scheme has created over 8,000 vacancies by reletting, and enabled the same number of households to buy their own home.

  Building and Construction Industry Activity
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest assessment of activity in the building and construction sector and prospects for the short and medium term.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are some grounds for optimism in the construction industry. The fall in output has halted. New orders are enjoying their best period of growth for years, with figures for the three months to December up 34 per cent. against the previous year.

  Plymouth (Regional Sub-office)
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an integral regional sub-office in Plymouth; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We will consider this and other possibilities for the location of the new integrated regional offices in the South West.

  EC Water Directives
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the future of the EC bathing and drinking water directives.

  Mr. Atkins
  The European Council in December asked the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible four framework directives to replace parts of existing Community water legislation. These would include replacements for the drinking and bathing water directives.

  I understand that the Commission today agreed the text of a proposal for a revision of the Bathing Water Directive. The United Kingdom fully supports the move towards updating Community water legislation. We will now be examining the proposal to ensure that it meets the requirements of subsidiarity, up-to-date science and cost-effectiveness, and that it reorients the new directive towards essential quality and health parameters.

  Social Housing Sector
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for extending shared ownership in the social housing sector.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme for 194–95, announced in December of last year, will provide £191·1 million for shared ownership schemes. This is expected to rise to £316·6 million in 1996–97. This will represent 21 per cent. of the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme compared with only 7 per cent. in 1992–93.

  The Housing Corporation estimate that this will enable them to provide between 8,500 and 10,500 new homes under shared ownership in 1994–95 rising to between 11,700 and 13,900 by 1996–97. In many cases existing housing association and local authority tenancies will be released for reletting to people in housing need.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority dwellings have been built in the last year, to the latest possible date; and what were the comparable figures for 1978.

  Sir George Young
  Provisional figures show that in England in 1993 there were 1,200 housebuilding completions for local authorities. The comparative figure in 1978 was 83,700.

  Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing. 57,600 units of new provision made available with Government help are forecast for 1993–94, compared with 23,800 in 1978–79. Local authorities also sponsor housing associations, and so far in 1993–94 4,400 units of new provision have been made available in this way.
  812
  The number of new local authority and housing association lettings in 192–93 was, at 321,000, almost the same as in 1978–79, when there were an estimated 323,000.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his proposals in the consultation document "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies" will help local authorities carry out their duties under the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  As the consultation paper makes clear, providing suitable accommodation for families will remain a priority for housing authorities.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many organisations have been invited to respond to his Department's consultation paper, "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies".

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Construction and Inner Cities gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 9 February at column 299.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the representations he has recently received from local authorities on the standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Curry
  During the recent period of consultation on the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95 we received representations on a wide range of issues from 142 local authorities. My right hon. Friend considered carefully all those representations and any other relevant information before taking his final decisions on the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet the leaders of Liverpool city Council to discuss the standard spending assessment fix 1994; 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 their provisional standard spending assessment for 1994–95. My right hon. Friend considered carefully all the representations made to him, including those from Liverpool, before taking final decisions on the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95, which was approved by the House on 3 February.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to take to provide enhanced protection against removal of hedgerows.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are committed to bringing forward measures for the protection of hedgerows when parliamentary time permits.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to encourage councils to extend compulsory competitive tendering to as wide a range of services as possible.
  813
  Mr. Baldry
  We have already announced a detailed programme for extension of CCT to local authorities' professional and corporate services, to housing management, and to three further blue-collar services. I would encourage authorities to open up their services to competition wherever possible, and I am gratified to see that an increasing number of authorities are voluntarily subjecting a wide range of services to competitive tendering, ahead of the statutory timetable.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans for the application of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 26 November 1993 at column 264; to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 15 December 1993 at column 733; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willets) on 21 January 1994 at columns 872–73.

  Ofwat
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the Director General of Ofwat, to discuss water disconnections and compulsory metering of domestic households.

  Mr. Atkins
  I shall be having a meeting shortly with the Director General of Water Services to discuss matters of a current mutual interest.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives from Ofwat to discuss water charges.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Mr. Byatt, the Director General of Water Services, on 26 July 1993 to discuss Mr. Byatt's periodic review of water price limits.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Local Government Commission for England concerning the progress of the local government review.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State holds regular meetings with Sir John Banham, the chairman of the Local Government Commission, to discuss all local government reorganisation issues, including the commission's progress. My right hon. Friend last met Sir John formally on 18 January 1994. I last met Sir John on 8 February.

  Housing Association Houses
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of new housing association houses to be completed in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) earlier today.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the landfill sites in Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk where the pollution inspectorate or the National Rivers Authority have detected pollutants and dangerous chemical substances in nearby groundwater since 1991.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the licensing and monitoring of landfill sites is the responsibility of waste regulation authorities, in this case Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk county councils. Where the NRA has carried out monitoring, relevant results are available on the public register for the NRA's Anglian region.

  Species Action Plans
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the basis of his estimate of a period of 10 years in order to complete and put into implementation the species action plans.

  Mr. Atkins
  The commitment to complete and put into implementation plans for at least 90 per cent. of the presently known globally threatened and threatened endemic species within the next 10 years was agreed with the territorial Departments and the statutory conservation agencies as a target which was achievable by the United Kingdom as a whole. It may prove possible for some countries, such as England, to improve upon this timescale.

  Biodiversity Action Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes in Government energy policy will follow from the linkage of energy use and biodiversity conservation expressed in the biodiversity action plan.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's energy policy aims are already pursued in the context of other Government policies and commitments including those relating to the environment. The biodiversity action plan will inform the further development of these policies.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following his announcement on THORP on 15 June 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations.

  Recycling
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities who(a) submitted and (b) did not submit to him a draft recycling plan by January 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  All English local authorities apart from Brent and Wolverhampton have submitted a draft recycling plan.

  The Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the use of his powers under section 49(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to require those authorities to produce a draft plan.
  815
  All Scottish and Welsh authorities apart from:

  Caithness

  Dunfermline

  Lochaber

  Motherwell

  Nairn

  Sutherland

  Western Isles

  Wigtown

  Alyn and Deeside

  Brecknock

  Radnorshire

  have submitted draft recycling plans. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are responsible for the submission of recycling plans in Scotland and Wales respectively.

  Sewage Discharge Consents
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in upgrading sewage treatment works were in breach of their discharge consents at the time of privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  The water industry's investment programme is making good progress. The latest figures available demonstrate a continuing improvement in the operational performance of sewage treatment works. In 1992 the proportion of works complying with their consent standards was more than 95 per cent. compared with 83 per cent. in 1988.

  Miners' Welfare Schemes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support has been provided to local authorities where they have taken over miners' welfare schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No specific support has been provided to local authorities for this purpose. The support of miners' welfare schemes is a matter for British Coal and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue further guidelines to the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to issue further guidance to the Local Government Commission.

  Councillors (Directorships)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has about the number of authorities which appoint councillors as directors of companies who have contracted-out services for local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not collate information on this subject.

  Local Authority Reorganisation Costs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be made available to authorities in Cleveland and the Isle of Wight for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.
  816
  Mr. Curry
  We propose, on the basis, inter alia, of information provided by the authorities themselves, the Government's public expenditure plans and progress on implementing the review of local government, to issue to authorities in Cleveland and the Isle of Wight Supplementary Credit Approvals, subject to a maximum, to enable them to borrow to meet certain start-up costs which will be incurred in 1994–95 before they are reorganised. Once reorganised, the Government expects that, in general, early revenue savings and capital receipts from reorganisation will significantly reduce the need for further transitional assistance and will provide resources to repay borrowing undertaken in reliance on these SCAs. For 1994–95 the maximum amounts proposed for authorities in Cleveland and the Isle of Wight are as follows:

  Authority

  SCA maximum amount

  £K (rounded)

  Isle of Wight

  Isle of Wight County Council

  1,370

  Medina Borough Council

  80

  South Wight Borough Council

  30

  Cleveland

  Cleveland Borough Council

  1,060

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  1,680

  Langbaurgh on Tees Borough Council

  2,000

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  1,040

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  1,740

  Total

  9,000

  Electrical Wiring
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many accidents in the home each year result from faulty electrical wiring; and what steps the Health and Safety Executive is taking to ensure high standards of electrical installation.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: Between 1988 and 1992 the average number of deaths in the home due to receiving an electrical shock were 28. Of these less than 3 per cent. resulted from faults in fixed electrical wiring.

  As a result of representations from: the deregulation task forces, the Electrical Contractors Association and others, my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Health and Safety Executive, is looking at the desirability and practicability of including electrical safety within the Building Regulations. My Department has also recently accepted an invitation to join other Government bodies on the board of the National Inspection Council for electrical Installation Contractors. Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive and of local authorities enforce the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 which govern the safety of electrical installations in workplaces.

DEFENCE

  Defence Weapons Establishment
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if live horses have been used in the tests carried out at the defence weapons establishment at Porton Down into the efficacy of whips on horses;
  817
  (2) which organisation has commissioned the defence weapons establishment at Porton Down to conduct tests on the efficacy of whips on horses;

  (3) what is the purpose of testing of the efficacy of whips on horses at the defence weapons establishment at Porton Down;

  (4) on what date tests commenced at the defence weapons establishment at Porton Down on the efficacy of whips on horses; and on what date they finished or will finish.

  Mr. Hanley
  These are matters for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down—CBDE. I have asked the Chief Executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. G. Pearson to Mr. Edward O'Hara, dated 16 February 1994:

  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking about the testing of whips involving the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. In June 1993 the Stewards of the Jockey Club established a Working Group to assess whether the current Rules of Racing were adequate to control whip abuse. The Terms of Reference of the Working Group are to promote and co-ordinate further research into the specifications and design of the whip together with methods of assessing possible injury. Because of CBDE's expertise in the development of protective equipment for Service personnel against impacts and explosive blast we were invited by the Animal Health Trust on behalf of the Jockey Club to advise the Whip Working Group on the probable biomechanical principles of impacts to skin by whips and to recommend a simple, objective and scientifically credible test method that can be used to rank whips submitted to the Jockey Club. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is acting in a purely advisory role and will not be undertaking the tests on the whips submitted to the Jockey Club. Live horses are not used in any of this advisory work being carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. The tests will be carried out by the Jockey Club or their agents.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy of the Royal Air Force towards officers and men who fall into debt as a result of increased maintenance payments set by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 2 February 1994 at columns 713–14.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of booked low flying hours in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total number of hours booked at low level in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1993 was 107,220. This figure does not include the hours booked in the recently created low flying area 10 as this information is not yet available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the southerly directional flow control for low flying aircraft was introduced between Penrhyndeudraeth and Trawsfynydd.
  818
  Mr. Hanley
  The flow control was introduced on 10 August 1992.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying sorties were undertaken in the United Kingdom low flying system in the years 1989, 1990 and 1993, calculated on the pre-1985 basis of estimating sorties from numbers of movements.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  The approximate number of sorties using the pre-1985 method

  1989

  121,088

  1990

  125,210

  1993

  1105,189

  1 This figure does not take account of movements flown within LFA 10 as this information is not yet available.

  In addition, I regret that the answer given to the hon. Member on 2 April 1993 at column 505 did not take account of the number of night movements flown in 1991 and 1992. Revised figures for the approximate number of sorties flown using the pre-1985 method in 1991 and 1992 are as follows:

  1991–102,460

  1992–115,573

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying movements were recorded over Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to publish detailed information on activity in individual low flying areas.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates of currently planned presentations by the Ministry of Defence low flying presentation team.

  Mr. Hanley
  Presentations by the Ministry of Defence low flying presentation team are currently planned to take place on Thursday 24 February at Barnard Castle, County Durham and on Monday 28 February at Llandrindod Wells, Powys.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the impact of the concentration of RAF fast jet advanced flying training at RAF Valley on the amount of low flying in north Wales; and what research was carried out by his Department, prior to the decision to concentrate training at Valley, on(a) the effects on air traffic density and air safety and (b) the noise disturbance.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although every effort will be made to spread low flying sorties throughout the United Kingdom flying system, it is inevitable that with the concentration of fast jet advanced flying training at RAF Valley more use will be made of the airspace over north and mid Wales.

  Revision of procedures for the management of the local airspace will ensure that the effect of this increased air traffic is minimised and that air safety is not compromised.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low flying were received by his Department from addresses in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in each months since March 1993.
  819
  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of inquiries or complaints relating to military low flying training which my Department received during the period April 1993 to January 1994 from addresses in England, Wales and Scotland were as follows:

  Month

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1993

  April

  263

  30

  84

  May

  404

  54

  118

  June

  541

  53

  105

  July

  666

  83

  92

  August

  566

  70

  108

  September

  403

  70

  70

  October

  259

  35

  94

  November

  164

  29

  73

  December

  193

  34

  49

  1994

  January

  237

  27

  31

  Aircraft Movements
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft movements(a) by Hawk aircraft and (b) by other types of aircraft were recorded at RAF Valley in each of the last four years; and what is the projected number of Hawk movements per annum at RAF Valley after the transfer there of all RAF fast jet advanced flying training.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records of aircraft movements at RAF Valley are designated as either fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter. It is therefore not possible to give a precise figure on the number of movements recorded solely by Hawk aircraft during the last four years, although in the figures shown in the table for fixed-wing movements, the majority were flown by Hawks:

  Movements

  1993

  46,007

  1992

  60,771

  1991

  66,469

  1990

  62,007

  The number of movements flown by helicopters at RAF Valley during the last four years were as follows:

  Movements

  1993

  5,410

  1992

  6,827

  1991

  12,813

  1990

  14,846

  When advanced Hawk training is transferred to RAF Valley, the projected number of Hawk movements per annum will be in the order of 65,000.

  Institute of Community and Occupational Medicine
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles of all survey and research reports produced by the Royal Air Force Institute of Community and Occupational Medicine since 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1989 the RAF Institute of Health and Medical Training (RAF IHNT), formerly known as the 820
  Royal Air Force Institute of Community and Occupational Medicine (ICOM), has issued about 280 reports covering an extensive range of occupational and public health issues affecting the Royal Air Force worldwide. They include classified, in-confidence or otherwise sensitive subjects. All were produced solely for internal use within my Department and it would not be appropriate to release a complete list of titles.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current and planned activities of the Royal Air Force Institute of Community and Occupational Medicine relating to aircraft noise.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF Institute of Health and Medical Training's current research activities include investigation of the noise levels surrounding helicopter landing sites and development of criteria for classifying the effect of night-time helicopter noise. The institute is undertaking research with Salford university into the noise effects of light aircraft operations. It also provides a member for a working group which is examining the feasibility of a study to investigate the possible effects on health of noise from low flying aircraft.

  The institute has a number of research tasks planned in addition to the routine surveys of the noise contours around operational airfields. Future tasks include incorporating helicopter noise data into the AIRNOISE computer model and the calculation of noise from Chinook auxiliary power supply engines.

  Nuclear Test Participants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a health study of British nuclear test participants and their families in order to compare health and genetic records with the general population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has no plans for further studies regarding the British nuclear test veterans. As the recent National Radiological Protection Board report indicated that there was no risk to test participants, any effect on their families is therefore extremely unlikely.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he will take to ensure that cases of leukaemia and myeloma among British nuclear test participants are included in the studies of the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recently published NRPB study took account of cases of leukaemia and myeloma among British nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take following the recent publication of the National Radiological Protection Board report into mortality and incidence of cancer in British nuclear test participants.

  Mr. Hanley
  We have noted the recent NRPB report, which concluded that there was no health risk to test participants.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts have been undertaken to assess the health risk to persons(a) not wearing protective equipment, (b) with a blue book entry and (c) present at the

  821
  time of explosion, in connection with studies by the National Radiological Protection Board into British nuclear test participants.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recent NRPB report concluded that participation in the test programme had no detectable effect on participants' expectation of life or on their overall risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases.

  United Kingdom regular forces

  Year

  Royal Navy services

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Gurkhas

  Total including Gurkhas

  1979

  66,588

  92,899

  72,741

  742

  232,970

  1980

  65,631

  96,363

  76,066

  905

  238,965

  1981

  70,526

  96,653

  77,862

  1,258

  246,299

  1982

  66,727

  90,127

  75,102

  596

  232,552

  1983

  66,257

  88,977

  73,605

  1,167

  230,006

  1984

  62,644

  92,278

  75,523

  1,226

  231,671

  1985

  60,300

  93,021

  76,230

  1,226

  230,777

  1986

  59,899

  92,093

  76,285

  1,300

  229,577

  1987

  60,899

  90,616

  76,578

  1,201

  229,294

  1988

  58,704

  91,560

  75,902

  1,342

  227,508

  1989

  58,131

  88,481

  73,583

  1,170

  221,365

  1990

  54,957

  88,290

  72,668

  1,437

  217,352

  1991

  53,512

  82,392

  71,982

  1,373

  209,259

  1992

  53,884

  85,951

  70,835

  1,346

  212,016

  1993

  52,805

  82,605

  66,775

  1,397

  203,582

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  RAF Saxa Vord (Sewage Treatment)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much public money has been spent by the Ministry of Defence in maintenance, monitoring and repair of the sewage treatment works at RAF Saxa Vord since its completion in 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  Some £31,000 has been spent by the Ministry of Defence for the maintenance, monitoring and repair of the sewage treatment works at RAF Saxa Vord since its completion in 1989.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to the RAF of the installation of the sewage treatment plant at RAF Saxa Vord completed in November 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost to the RAF for the installation of the sewage treatment plant at RAF Saxa Vord was approximately £55,000.

  Noise Pollution (Compensation)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy with regard to compensation of residents living in close proximity to RAF bases in respect of increased or excessive noise pollution and if he will make a statement.

  Armed Services Personnel
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel there were, for each year since 1979, in each of the armed services operating in and from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of United Kingdom regular forces and Gurkhas stationed in the United Kingdom (as at 1 July 1993) were as follows:

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1985, following a detailed examination of noise created by military aircraft, it has been my Department's policy to offer sound insulation grants to the owners/occupiers of houses in the vicinity of operational airfields which fall within certain scientifically defined noise contours. In cases where noise exceeds a higher level, the Department may offer to acquire the particular property concerned. There is also scope to provide compensation for the depreciation in value of property resulting from the bringing into use of new public works.

  The Department's compensation scheme is a voluntary one but follows closely statutory schemes of the Department of Transport at civil airports.

  To date, more than 30 such schemes have been introduced; these are reviewed at five-yearly intervals unless operational changes are such that an earlier review is warranted.

  Nuclear Defence Capability (Test)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the United Kingdom's nuclear defence capability, in money terms and as a percentage of his Department's budget, for(a) his Department as a whole, (b) the Royal Navy, (c) the Army and (d) the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Estimated financial year 1993–94 outturn £ million

  Relevant percentage of grouping/total budget

  Royal Navy

  11,200

  22·00

  Army2

  —

  —

  RAF

  320

  0·36

  Total

  41,820

  7·80

  823
  Notes

  1 Direct capital and operating costs of Trident and Polaris.

  2 The Army does not operate nuclear weapons.

  3 Non warhead equipment, security and operating costs of the WE177.

  4Includes RN and RAF costs as shown, plus £600 million which falls to the Procurement Executive and Research Grouping.

  Civil Defence Force (Medals)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of the Civil Defence Force, 1939–45, are entitled to wear the defence medal; and to which other medal they are entitled.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Anyone who undertook certain civilian service in one of 50 different categories in the United Kingdom for a period of not less than three years between September 1939 and May 1945 may qualify for the defence medal; and these categories include relevant service in a number of organisations with the words "civil defence" in their title. I am arranging for copies of leaflets giving full details of those who may qualify to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Service qualifying for the defence medal does not as such confer entitlement to the award of any other medal.

  Communications Satellite
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present position with regard to the United Kingdom military communications satellite; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  A contract worth some £300m has been awarded today for the development, production and delivery in orbit of two Skynet 4 stage 2 military communication satellites. These will replace the existing Skynet 4 stage 1 satellites as they approach the end of their operational life.

  British Aerospace is prime contractor for this work. The main sub-contractors are Matra Marconi Space (UK) for satellite communications payload work and McDonnell Douglas and Arianespace for the launch vehicles. This is an important contract which will ensure the well-being of the United Kingdom's space industry and contribute to its long-term future.

  Mr. Gordon Foxley
  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 26 November,Official Report, column 240, if he will publish, or place in the Library, a copy of his letter on Mr. Gordon Foxley.

  Mr. Aitken
  Copies are now available in the House Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were in temporary employment; and what percentage they represented of total employees, in each region in each year since 1979.
  824
  Miss Widdecombe
  For years 1984 onwards, this information is available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and can be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons in receipt of unemployment benefit within the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow have been unemployed for(a) more than six months, (b) more than 12 months and (c) more than two years; and if he will give these figures for (i) men and (ii) women for each month since 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A count of the numbers of people claiming unemployment related benefits, by duration, is available on the unadjusted basis only. Information for the months of January, April, July and October can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in(a) Lewisham and (b) London were in temporary employment at the latest available date; and how many of them were women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Latest estimates from the Summer 1993 Labour Force Survey show that there were 196,000 people in temporary employment in Greater London, of which 109,000 were women. No information is available on the numbers in temporary employment in Lewisham.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his current estimate of the number of people in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Workforce in employment: Great Britain (Seasonally adjusted)

  Thousand

  Full time

  Part time

  September 1993

  17,427

  6,941

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 to 18-year-olds were undergoing apprenticeship training in(a) Lewisham and (b) London during each calendar year from 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information for the South East (which includes London) and for London separately on the estimated number of apprentices in spring of each year is given in the following table. No information is available for the Lewisham area.

  Number of 16 to 18-year-olds undergoing apprenticeship training ('000s)1

  Spring 1990

  Spring 1991

  Spring 1992

  Spring 1993

  South East (including London)

  45

  37

  38

  25

  London

  17

  12

  2—

  2—

  Source: Labour Force Survey

  1 This is based on the number of people reporting they were doing a recognised trade apprenticeship at the time they were interviewed.

  2 Less than 10,000 in cell; estimate not shown.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the trend
  825
  in the number of people in (a) Lewisham and (b) London availing themselves of youth training, including credits and training for work schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Participants on training (inc predecessor) programmes 1991–1993

  13 October 1991

  11 October 1992

  10 October 1993

  London

  Youth Training (including Youth Credits)

  16,900

  20,700

  19,500

  Employment Training

  12,700

  14,700

  —

  Employment Action

  1—

  4,000

  —

  High Technology National Training

  35

  2—

  —

  Training for Work

  —

  —

  19,000

  South Thames TEC

  Youth Training (including Youth Credits)

  1,900

  3,200

  2,800

  Employment Training

  2,200

  3,100

  —

  Employment Action

  0

  900

  —

  Training for Work

  —

  —

  3,500

  Source: TEC Operating Agreement (Annex J)

  1 Negligible number on Employment Action. Programme began operations on 1 October 1991.

  2 HTNT provision included in ET figures.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the percentage of young people aged 16 to 19 years who are (i) in full-time education, (ii) in training schemes, (iii) employed and (iv) unemployed in(a) Lewisham and (b) London.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Latest estimates from the summer 1993 Labour Force Survey (LFS) show that of all 16 to 19-year-olds in Greater London: 59 per cent. were in full-time education; 4 per cent. were employed in Government employment and training programmes; 17 per cent. were otherwise employed and not in full-time education; and 13 per cent. were ILO unemployed and not in full-time education. The Labour Force Survey also estimates that 76 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-olds in the London borough of Lewisham were in full-time education. The numbers of 16 to 19-year-olds in Lewisham sampled in the Labour Force Survey are too small to provide a reliable breakdown of their economic activity.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people would be registered as unemployed in January if the figures were treated on the same basis as 1978.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No official estimate is available and to produce one would involve speculation about economic, demographic and social changes that would serve no useful purpose.

  Industrial Accidents, Injuries and Illness
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial accidents, injuries and illness were recorded as requiring admission to hospital in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not collected annually but a special study of accidents collected in the General Household Survey during 1986–89, published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Home and Leisure Accident Research, 1991 data" indicates that each year, in Great Britain, the accident
  826
  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of people on youth training and training for work including predecessor programmes in 1991, 1992 and 1993 is given in the following table:

  and emergency departments in hospitals treat around 1·6 million people who are injured during working activities, including driving to work. There is no information on the number of industrial illnesses requiring admission to hospital.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost due to accidents, injuries and illness, which were work related, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Current occupational injury reporting legislation does not require information on the actual length of absence from work to be reported. However, the Health and Safety Executive sponsored a supplement of questions on workplace injury and ill health to the 1990 Labour Force Survey. It is estimated that in Great Britain, workers were incapacitated for work for 23·2 million days in the year to spring 1990 due to workplace injury. Of these, 22·8 million were lost due to injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrances Regulations. For work-related ill health, an estimated 750,000 workers were incapacitated for a total of 13 million days.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the annual cost, in lost production, benefit payments and lost revenue arising from industrial injuries, accidents and illness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Estimates of annual costs in benefit payments and lost revenue arising from industrial injuries, accidents and illness are not available.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of job vacancies referred to jobcentres by employers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On the seasonally adjusted basis there were 196,000 vacancies notified to United Kingdom jobcentres in January 1994. In the United Kingdom jobcentre vacancies account for about a third of the total.
  827
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of vacancies referred to jobcentres which are filled within(a) a day, (b) a week, (c) a month and (d) three months; and what significant regional variations there are in these average figures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the proportion of vacancies at any one point in time held by jobcentres.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is estimated that nationally Jobcentre vacancies represent about one third of all unfilled vacancies.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visits abroad the Minister of State made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 3 November 1993 at column 268 and to my subsequent letter to him of 17 January 1994, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  The information given to the hon. Member for Newport, East included information up to and including 26 October 1993. Since then, I have undertaken two further engagements overseas. The first to deliver the keynote address and attend a Council of Europe meeting in Malta at a cost of £5,451; the second, to accompany my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to a Social Affairs Council meeting in Brussels at a total cost of £3,403. These figures include the costs of accompanying officials.

  Aero-generators
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs are currently supported by(a) aero-generator manufacture, (b) aero-generator construction and (c) aero-generator operation and maintenance in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available separately. However, the latest census of employment results show that there were 156,000 people employed in the aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing industry in the United Kingdom in 1991.

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the money aimed at long-term unemployment from the EC structural funds will be spent on.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  EC assistance for the long-term unemployed is provided by the European social fund under objective 3 (which also covers several other priority groups). Following the adoption in July 1993 of new structural fund regulations for the period 1994–1999, a plan on the proposed use of objective 3 funds in Great Britain over that period was submitted to the EC Commission at the beginning of November; the Commission has not yet given a formal response.
  828
  The plan recognises that as the needs of the long-term unemployed vary, a range of provision is required, including work experience vocational training, job search facilities, and advice on job-finding and interview techniques. The aim will be to raise the skill levels, motivation and confidence of long-term unemployed people to enable them to compete more effectively in the labour market and to find and retain jobs.

  Working Conditions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve working conditions and workers' rights.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The United Kingdom has a substantial body of employment and health and safety legislation. This is kept under regular review to ensure that it continues to strike the right balance between the essential interests of workers and the need to keep to a minimum the burdens on business. In general, terms and conditions of employment are for negotiation and agreement between employers and employees without Government intervention.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Engineering Technology Advisory Committee
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Engineering Technology Advisory Committee.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Engineering Technology Research Committee was dissolved in October 1993.

  Hearing Aid Council
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Hearing Aid Council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since 1 January 1994, membership of the Hearing Aid Council has been:

  Chairman: Mr. William McKinnon Fernie

  Members representing the interests of registered hearing aid dispensers and their employers:

  Mr. Roger Evans

  Mr. Frank Holden

  Mr. Nigel King

  Mr. Robert Rendell

  Members representing the interests of persons with impaired hearing:

  Miss Jackie Blount

  Mr. Stephen Lloyd

  Mrs. Christine Martin

  Mrs. Patricia Thompson

  Members with specialised medical knowledge of deafness or audiological technical knowledge:

  Dr. Valeria Cleaver

  Mrs. Margaret Excell

  Professor Linda Luxon

  Dr. Ewa Raglan

  National Consumers Consultative Committee
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the National Consumers Consultative Committee.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department is not aware of any body by this name.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Persons Hearing Estate Agents Appeals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following is the list of people from which panels are appointed to hear appeals from decisions by the Director General of Fair Trading prohibiting or warning persons from doing estate agency work.

  Professor G. Hornsey LLM

  G. B. L. Brown BA

  J. W. Browne

  M. G. Clarke MA LLB

  J. A. G. Fiddes FRICS FISVA

  E. C. Lowson MBE BSc

  Dr. R. A. McCreadie LLB PhD

  J. Compass

  R. A. S. Sisterson FRICS

  Ms S. K. Ward BA

  D. S. McDonald FISVA ARVA PPIBA

  P. B. Robinson JP FNAEA LRSM

  D. W. Hay

  M. E. Channon

  Mrs. L. A. Service JP MA

  P. Simmonds

  P. R. V. Watkins FRICS

  R. Davis DPA

  P. W. Wilson JP FRICS FISVA

  Professor J. T. Farrand LLB LLD

  P. M. Leonard

  E A. Goodbody

  G G. Buckley

  D. M. Magennis FISVA FRICS

  H. J. Smith FISVA

  O. Edwards MBE JP

  Professor E. J. Griew MA LLB

  Professor D. Thompson LLB PhD

  M. St G. Arrowsmith MA

  Mrs H. Scott OBE JP BA LLB

  Professor B. W. Harvey MA LLB

  Professor D. L. Foulkes JP BA LLM

  British Hallmarking Council
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the British Hallmarking Council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current members of the British Hallmarking Council are as follows:

  Mr. R. S. Burman—(Chairman)

  Mr. S. L. Batiste, MP

  Mr. J. R. Bettinson

  Mr. R. D. Buchanan-Dunlop

  Mr. M. Durst

  The Baroness Fisher of Rednal

  Mr. P. E. M. Fuller

  Mr. R. G. Gowland

  Mrs. D. M. H. Inches Carr

  Mr. D. B. Inglis

  Miss R. D. T. McRobert

  Mr. T. Murray

  Mrs. S. P. Payne

  Mr. C. H. Perry

  Mr. E. S. Poyser

  Mr. A. M. Stirling

  Mr. R. V. Wright

  Car Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what share imported cars took of the United Kingdom car market in 1973; what they take currently; what forecasts were made in 1973 of the effect of EC 830
  membership on the British car industry; and by how much output and employment in the industry has changed since 1973.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am not aware of the forecasts to which the hon. Gentleman refers. A search of relevant literature would involve disproportionate cost.

  The available data are as follows:

  Year

  Imports as a percentage of UK car market

  Production (cars)

  Employment in motor vehicles and parts industry

  1973

  27

  1,747,321

  514,000

  1974

  28

  1,543,119

  500,000

  1975

  33

  1,267,695

  460,000

  1976

  38

  1,333,449

  451,000

  1977

  45

  1,327,820

  467,000

  1978

  49

  1,222,949

  474,000

  1979

  56

  1,070,452

  466,000

  1980

  57

  923,744

  437,000

  1981

  56

  954,650

  366,000

  1982

  58

  887,679

  318,000

  1983

  57

  1,044,597

  299,000

  1984

  58

  908,906

  281,000

  1985

  58

  1,047,973

  274,000

  1986

  56

  1,018,962

  266,000

  1987

  52

  1,142,683

  260,000

  1988

  56

  1,226,835

  271,000

  1989

  57

  1,299,082

  264,000

  1990

  57

  1,295,611

  249,000

  1991

  56

  1,236,900

  225,000

  1992

  55

  1,291,880

  234,000

  1993

  55

  1,375,200

  218,000

  Sources: Imports as a percentage of UK market and production figures are from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Employment figures are from the Department of Employment.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek assurances from BMW concerning its takeover of Rover.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter sent from BMW to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, a copy of the which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Timber and Pulp
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has as to the impact of timber and pulp imports into the United Kingdom on temperate rain forest areas in Canada; what quantity of timber and pulp originates from such sources; and if he will consider removing the favourable trade tariff awarded to imports of this kind from Canada.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1992 (the latest complete year for which data is available) the United Kingdom imported timber and pulp from Canada valued at £224,715,000. Imports from Canada do not receive any favourable tariff treatment. In any case, it is not open to the United Kingdom to alter the tariff on these products—that is a matter for the European Community, which has a common customs tariff. As for the impact of logging on temperature rain forest areas in Canada, that is a matter for the Canadian authorities, as principle 2 of the Rio declaration makes clear.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that any announcement about the future of Parcelforce will be made concurrently with announcements about the future of Royal Mail.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade makes announcements about policy. It is not his practice to make policies about announcements.

  Dress Sizes
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce a standard dress size in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Any new or revised British Standard is a matter primarily for the responsible Committee of the British Standards Institution. The Institution is independent of Government. I am advised that there are no plans to introduce a standard dress size in the United Kingdom. A British standard which provides for a system of designating the sizes of women's garments, BS3666 already exists. Except where special considerations such as safety apply, the Government's view is that the development, promotion and use of standards is best undertaken by industry itself, with the support of the British Standards Institution, in the light of consumer requirements in the market, on a voluntary basis.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the amount and reasons for unauthorised payments by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) on 2 February at column 772.

  The payments made to exporters were irregular because, although they were made on what was considered to be an appropriate basis for sharing recoveries, they were in excess of what we are now advised is the exporters' strict entitlement under the terms of the guarantee, and because no Treasury approval had been obtained for making what were therefore in effect ex-gratia payments.

  Tin Mining
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment was made, and when, with the costs of closure of the South Crofty tin mine in Cornwall on(a) employment, (b) related industries, (c) the environment and (d) the National Rivers Authority operation at Wheal Jane (i) by his Department and (ii) in conjunction with other Departments; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what cross-departmental cost-benefit analysis was undertaken of the possible impact before refusing Carnon Consolidated a further loan; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what assessment was made of the impact on Carnon Consolidateds tin mining operation of refusing its request for a further loan; and what conclusions were reached.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On 21 December 1993 Carnon's directors made a formal application to the Department for 832
  permission to draw additional monies from the existing loans, which had been made under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982; these loans were suspended in June 1990 on the grounds that the project was in jeopardy. When the application was made on 21 December 1993, the company's Directors were seeking an urgent decision in January 1994. Canon submitted financial and other information in support of its request.

  The decision to refuse further drawings from the loans was taken under the legal and financial criteria which apply to selective financial assistance under the 1982 Act, taking account of economic and employment considerations and the information available about the environmental implications. Assessment of the environmental issues is continuing.

  Because of the need to maintain commercial confidentiality, I cannot disclose the results of the Department's investigations. Discussions continue with the company on their plans and proposals.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent on the enterprise initiative since its inception in the north-east region of England.

  Mr. Eggar
  Total payments on enterprise initiative consultancy projects in the North East from the launch of the consultancy scheme in 1988 to the end of 1993 amounted to £11·1 million.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the visits that have been made by Trade and Industry Ministers to(a) Ecuador, (b) India, (c) Indonesia, (d) Jordan, (d) Malaysia, (f) Nigeria, (g) Oman, (h) Pakistan and (i) Thailand since June 1987; and what was the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on all overseas visits by Trade and Industry Ministers to these markets for any purpose since June 1987 could be made available only at disproportionate cost. The following Trade and Industry Ministers made trade promotion visits (to the markets referred to) in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Needham

  Thailand/Indonesia—June 1993

  Malaysia—September 1993

  Malaysia/Indonesia—November/December 1993

  India—November 1993

  Mr. Eggar

  Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia—September 1993

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board to Trade how many visits abroad the Minister for Energy made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Eggar
  During 1993 I made 12 visits abroad. The visits and their purposes are set out in the table, together with an estimate of the costs which covers travel and subsistence for me and those who accompanied me.

  Purpose/Place

  Cost

  £

  Energy Policy Seminar, Norway

  1,119·55

  Bilateral Discussions, France

  718·81

  Energy and Environment Council, Luxembourg

  1,802·52

  833

  Purpose/Place

  Cost

  £

  Offshore Technology Conference and Bilateral discussions, USA

  4,647·27

  Trade Promotion, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain

  5,950·38

  International Energy Authority and Bilateral discussions, France

  1,459·42

  Energy Council, Luxembourg

  3,187·95

  Trade Promotion, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand

  14,231·46

  Trade Promotion, Kazakhstan

  5,216·32

  Trade Promotion, Algeria

  1,851·33

  Energy Council, Belgium

  755·62

  Bilateral discussions, Norway

  884·00

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many visits abroad the Minister of State for Industry has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  During 1993 I made 17 visits abroad. The visits and their purposes are set out in the table together with an estimate of the costs which covers travel and subsistance for me and those who accompanied me.

  Purpose/Place

  Cost

  £

  Foreign Affairs Council, Brussels

  912·00

  Steel Council, Brussels

  1,045·20

  Foreign Affairs Council, Brussels

  1,045·20

  Informal Industry Council, Denmark

  1,796·40

  Inward Investment Promotion and Aerospace Sector Sponsorship, USA and Canada

  13,205·05

  Industry Council, Brussels

  1,045·20

  Speech at the Inauguration Ceremony for the European Transonic Windtunnel, Germany

  653·74

  Inward Investment Promotion and competitiveness, Japan

  18,479·83

  Foreign Affairs Council, Brussels

  1,065·60

  Bilaterals with Commissioners Millan and Van Miert to discuss Structural Funds, the Assisted Area Map and the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund

  1,072·62

  Foreign Affairs Council, Brussels

  1,072·62

  Agriculture and Trade Council, Brussels

  1,289·20

  Visit to Airbus, France

  855·00

  Inward Investment Promotion, Germany

  1,106·26

  Industry Council, Brussels

  1,528·20

  Bilaterals with Commissioners Millan and Van Miert to discuss Structural Funds and the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund

  1,251·60

  Steel Council, Brussels

  2,350·20

  Industry (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the administration costs of each of his Department's schemes of financial assistance to industry in each of the last five years(a) as a total cost and (b) as a proportion of the total individual scheme budget.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information in respect of the period I have been President of the Board of Trade is contained in form O of the Department's MINIS returns, which were placed in the Library of the House last July. Data is not available for the earlier years.

  Steel Mills
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy concerning overcapacity in the steel mills of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.
  834
  Mr. Sainsbury
  State subsidies are a major cause of EC over-capacity. The agreement reached at the December Industry Council will ensure both worthwhile capacity reductions and a much improved framework for the control of state aids.

  British Coal
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, when he next meets the chairman of British Coal, he will ask him to reply to the letters sent to him by the hon. Member for Normanton.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the chairman of British Coal replied to the hon. Member's letters on 11 February 1994.

  North Sea Gas
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his estimates of the date when progressive exhaustion of United Kingdom supplies of North sea gas, over the rate of proven discovery, has been or will be reached and, on the current rate of consumption, the quantities of energy at such dates that will be required from other sources to fill the consequential deficits.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows that the rate of proven discovery of gas on the United Kingdom continental shelf (as measured by the increase in proven reserves between the end of 1991 and the end of 1992) exceeded gas production in 1992 by 70 billion cubic metres. This indicates progressive enhancement rather than exhaustion.

  Gas on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf1

  Billion cubic metres

  1991

  1992

  Increase

  Proven2 reserves at end of period

  1,345

  1,465

  +120

  Cumulative production

  805

  855

  +50

  Remaining proven gas reserves

  540

  610

  +70

  1 Includes onshore and offshore discoveries.

  2 Proven reserves are defined as those which on the available evidence are virtually certain to be technically and economically producible (i.e. those reserves which have a better than 90 per cent, chance of being produced).

  Source: Table 4, Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom 1993, DTI.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that operators granted exemption under section 23 from section 3 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 comply with the PARCOM decision approved at a meeting at the Oslo and Paris Commissions on 22 September 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  Exemptions issued under section 23 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 (POPA '71), have conditions attached to them which require operators to report the level and quantity of oil discharged with drill cuttings. The conditions specify the target level which is in accordance with the PARCOM Decision 92/2, approved at the meeting at the Oslo and Paris Commissions on 22 September 1992.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many operators are bound by section 3 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971; how many have applied for exemption under section 23; and how many have made no application for exemption.
  835
  Mr. Eggar
  All 38 operators on the UKCS are bound by section 3 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971.

  During 1993, 21 operators applied and were granted Exemptions under section 3 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971.

  During 1993, 17 operators made no request for Exemption under section 3 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been made by companies for exemption under section 23, from section 3 of the

  Company

  Year

  Total cuttings tonnes

  Average oil content—grammes of oil per kilogramme of cuttings

  Agip

  1993

  1,358·7

  86

  Amerada Hess

  1993

  5,549·5

  76

  Arco

  1993

  1,606

  84

  BP

  1993

  10,336·4

  83

  Chevron

  1993

  1,758

  69

  Conoco

  1993

  4,581·9

  72

  Fina

  1993

  751·1

  70

  Hamilton

  1993

  1,515·1

  10

  Keer McGee

  1993

  1,743·3

  93

  Lasmo

  1993

  672·8

  84

  Marathon

  1993

  1,459

  90

  Mobil

  1993

  1,586·9

  95

  MSR

  1993

  1,244·7

  89

  Phillips

  1993

  2,595·4

  77

  Shell

  1993

  2,919·1

  93

  Texaco

  1993

  1,247·9

  68

  TOTAL

  1993

  2,366

  57

  Oil Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he used in deciding to exclude from the 14th licensing round 35 blocks identified as highly sensitive but nominated for inclusion by the oil industry; and if he will list the blocks.

  Mr. Eggar
  Decisions on whether to offer environmentally sensitive blocks for licence in the 14th Round were taken on the basis of the following criteria:whether the environmental sensitivities identified could be protected by imposing strict conditions on any licences awarded;
  whether there were objections to the licensing of the block from other Government Departments and the combination of restrictions would have made exploration impractical; and the degree of company interest in the blocks.

  Since other Departments' objections were provided in confidence, I am unable to list the blocks.

  Pension Plans
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what information he has as to the number of pension providers that have made provision for claims against them in respect of possible mis-selling of personal pension plans; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what advice he has given to pension providers to show in their accounts appropriate provision against possible claims in respect of alleged mis-selling of personal pension plans; and if he will make a statement;
  836
  Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971; how many applications have been granted; and how many have been refused.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 178 applications were made during 1993. All were granted.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each exemption granted under section 23 from section 3 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, the operator, the year, the volume of discharged cuttings and the measured oil content of discharged cuttings.

  Mr. Eggar
  A list showing operators and the total volume of discharged cuttings and oil content for the year 1993 is as follows:

  (3) what information he has as to the total amount provided by the life assurance industry against claims in respect of alleged mis-selling of personal pension plans.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department has written to life offices to ask them to indicate their likely exposure to compensation in respect of mis-selling of personal pensions, and to provide guidance on how the Department expects life offices to reserve for any such exposure in future Companies Act accounts and DTI returns. The Securities and Investments Board are seeking to determine the extent of the mis-selling. The position will not be clear until that review is completed. However, where life offices consider that they are likely to have a liability or a contingent liability, the Department expects this to be recognised in the published accounts.

  Textile Tariffs
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his discussions with Sir Leon Brittan and others concerning the level of tariffs being levied on textiles by India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Korea.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: In contacts with the commission on the Uruguay round market access negotiations, United Kingdom ministers and officials have underlined our concern that the Commission should take every opportunity to press the Governments of India, Pakistan and Indonesia to improve their offers in respect of textiles and clothing. The European Commission

  837
  has made clear its determination to continue negotiations to improve market access offers, if necessary until ministers sign the GATT Final Act in April. As far as Korean tariff increases on wool fabrics are concerned, I have written to the Korean Finance and Trade Industry ministers to express my concern.

EDUCATION

  Surplus Places
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest assessment of the number of surplus places in each of(a) the London boroughs and (b) the Greater Manchester boroughs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has not collected comprehensive information on surplus school places since the survey in 1991 from which were derived the figures given in reply to a similar question from the hon. Member on Wednesday 28 April 1993.

  We intend to make regulations later this year under section 21 of the Education Act 1993 requiring all LEAs and, where it has relevant responsibilities, the new Funding Agency for Schools, to submit information to the Secretary of State annually, beginning in 1994, on surplus places in LEA maintained and grant-maintained schools respectively.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the number of grant-maintained schools at(a) primary and (b) secondary level, set out by parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not at present hold a full list of locations of grant-maintained schools by parliamentary constituency. One is to be compiled shortly and I will send a copy to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the cost of special purpose grants—transitional—to grant-maintained schools in England in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Total spending on transitional grants to self-governing—grant maintained—schools in each year since 1991–92 has been as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  11991–92

  5·3

  11992–93

  10·4

  21993–94

  23·0

  1 Outturn.

  2 Estimated outturn.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the current arrangements for funding grant-maintained schools in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Grant-maintained schools in Essex are receiving funding in 1993–94 based on their entitlement under the local education authority's local management of schools scheme, plus additional sums to reflect their 838
  additional responsibilities. My right hon. Friend announced on 14 February his intention to introduce a common funding formula for funding GM schools in Essex and four other LEAs in 1994–95.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the proportion of the total number of pupils in Essex at(a) primary school and (b) secondary school who are attending grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Essex has the highest percentage of primary school pupils being educated in grant-maintained schools at 12 per cent of the total, and the third highest proportion of secondary school pupils with 64 per cent.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) secondary and (b) primary schools in Essex have become grant maintained; and how many applications to become grant maintained are outstanding.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are 63 secondary and 55 primary schools operating with grant-maintained status in Essex. A further four secondary and 15 primary schools are currently approved to become grant-maintained on 1 April. Three secondary and two primary schools have published proposals following a yes vote and are awaiting a decision.

  Autism
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make a statement about the provision made by each local education authority for children with autism; and what steps he is taking to ensure that children with such difficulties are identified and helped appropriately;

  (2) what information he has on the extent of under-identification of children with autism;

  (3) how many children have been diagnosed as having autism problems in each local education authority area; how many have had statements in each of the past five years; and what estimate he has made of the number of children with autism problems who have not been identified and provided for appropriately;

  (4) how many children have been diagnosed as having autism problems required special educational support in each local education authority area in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Under the Education Acts 1981 and 1993 it is the responsibility of schools and LEAs to identify, assess and make provision for children with special educational needs, including those with autism. The Secretary of State intends, subject to the approval of Parliament, to issue a code of practice which will give practical guidance to schools and local education authorities on the identification and assessment of all children with special educational needs.

  The Department for Education and the Department of Health are currently sponsoring a research project by the University of Nottingham into the education and treatment of children with autism in England and Wales. The researchers, assuming a prevalence rate of six per 10,000, estimate that there are in the region of 7,800 children with autism in England and Wales. Of these, approximately 1,000 children attend schools or units which specialise in

  839
  teaching children with autism. We await the report of the second stage of the research project which aims to evaluate the main types of provision for young autistic children.

  Bullying
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given to(a) bullying in school, (b) inadequate playground supervision of children and(c) the provision of appropriate training for all staff in schools on how to handle bullying; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Head teachers are responsible for maintaining discipline and good behaviour in schools. The Government expect them to deal firmly with bullying and to make appropriate arrangements for supervision of children and for staff training. To help them, the Department issued practical advice in the form of "Action Against Bullying" packs to all schools in England in July 1992. We are considering whether further advice would be helpful. Local education authorities have also had the opportunity to bid for support for whole-school action on bullying under the "Truancy and Disaffected Pupils" category of the Department's grants for education support and training, GEST, schemes for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Further Education Colleges, Coventry
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much expenditure has been incurred by each of Coventry's further education colleges in legal costs since incorporation; and what are the comparable figures for the 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Boswell
  Neither the Department nor the Further Education Funding Council collects information on college expenditure at the level of detail necessary to enable the amounts spent on legal advice to be identified. In the year to 1 April 1993 legal costs incurred by Coventry's further education colleges were met by the city council, which is unable to disaggregate the information from overall costs.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to,his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 168–69, if he will provide information showing the proportion of sixth form students in schools and colleges by local education authority area, in sixth forms with (a) fewer than 50 students, (b) 50 to 100 students and (c) 100 to 150 students.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Percentage of sixth form pupils in sixth forms by size in LEA-maintained secondary schools in each local education authority in England January 1993

  Sixth forms by size

  LEA

  Less than 50 pupils

  50–100 pupils

  101–150 pupils

  Corporation of London (1)

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  2

  0

  19

  Greenwich

  6

  20

  26

  Hackney

  0

  0

  100

  Hammersmith

  50

  50

  0

  Islington

  0

  61

  39

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  840

  Sixth forms by size

  LEA

  Less than 50 pupils

  50–100 pupils

  101–150 pupils

  Lambeth

  23

  0

  77

  Lewisham

  2

  50

  28

  Southwark

  0

  100

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  4

  32

  0

  Wandsworth

  10

  18

  0

  Westminster

  0

  8

  22

  Barking

  0

  30

  13

  Barnet

  0

  12

  23

  Bexley

  4

  16

  25

  Brent

  0

  25

  16

  Bromley

  0

  23

  53

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  25

  0

  0

  Enfield

  0

  7

  18

  Haringey

  0

  22

  58

  Harrow (1, 2)

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  7

  43

  Hillingdon

  10

  13

  40

  Hounslow

  0

  4

  51

  Kingston upon Thames

  4

  19

  22

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  33

  0

  25

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  9

  Richmond upon Thames (1)

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  26

  16

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  100

  Birmingham

  2

  8

  25

  Coventry

  1

  16

  36

  Dudley

  0

  0

  100

  Sandwell

  0

  26

  14

  Solihull

  0

  0

  26

  Walsall

  4

  26

  30

  Wolverhampton

  11

  30

  22

  Knowsley

  8

  28

  26

  Liverpool

  4

  20

  39

  St. Helens

  0

  7

  26

  Sefton

  0

  15

  19

  Wirral

  0

  20

  9

  Bolton

  5

  0

  13

  Bury (1, 2)

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  10

  25

  0

  Oldham

  15

  31

  13

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  19

  Salford (1, 2)

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  26

  74

  Tameside

  0

  100

  0

  Trafford

  0

  10

  15

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  6

  14

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  18

  Sheffield

  2

  6

  15

  Bradford

  0

  8

  12

  Calderdale

  0

  23

  39

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  28

  Leeds

  7

  12

  18

  Wakefield

  0

  9

  13

  Gateshead

  0

  17

  17

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2

  24

  17

  North Tyneside

  0

  14

  46

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly(1)

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  4

  20

  22

  Bedfordshire

  0

  2

  8

  Berkshire

  1

  10

  31

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  10

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  4

  3

  Cheshire

  1

  12

  40

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  28

  Cornwall

  0

  6

  11

  Cumbria

  6

  21

  47

  Derbyshire

  0

  2

  17

  Devon

  0

  5

  31

  Dorset

  1

  2

  10

  Durham

  0

  20

  30

  841

  Sixth forms by size

  LEA

  Less than 50 pupils

  50–100 pupils

  101–150 pupils

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  43

  Essex

  2

  4

  25

  Gloucestershire

  2

  14

  25

  Hampshire

  0

  15

  30

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  11

  35

  Hertfordshire

  0

  26

  33

  Humberside

  2

  6

  37

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  13

  Kent

  6

  10

  9

  Lancashire

  0

  2

  28

  Leicestershire

  0

  2

  8

  Lincolnshire

  0

  17

  26

  Norfolk

  1

  2

  10

  North Yorkshire

  1

  3

  34

  Northamptonshire

  0

  17

  21

  Northumberland

  0

  3

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  21

  49

  Oxfordshire

  0

  6

  40

  Shropshire

  0

  17

  41

  Somerset

  1

  7

  9

  Staffordshire

  1

  28

  31

  Suffolk

  0

  4

  16

  Surrey

  0

  10

  19

  Warwickshire

  0

  9

  21

  West Sussex

  0

  4

  17

  Wiltshire

  0

  3

  28

  England

  2

  11

  24

  (1) In January 1993 these LEAs did not maintain secondary schools with a sixth form.

  (2) In January 1993 these LEAs maintained sixth form colleges only.

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Boswell
  The following information is recorded:

  Description of item

  Approximate value (£)

  1991

  Printer cable

  15

  RM Nimbus 386SX PC

  1,200

  Toshiba T1000 Portable PC

  800

  1992

  HP Deskjet Printer

  300

  Compaq Laptop PC

  2,000

  Portable PC (type not recorded)

  2,000

  Mitsubishi colour printer

  4,000

  Compaq LTE20 Portable PC

  2,000

  Compaq LTE20 Portable PC

  2,000

  HPII Laser printer

  1,000

  1993

  Compaq Portable PC

  2,000

  Compaq Contura Portable PC

  2,000

  Toshiba T3300SL Portable PC

  2,000

  In addition the following items belonging to the Department where stolen whilst on loan to Local Education Authorities.

  RM Nimbus PC CPU

  1,000 (December 1991)

  PC (type not recorded) x2

  2,000 (July 1992)

  RM Nimbus 386 PC

  1,000 (December 1993)

  Prospect School, Berkshire
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what undertakings have been given to Prospect school, Berkshire, in relation to funding under the technology college initiative.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Prospect school submitted an application for technology college status to the Department on 19 January. No undertakings have been given by the Department to the school in relation to the outcome of this application, nor to funding under the technology college initiative.

  Holdback Grant
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will outline the conditions for the release of holdback grant to further education colleges.

  Mr. Boswell
  Colleges within the further education sector will be required to give the FEFC an assurance that their governing body is satisfied that all contracts of employment entered into with newly employed staff on or after 1 April 1994 provide adequate flexibility for the college to make proper use of its resources, both human and material, throughout the week and year in accordance with the institution's and its customers' needs. In the case of colleges which, immediately prior to entering the further education sector, were maintained or assisted by a local education authority, this assurance will need to include confirmation that all contracts of employment entered into with newly appointed teachers or lecturers on or after 1 April 1994 are significantly different from those used by the maintaining or assisting LEA immediately before the college entered the further education sector. In both cases, the FEFC will ask colleges to sign a declaration that they have met the condition.

  Colleges Employers Forum
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what legal advice he has received on the contents of the letter from the Minister for Further and Higher Education to the Colleges Employers Forum of 8 February; and what plans he has to revise the letter in the light of legal advice and recent pay settlements.

  Mr. Boswell
  I wrote the letter on advice from my Department. The letter was sent five days after the Prime Minister's announcement of proposed pay increases for the review body groups, including school teachers, and in full knowledge of it. I have no intention or revising the letter.

  Education Bill
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the Education Bill[Lords] since 7 December; and what plans he has to amend or withdraw the proposals contained therein.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has had a variety of representations. As my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State made clear on 10 February,Official Report, House of Lords, column 133, we are holding discussions with the representative bodies of the further and higher education institutions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to each of the regional flood defence committees.

  Mr. Jack
  Current ministerial appointees to regional flood defence committees in England are as follows:

  Anglian

  Mr. John S. Martin OBE, Mr. John C. Childs JP

  Mr. Hugh A. Duffield, Dr. Martin George OBE

  Mr. William E. Grant, Mr. David J. Riddington

  Mr. William H. R. Squier

  Northumbria

  Mr. Edward A. Wrangham, Mr. John W. Gibson

  Mr. Roger S. P. Howell, The Hon. Andrew H. Joicey

  Mrs. Alison J. Lough, Mr. David G. H. Stewart

  North West

  Mr. William M. Wannop OBE, Mr. Keith Bury

  Mr. Peter M. Entwhistle, Mr. Sidney D. Hill

  Mr. Rowland J. W. Slack

  Severn-Trent

  Mr. Charles G. Hawthorne, Mr. Jeremy R. Chamberlayne

  Mr. John Dainty OBE, Mr. Derwas A. Dale

  Mr. Andrew J. L. Fraser, Mrs Joyce Gilman

  Mr. John G. Markwick, Mr. Martin R. Prosser

  Southern

  Mr. Christopher D. Neame, Dr. Timothy J. H. Bines

  Mr. Ian R. F. Hammond, Mr. David G. L. Monnington

  Mr. Howard J. Richards, Mr. Timothy J. Sobey

  South West

  Mr. Gerald Manning OBE, Miss Deborah J. Clark

  Mr. Michael R. Hughes, Mr. Mark Robins

  Mr. Michael J. Stanbury, Mr. Richard A. Waller

  Thames

  Mr. Michael Davies OBE, Mrs. Clare E. Broom

  Dr. Yvonne O. Barton, Mr. Arnold Q. Hitchcock CBE

  Mr. Jeremy B. Joseph, Mr. John G. Peel

  Mr. Hugh Scantlebury, Mrs. Jean Venables

  Wessex

  Mr. Ralph H. Baker, Mr. John B. Bush

  Mr. Stanley H. Chedzoy, Mr. Roger J. A. Martin

  Mr. Roger Willis

  Yorkshire

  Mr. Thomas D. Collier, Mrs. Joan M. Burnett

  Mr. Barry R. Croft, Mr. John R. Welford

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  Current members, appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales and myself, are as follows:

  Professor J. S. Marsh (Chairman)

  Mrs. J. E. Thomas

  Sir John Wordie

  Mr. H. Hughes

  Mrs. J. Gove

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Food Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Soames
  Current membership of the Food Advisory Committee is:844

  Dr. E. S. Page (Chairman)

  Professor D. L. Georgala (Deputy Chairman)

  Dr. M. Ashwell

  Mr. R. Evans

  Mrs. A. J. Hardinge

  Professor R. M. Hicks

  Mr. R. Manly

  Miss P. Mann

  Mr. P. A. Martin

  Mrs. J. Moore

  Dr. R. Pugh

  Ms B. Saunders

  Dr. J. V. Stevens

  Dr. R. G. Whitehead

  Professor H. F. Woods

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Home-Grown Cereals Authority.

  Mr. Jack
  The full membership of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority is currently as follows:

  Independent Members

  Mr. Brian Nelson CBE (Chairman)

  Professor Gordon Dickson (Deputy Chairman)

  Mrs. Valerie Boakes

  Members Representing the Interests of Growers of Home-Grown Cereals

  Mr. James Atkinson

  Miss Helen Browning

  Mr. Richard Butler

  Mr. Jeremy Dillon-Robinson

  Mr. David George OBE

  Mr. John McKee

  Mr. Ian McLaren

  Mr. John Moor

  Mr. Michael Pearson

  Members Representing the Interests of Dealers and Processors of Home-Grown Cereals

  Mr. Michael Adams

  Mr. James Clark

  Mr. Ken Hairs

  Mr. Pat Lake

  Dr. Archie McFarquhar

  Mr. Bill Niven

  Mr. George Parker

  Mr. Robin Pirie

  Mr. Eric Ross

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Covent Garden Market Authority.

  Mr. Jack
  Members currently appointed to the Covent Garden Market Authority are:

  Mr. W. P. Bowman OBE, (Chairman)

  Mr. J. A. Harvey CBE

  Mr. P. J. Hunt

  Sir Peter Reynolds CBE

  Mr. R. Smith OBE

  Mrs. A. M. Vinton

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to each of the agricultural land tribunals (England).

  Mr. Jack
  The appointed members who act as chairmen of the Agricultural Land Tribunal in England are:

  Eastern Area

  Mr. C. H. Beaumont

  Mr. R. Ashton

  Mr. A. G Don

  Midlands Area

  His Honour Judge Lee QC

  845

  Mr. M. L. Brent QC

  Mr. M. Kingston

  Mr. J. E. Mitting

  Mr. P. Beasdale

  Northern Area

  Mr. K. J. Fisher

  Mr. W. H. R. Crawford QC

  Mr. B. E. Capstick QC

  South Eastern Area

  Mr. P. A. de la Piquerie

  Mr. P. P. Bowcock

  South Western Area

  Mr. G. L. Newsom

  Western Area

  Mr. W. D. Greenwood

  Mr. J. A. Hodgson

  His Honour Judge Harry Walker

  Yorkshire/Humberside Area

  His Honour Judge Robert Taylor

  Mr. D. W. Davy

  Mr. J. Hampton

  For each case heard by the tribunal, the chairman nominates two lay members. These are drawn from a landowners panel (116 members), a farmers panel (129 members) and/or a land drainage panel (28 members).

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Hill Farming Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is as follows:

  Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Mr. Alun Evans, OBE (Deputy Chairman)

  Mr. Charles Armstrong

  Mr. Henry Bainbridge

  Mr. Philip Cornelius

  Mrs. Anthea Cowan

  Mr. John Dowson

  Mrs. Joyce Gilman

  Mrs. Gwenfair Jones

  Mr. Edmund Morphet

  Mrs. Rosemary Mudge

  Dr. Thomas Roskilly

  Mr. John Sayer

  Mr. John Tamplin

  Mr. Campbell Tweed

  Mr. John Vaughan

  Sub-Committee for Wales

  Mr. Alun Evans, OBE (Chairman)

  Mr. Henry Bainbridge

  Mr. Richard Howells

  Mrs. Gwenfair Jones

  Mr. Cyril Lewis

  Mr. William Lloyd

  Mr. John Price

  Mr. Colin Pugh

  Mr. John Tamplin, OBE

  Mr. John Vaughan

  The Chairman of the main committee is the Earl Howe, Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Horticultural Development Council.

  Mr. Jack
  Members currently appointed to the Horticultural Development Council are:

  Mrs. M. Charrington (Chairman)

  Mr. D. J. Barney

  Mr. E. J. Evans

  846

  Mr. R. T. Hillier

  Mr. M. G. Holmes

  Mr. H. B. Lowe

  Mr. T. P. Maxey

  Mr. P. J. Middlebrook

  Mr. R. Murdy

  Mrs. M. F. Regan

  Mr. P. H. Shephard, MBE

  Mr. T. P. M. Thomson

  Mr. N. Vrijland

  Mr. A. T. Wood

  Mr. Kifoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Milk and Dairies Tribunal (England).

  Mr. Jack
  The members appointed to the Milk and Dairies Tribunal (England) are:

  Mr. James A. O. Aboaba

  Councillor Mrs. Doris Martyna Ansari JP

  Lady Elizabeth Audrey Anson (Chairman)

  Mr. Ronald B. Ballard

  Councillor Eric Bielby

  Councillor Jack Blakey

  Mrs. Claire Bushby

  Mr. Thomas H. Bradley

  Mr. David Brown

  Mrs. Margaret Elaine Carrington (Chairman)

  Mr. William Hugh Clements

  Mr. Laurence Stanley Crabtree

  Mr. Raymond Stephenson Cranfield

  Mr. Anthony Dixon

  Mr. Robert Domleo

  Mr. Peter Allen Duckworth

  Mr. Alexander Martin Dyke

  Mrs. Ruth Elizabeth Eades

  Mr. G. H. Eggleston

  Mrs. Barbara Jean Ellerton JP

  Mr. George Roland Fawdry

  Mrs. Ann Golightly

  Mr. Francis John Gosling

  Mr. E. G. Harris

  Mr. Richard Harrison

  Mr. Francis Ivor Harvey

  Mrs. Elizabeth Hodder

  Councillor Mrs. Phyllis Margaret Hogarth

  Mr. Ronald Thomas Holland

  Mr. John Ray Horrell

  Mr. William Sidney Hounsell

  Mr. David John House

  Mr. Peter Gwynne Hutchinson

  Mr. Stanley Charles Jeanes

  Mr. Pryce William Jewell

  Mrs. Edna Dorothy Keen

  Mr. Albert V. Kerr

  Mr. Andrew Lammie

  Mrs. Jean Mary Lang

  Mrs. Susan Margaret Latter

  Mr Edward Lloyd

  Mrs. Susan Joy Marshfield JP

  Mr. George Rigby Mason

  Mr. John Edward Matthews

  Mrs. Mary M. McArdle

  Mr. Alastair David McCormack

  Mr. Anthony B. Merriman

  Mrs. Evelyn Mary Milton

  Councillor Mrs. Ann Mugford

  Mr. William Howard Organ

  Mrs. Jennifer Margaret Papadopulos JP

  Mr. Roger David Parkin

  Mr. Frank Richard Platts

  Mr. William Gordon Proud

  Mr. Gordon John Reynolds

  Mr. John Lydon Richards (Chairman)

  Mr. John Robert Richardson FIH ASVA

  Mr. David Ian Risk

  Mr. Peter C. W. Ritchie

  Mr. William Harold Robinson

  Mrs. Judith Round

  Mr. Andrew Henry Rutherford

  847

  Mr. Kevin Alfred Shaw

  Mrs. Mary Ross Shephard MBE

  Mr. John Anthony Siggs

  Mr. Basil J. Silver

  Mr. John Desmond Spence

  Mrs. Susanne Hilary Spence

  Councillor Mrs. Elizabeth Eleanor Still JP BA MPhil

  Mr. Peter Henry Thompson

  Mr. Thoman Anthony Twigg

  Mr. Charles W. Wharton

  Mrs. Sheila Kathleen Wormleighton

  Mr. John Barrett Wright

  Correspondence
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Sherwood may expect a reply to his letters dated 16 December 1993 and 16 January 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend replied to the hon. Member's letters on 11 February 1994.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is responsible for ensuring the welfare provisions of animals being transported across the EC for slaughter are adhered to.

  Mr. Soames
  Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport requires each member state to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions are given to her veterinary department for checking that (i) journey times for farm animals to be exported from the United Kingdom are properly completed, (ii) that such animals are fit to travel and (iii) animals being exported for slaughter in Spain are being sent to abbattoris which comply with the EU directive requiring animals to be stunned before slaughter; how many times since 1 January 1993 her veterinary department has failed to follow these instructions; and what steps she has taken to ensure that future failures will be avoided.

  Mr. Soames
  All farm animals sent to another member state are inspected for fitness to travel by a veterinary surgeon appointed by the Government. For journeys likely to take more than 15 hours the exporter is required to submit to the Department in writing the arrangements which have been made to rest, feed and water the animals.

  The Government lifted the restrictions on exports to Spain in January 1993 after an agreement had been reached with the Spanish authorities to send animals only to those abattoirs which they have confirmed to be applying Community welfare rules. In December the Government agreed further safeguards with the Spanish authorities. Details of all consignments are sent to Spain so the authorities may check that animals arrive at the destinations declared by British exporters. No consignments of animals have been sent to Spain for slaughter this year.

  On two occasions last year consignments were exported where the agreed procedures, to ensure that the slaughterhouses of destination were on the approved list, were not followed. This was due to a regrettable error. The procedures for authorising all export journeys have been reviewed and fresh instructions have been issued to the state veterinary service.

  Pig Meat
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what action she is taking in her communications with the European Commission to prevent the subsidies given by certain EC member countries on the production of pig meat; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what representations she has received about the difficulties being experienced by United Kingdom pig producers due to the dumping of exported pig meat by France, Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received representations from hon. Members on behalf of constituents and from individual pig producers and their representative bodies. I will shortly be meeting the British Pig Association. They are all concerned about the state of the European Community pigmeat market and allegations of illegal national aids in some member states.

  The current low prices are caused by high levels.of supply on the pigmeat market resulting from industry expansion in most member states, including the United Kingdom. Prices are low throughout the single market.

  Although there are rumours of illegal aids to pig producers in other member states, we only have firm evidence in respect of a scheme in France. My right hon. Friend has written to the European Commission twice urging that an early decision be made on the legal status of this aid in accordance with article 93 of the treaty and that the appropriate action then be taken. She has also twice raised the matter in the Council of Ministers and the United Kingdom delegation has raised it at every pigmeat management committee from September.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research her Department has commissioned into the correlation between the incidence of BSE and the use of organophosphorous pesticides.

  Mr. Soames
  When BSE was first indentified in 1986 a detailed epidemiological investigation was carried out to identify possible sources of the disease. This included an examination of any possible correlation betweeen BSE and exposure of cattle to organophophorus compounds but it was concluded, on the basis of those studies, that there was no such correlation and that the only positive correlation to be found was in relation to animal feed which contained ruminant protein. This resulted in the ban on the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants in July 1988 which has now resulted in a marked decline in the incidence of the disease in younger animals and an overall 15 per cent. decline in the number of cases reported compared with the same period last year.

  In January scientists from the Department, the Department of Health and the Agriculture and Food Research Council met Mr. Purdey to consider his views on the role of organophosphorus in the origins of the BSE epidemic and had a full discussion with him on the evidence that he put forward. Although it was agreed to consider some of the points covered in more detail, no formal research has been commissioned as a result of that very recent meeting.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suspected cases of BSE
  849
  were placed under restriction by a Ministry veterinarian in respect of which the restrictions were subsequently cancelled by another Ministry veterinarian, for each month, from February 1992 to November 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of suspect cases of BSE in Great Britain which were placed under restrictions by Ministry veterinary officers, and from which restrictions were subsequently removed, from February 1992 to November 1993 are as follows:

  Month of report

  Number

  February 1992

  127

  March 1992

  146

  April 1992

  145

  May 1992

  153

  June 1992

  159

  July 1992

  125

  August 1992

  143

  September 1992

  173

  October 1992

  142

  November 1992

  119

  December 1992

  146

  January 1993

  118

  February 1993

  142

  March 1993

  202

  April 1993

  197

  May 1993

  181

  June 1993

  144

  July 1993

  128

  August 1993

  148

  September 1993

  153

  October 1993

  136

  November 1993

  133

  The information as to whether restrictions were lifted by a different Ministry veterinary officer to the one by whom they were served could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The annual fluctuations in the rate at which restrictions are lifted reflect farm management practices which precipitate the onset of diseases with some clinical signs that are similar to those of BSE, but where treatment results in recovery.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have died or been destroyed as a result of BSE since 1990.

  Mr.Soames
  From 1991 to 1993 inclusive, 111,878 cattle have been slaughtered in Great Britain because BSE was suspected. In the same period 963 cattle in which BSE was suspected died while under restrictions or between report to the Ministry and examination by a veterinary officer.

  Farm Animals (Export)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm animals were exported from the United Kingdom in 1993(a) for slaughter and (b) for further fattening.

  Mr. Soames
  Because of delays following the introduction of the Intrastat system details of the total numbers of live animals exported in 1993 are not yet available. It is not possible to say when they will become available, but when they do I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Fishermen
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures she is taking to ensure uniformity of treatment between British and French fishermen in the current market.
  850
  Mr. Jack
  I set out in a previous reply on 14 February at col.586 the steps that I and my hon. Friend have taken to help our fishermen and exporters maintain their access to the French market in the face of the disgraceful intimidation to which they have been subjected. I look to the European Commission to scrutinise the compatibility of the French government's new aid package with the rules on state aids.

  Whales
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many different species of whales currently exist; and what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the measures available to protect them.

  Mr. Jack
  There are at least 78 species of cetaceans currently in existence, of which 12 are commonly referred to as "great" whales. Under European Community legislation there is a de facto ban on commercial whaling within the Community. Globally, responsibility for the conservation of whales rests with the International Whaling Commission where the United Kingdom works actively to secure effective measures for the conservation and protection of all whale species and strongly supports the current moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Banana Producers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make it her policy to negotiate a transferable banana quota for the Windward Islands.

  Mr. Jack
  We have already pressed the Commission on the need for a transferable banana quota for the Windward Islands. This is not, however, provided for in the Council regulation establishing the EC bananas regime. If changes in that regulation become necessary we shall continue to seek quota transferability between the Windward Islands.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will press for the implementation of the guarantees enshrined in protocol IV, of Lomé IV for the banana producers of the Caribbean.

  Mr. Jack
  The EC bananas regime negotiated under the United Kingdom presidency already ensures access for imports of bananas from the Caribbean and from other African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) producers into the Community in accordance with the provisions of the Lomé convention.

  Organic Farming
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met representatives of the organic farming lobby to discuss the implementation of the organic aid scheme in England.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the organic farming movement on 15 November 1993. It was agreed that there should be further discussions with officials and another ministerial meeting in the spring concentrating on the role of organic farming in relation to reform of the European Community's common agricultural policy.

  Sea Mammal Research Unit (Guidelines)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when her Department received from the Department of the Environment draft guidelines prepared by the sea mammal research unit on precautions to minimise acoustic disturbance to small cetaceans; which bodies or organisations it has consulted or asked to comment on the guidelines; and what plans she has to consult non-governmental bodies on the guidelines.

  Mr. Jack
  A preliminary draft of the guidelines was made available to MAFF officials on 13 December 1993. A working party established by the Department of the Environment is currently preparing a further draft which will be discussed by other Government Departments with an interest in seismic testing and the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North sea. At that stage, as the Minister for the Environment and Countryside explained to the hon. Member on 28 January at column 341, a decision will be taken on whether to consult more widely.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will place in the Library a copy of the Lebrecht report on the State Veterinary Service.

  Mr. Soames
  The Lebrecht review of the department's animal health and veterinary group, which includes the state veterinary service, is concerned with its management, and it is not appropriate to publish its recommendations. However, staff and other interested parties will be consulted about any consequential changes my right hon. Friend is minded to make.

  Poland (Spirits Quotas)
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to raise with the Polish Government their application of high tariff levels and restrictive quotas on imported spirits.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has a close working relationship with the drinks industry both through its trade associations and through many individual producers. The question of high tariff levels on certain spirits imported into Poland has been a concern of the industry—particularly Scotch whisky producers—for some time and it is an issue which we have raised with the Polish government on a number of occasions in the past. The issue of restrictive quotas is a relatively new one and my Department has asked the European Commission to take this up in the context of the EC/Poland association agreement. My Department will continue to give its full support to the industry in its representations to the Polish administration.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Central Services Agency
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Central Services Agency are as follows:
  852
  Chairman:

  J. G. Hunter

  Non-Executive Members:

  Mrs. A. Curran

  J. A. Doris

  T. J. Frawley

  Mrs. S.Hillen

  P. G. Kinder

  Dr. M. P. J. Kilbane

  P. B. Linehan

  D. D. Smyth

  Dr. J. Wilson

  Health and Social Services Councils
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to each of the health and social services councils.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of each of the four health and social services councils are as follows:

  EASTERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Stout

  Members:

  Councillor Rev. W. J. Beattie

  Councillor D. Browne

  Mrs. Alderman B. M. Chambers

  Councillor R. Cleland

  Councillor D. Dow

  Councillor Mrs. D. E. Field

  Councillor K. McCarthy

  Councillor G. Morrison

  Councilor J. Ritchie

  Councillor J. Rodgers

  Councillor H. Smith

  Councillor R. T. Stewart

  Mrs. M. G. Bennett

  Rev. W. S. Callaghan

  Mr. C. Common

  Ms M. E. Connolly

  Mrs. D. M. Copeland

  Mrs. M. Horner

  Mr. J. J. Mallon

  Ms C. M. McCavana

  Mrs. M. McMullan

  Mr. B. O'Reilly

  Mr. M. Piggot

  Mr. E. P. Rafferty

  Mrs. E. A. Rea

  Dr. M. Swallow

  Mrs. E. Thompson

  Mr. M. B. Weir

  Miss M. Wilson

  NORTHERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL

  Chairman:

  Mr. R. Pinkerton

  Members:

  Mrs. Alderman P. E. A. Armitage

  Councillor A. F. Beggs

  Councillor Mrs. J. M. I. Drummond

  Councillor D. Haughey

  Mr. Alderman S. C. Henry

  Councillor D. Hollis

  Councillor R. F. Kerr

  Councillor W. J. Logan

  Councillor S. D. McClelland

  Councillor P. H. McErlean

  Mrs. M. Dodds

  Mr. J. A. Dougherty

  Mr. H. Ewing

  Mr. D. Francis

  Miss M. H. Gilmore

  Mrs. M. McCollum

  Mr. J. McA. Pollock

  Mrs. P. M. Probst

  Mr. A. Reynolds

  853

  Mrs. M. P. Sheriff

  Rev. C. G. Thompson

  Mrs. M. Yoxall

  one vacancy

  SOUTHERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL

  Chairman:

  Mrs. M. F. A. Cook

  Members:

  Councillor J. A. Agnew

  Councillor Mrs. R. S. J. Allen

  Councillor Mrs. K. J. Baird

  Councillor H. Casey

  Councillor J. Cavanagh

  Councillor B. Curran

  Councillor I. B. Hanna

  Mr. Alderman S. J. McCammick

  Councillor P. McElroy

  Councillor R. E. McWilliams

  Mrs. J. K. Allister

  Mr. H. Averly

  Mrs. M. P. Campbell

  Mr. R. G. Cummings

  Miss A. E. P. Dowd

  Mrs. A. C. Eames

  Mrs. A. A. B. Gray

  Mr. J. P. Loughran

  Mr. G. E. Mills

  Mr. E. W. Napier

  Mr. A. Reid

  one vacancy

  WESTERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL

  Chairman:

  Mr. F. G. Hughes

  Members:

  Councillor D. C. D. Anderson

  Mr. Alderman G. Campbell

  Supplementary Benefit and Income Support

  Number and proportion1 of children in families receiving Supplementary Benefit/Income Support

  Children aged under 5

  Children aged 5–10

  Children aged 11–15

  Year

  Type of benefit

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent

  1978

  Supplementary Benefit

  19,300

  15

  27,418

  16

  21,453

  14

  1979

  Supplementary Benefit

  18,708

  15

  23,071

  14

  19,843

  13

  Children aged under 11

  Children aged 11–15

  Year

  Type of benefit

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  21980

  Supplementary Benefit

  53,181

  18

  23,682

  16

  21981

  Supplementary Benefit

  63,209

  22

  25,580

  17

  21982

  Supplementary Benefit

  71,746

  25

  32,626

  22

  21983

  Supplementary Benefit

  77,108

  27

  33,768

  23

  Children aged under 5

  Children aged 5–10

  Children aged 11–15

  Year

  Type of benefit

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent.

  1984

  Supplementary Benefit

  39,439

  30

  39,291

  26

  31,800

  23

  1985

  Supplementary Benefit

  Data not available as Annual Statistical Enquiry not held

  1986

  Supplementary Benefit

  42,320

  32

  43,540

  28

  33,360

  25

  1987

  Supplementary Benefit

  44,526

  33

  44,482

  28

  35,408

  27

  1988

  Income Support3

  38,720

  29

  41,300

  26

  30,620

  24

  1989

  Income Support

  38,700

  29

  42,760

  27

  31,900

  26

  1990

  Income Support

  38,080

  29

  43,060

  27

  29,220

  23

  1991

  Income Support

  Data not available as Annual Statistical Enquiry not held

  1992

  Income Support

  42,360

  33

  49,040

  31

  35,650

  27

  1993

  Income Support

  Figures not yet available

  1 As percentage of the number of children for whom Child Benefit is received.

  2 Figures not available separately for children aged 0–4, 5–10.

  1 Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit on 11 April 1988.

  854

  Councillor M. A. Coyle

  Councillor J. M. Durkan

  Councillor S. P. Gallagher

  Councillor C. O. McClaughrey

  Councillor L. McQuaid

  Councillor F. McQuillan

  Councillor Mrs. M. Nelis

  Councillor J. J. O'Kane

  Miss E. Bannon

  Mr. A. J. Dardis

  Mr. M. J. Falls

  Mrs. S. Harris

  Mrs. M. Harte

  Mr. S. J. Logue

  Miss C. Meehan

  Mr. W. T. Montgomery

  Mrs. A. M. Moore

  Mrs. M. D. Nicholl

  Mrs. M. Rolston

  Miss M. C. Timoney

  Mrs. S. S. G. White

  Income Support and Family Credit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentages of children in Northern Ireland aged(a) under five years, (b) five to 11 years and (c) 12 to 15 years live in families receiving (i) income support and (ii) family credit; and what were the figures in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Ancram
  The available information is provided in the tables below. For supplementary benefit/income support, the information requested is not collated in the age group 5–11 but in the age group 5–10. Separate figures are not available for the years 1980 to 1983. No age breakdown is available for children in families receiving family income supplement/family credit.
  855

  Family Income Supplement and Family Credit

  Number 1 and proportion2 of children in families receiving FIS/Family Credit

  Year

  Type of benefit

  Number

  Proportion (percentage)

  1978

  Family Income Supplement

  30,402

  6

  1979

  Family Income Supplement

  27,493

  6

  1980

  Family Income Supplement

  28,857

  6

  1981

  Family Income Supplement

  36,378

  8

  1982

  Family Income Supplement

  38,734

  8

  1983

  Family Income Supplement

  39,557

  8

  1984

  Family Income Supplement

  Figures not available

  1985

  Family Income Supplement

  42,613

  9

  1986

  Family Income Supplement

  41,322

  9

  1987

  Family Income Supplement

  40,399

  9

  1988

  Family Credit3

  34,897

  8

  1989

  Family Credit

  36,204

  8

  1990

  Family Credit

  35,073

  8

  1991

  Family Credit

  37,294

  8

  1992

  Family Credit

  42532

  9

  1993

  Family Credit

  Figures not yet available

  1 Includes dependent children up to 19 years of age.

  2 As percentage of the total number of children for whom Child Benefit is received.

  3 Family Credit replaced Family Income Supplement on 11 April 1988.

  NHS Private Facilities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients have been treated in national health service hospitals private facilities in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  1988–89

  1,796

  1,709

  1989–90

  1,636

  1,456

  1990–91

  1,983

  1,437

  1991–92

  1,971

  1,100

  1992–93

  1,938

  1,291

  Comparable information is not available for 1987.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many planning applications for wind turbine construction have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected since 1984; and how many wind turbines currently operate in the Province.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Since 1984 three planning applications have been made for turbines and all have been approved. There are a total of four wind turbines currently in operation in Northern Ireland.

  Child Support
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Child Support Agency applications have failed to be enforced because of the absent parent(a) leaving and (b) being outside the legal jurisdiction of the agency.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Child Support Agency under its Chief Executive, Patrick Devlin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. P. Devlin to Mr. Clifford Forsythe, dated 16 February 1994:
  856
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Child Support Agency applications that have failed to be enforced because of the absent parent being outside the jurisdiction of the Agency.

  Information on the number of absent parents leaving the jurisdiction is not collected routinely and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Of the applications processed to date, 159 could not be pursued because the absent parent was outside the jurisdiction of the Agency.

  I hope you find this information useful.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, c. 782, what proportion of the vehicles licensed in Northern Ireland at December 1992 in each category had catalytic converters fitted.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland agency under its Chief Executive, Brendan Magee. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. B. Magee to Mr. Clifford Forsythe, dated 15 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question regarding the proportion of vehicles licensed in Northern Ireland at December 1992 which had catalytic converters fitted.

  We do not hold such data on our records and therefore I am unable to provide the information requested.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year from 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each of the Northern Ireland national health service bodies as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The information requested is as follows.
  857

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Health and Social Services Boards

  Eastern

  589

  577

  570

  544

  Northern

  204

  204

  264

  291

  Southern

  177

  179

  217

  225

  Western

  177

  175

  196

  208

  Health and Social Services Councils

  Eastern

  —

  0·.50

  0·155

  0·205

  Northern

  —

  0·015

  0·087

  0·091

  Southern

  —

  0·019

  0·115

  0·100

  Western

  —

  0·019

  0·067

  0·082

  Northern Ireland Central Services Agency

  7·0

  6·7

  7·0

  6·85

  Northern Ireland Health Promotion Agency

  0·7

  1·34

  1·29

  1·23

  Health and Social Services Trusts

  —

  —

  —

  301·67

  Notes:

  1. The four health and social services councils were established with effect from 1 April 1991.

  2. The Health Promotion Agency was established on 1 October 1990. 1990–91 figures are for the six month period ended 31 March 1991.

  3. All figures shown are at 1992–93 prices. Figures for 1993–94 are estimated and deflated to 1992–93 prices.

  4. The figures for total spending by health and social services boards for the year 1992–93 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years as:

  (a) for the first time they include amounts in respect of capital charges; and

  (b) they reflect the purchaser/provider split and show the Boards primarily as purchasers of services; and

  (c) they reflect the movement towards capitation funding and take account of patient flows across boundaries.

  5. Six health and social services trusts were established on 1 April 1993. It should be noted that they obtain the greatest proportion of their income from boards and hence their expenditure will largely already be reflected in boards' expenditure figures.

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In addition to a variety of minor items, the following more substantial items were formally recorded as losses to the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments due to theft in the last three years.

  1990–91

  £

  Chainsaws, Gerrycan, Diesel, Drill Set and Cash

  1,551·58

  Window Guards and Padlocks

  427·18

  Dictaphones and Pentex Camera

  394·48

  Fencing Materials

  363·17

  Tools

  271·63

  Mower, Tools, fire Extinguishers and Keys

  258·22

  Road Signs and Traffic Cones

  257·76

  Batteries, Worklights and Bulbs

  183·24

  Trees

  160·00

  Fencing Wire

  152·29

  Tools and Safety Equipment

  124·75

  Weir Gate Winching Handles

  115·00

  Electric Fence Unit and Battery

  109·25

  Field Greaser, Grease and Gas Ring

  101·22

  Tarring Roller

  3,488·00

  Copper Lightning Conductor

  1,825·00

  Radio Telephone

  615·83

  10 Rolls of Chainlink Mesh

  665·00

  1 Ford Transit Pick-Up

  1,250·00

  Additionally there were 13 write-offs totalling £498·30 valued under £100·00.

  £

  1991–92

  Four video recorders

  1,196·00

  Wire and locks

  2,082·70

  858

  £

  Equipment from forest stores

  1,930·66

  Equipment and materials

  1,757·79

  Stuffed animals

  707·25

  Materials and lock

  586·50

  Chainsaws

  1,079·24

  Two cameras, lenses and flashguns

  434·81

  Fuel

  380·80

  Sheep wire and barbed wire

  325·68

  Chainsaws

  545·47

  Power washer

  257·89

  Excavator tracks

  250·00

  Outboard motor

  240·00

  Powersaw

  237·19

  Tools

  196·24

  Batteries, grease gun and airline hose

  193·01

  Locking diesel cap

  125·47

  Batteries

  116·98

  Vacuum cleaner

  103·50

  Fire extinguishers and fire blankets

  862·06

  Prism set

  631·50

  Outboard engine

  667·49

  Three camcorders

  1,760·00

  Various items used for training purposes (drills, trowels, paint/varnish brushes)

  462·00

  Additionally there were 16 write offs totalling £861·08 valued under £100·00.

  £

  1992–93

  Chainsaws

  2,405·83

  Computer hardware

  1,955·86

  Firefighting equipment

  869·45

  Computer, printer, camera, hammer and transformer

  575·00

  Pump, wheels and tyres

  540·00

  Equipment

  474·97

  Equipment from employee's car

  344·15

  Clearing saw

  336·37

  Brushcutter

  336·37

  Vehicle (assessed residual value only) and batteries

  290·53

  Chainsaw

  502·39

  Equipment and materials

  277·39

  Powerwasher

  225·00

  Theft from boat

  178·00

  859

  £

  Equipment from car

  175·07

  Materials

  111·20

  Tools

  105·66

  Overboard projector

  580·00

  Twin axle trailer

  1,109·75

  Plant fitters' tools

  698·62

  Public pay phone

  512·81

  Maestro van

  1,725·59

  Hazard warning lights

  648·60

  Two video players

  311·00

  One remote control TV

  170·00

  Two Mackintosh computers

  3,000·00

  Cannon 35 mm camera

  200·00

  Vacuum cleaner

  300·00

  Telephone switchboard

  2,000·00

  Computer desk

  500·00

  Welding plant

  800·00

  Machine tools and vice

  500·00

  1992–93

  £

  HP Vectra Computer

  6,000·00

  Various items used for Training Purposes (Drills, Trowels, Tools)

  4,348·00

  Additionally there were 15 write offs totalling £630·46 valued under £100·00.

  Local Authority Mental Illness and Elderly Mentally ill places

  Voluntary Mental illness and Elderly Mentally ill places

  Private Mental illness and Elderly Mentally ill places

  Private Hospital beds

  NHS other beds

  NHS hospital beds

  Total

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  1982

  4,173

  1,603

  764

  1,994

  15,145

  68,555

  92,234

  1983

  4,242

  1,693

  865

  2,394

  16,276

  65,795

  90,832

  1984

  4,363

  1,952

  1,219

  2,176

  16,969

  61,795

  88,474

  1985

  4,470

  2,134

  1,731

  2,340

  17,730

  57,967

  86,372

  1986

  7,549

  2,377

  4,151

  3,165

  18,771

  53,434

  89,447

  1987–88

  7,568

  2,640

  6,959

  4,507

  22,657

  44,287

  88,801

  1988–89

  7,916

  2,648

  7,680

  5,862

  19,712

  43,287

  87,105

  1989–90

  7,584

  3,080

  9,066

  7,693

  20,415

  38,875

  86,713

  1990–91

  7,715

  3,508

  9,724

  10,772

  21,246

  33,993

  86,958

  1991–92

  7,552

  4,303

  10,382

  12,653

  21,285

  28,993

  85,168

  Sources:

  (1) (2) (3) SD2 (tables 66 and 67); RAC5 (primary uses 02 and 08); RA 13A.

  (4) SD2-SBH212; K036.

  (5) (6) SH3 (to 1986); KH03 (from 1987–88). Column 6 figures from Inter Authority Comparison and Consultancy special data collection on main mental illness hospitals; column 5 by deducting these from totals for England.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of net NHS current expenditure on (i) regional hospital boards and regional health authorities, (ii) the NHS Management Executive and (iii) NHSME regional outposts in each year since 1973–74 expressed in 1993–94 prices adjusted by(a) the gross domestic product deflator and (b) changes in input unit costs.

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Regional health authorities

  451,197,469

  442,878,613

  471,909,346

  454,704,050

  1,453,441,371

  1,681,077,632

  NHSME

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  34,124,495

  31,523,934

  44,277,025

  NHSME outposts

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,713,410

  Source:

  Annual accounts of health authorities (England) 1985–86 to 1992–93.

  Annual accounts of the Department of Health.

HEALTH

  Indicative Prescribing
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of administering the indicative prescribing system in general practice in each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Improving prescribing, including managing the indicative prescribing scheme, is a key function of national health service management and the administration costs are not identified separately.

  Psychiatric Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of psychiatric beds in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown in the table compiled for the Mental Health Task Force "Survey of English Mental Illness Hospitals March 1993", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows total revenue expenditure at 1993–94 prices of regional health authorities, the National Health Service Management Executive and the NHSME outposts. Expenditure is not readily available prior to 1987–88. The index showing changes in input unit costs is not available for 1993–94 prices.

  Figures for regional health authorities (RHAs) for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are not comparable with those for earlier years. In particular, many RHAs were, in 1991–92 and 1992–93, involved in the purchase of healthcare and related services for their region.
  861
  Trent regional health authority records.

  Notes

  Figures for regional health authorities (RHAs) for 1992–93 are provisional.

  The figures cover the total revenue expenditure of the authorities including that incurred on headquarters administration and on the management and provision of services in the years concerned.

  Figures are not available for the NHSME prior to 1990–91.

  Figures for the NHSME are not directly comparable from year to year because of organisational changes between the NHSME and the rest of the Department.

  The figures shown for the NHSME are gross because although the Department of Health receives income in the form of Receipts, this income is not split between the separate divisions within the Department and it is therefore not possible to provide net figures for the NHSME.

  No information was collected for NHSME outposts prior to 1992–93.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the information available to her on the years that other countries introduced bans on tobacco

  Country

  Final year of data before ban

  Smoking prevalence in that year

  Prevalence in most recent year for which data is available

  Percentage points by which smoking prevalence has fallen since ban

  Percentage points by which smoking prevalence has fallen in the United Kingdom over similar period

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Norway

  1975

  43

  35 (1992)

  8

  12

  Finland

  1977

  29

  26 (1985)

  3

  8

  Canada

  1989

  32

  30 (1990)

  2

  2 (1988–90)

  New Zealand

  1990

  28

  27 (1992)

  1

  2

  Bans on tobacco advertising came into effect in Australia in 1992 and France in 1993. It is too early to estimate the changes in smoking prevalence since these bans were introduced.

  The most recent available comparison of retail prices and levels of taxation for cigarettes in these countries is:

  Country

  Average retail price of 20 cigarettes (October 1992)

  Total taxes

  £

  £

  Norway

  3·46

  2·37

  Finland

  2·33

  1·72

  Canada

  2·68

  1·84

  New Zealand

  1·78

  1·20

  Australia

  1·53

  0·92

  France

  1·32

  0·94

  United Kingdom

  2·23

  1·69

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement setting out details of the principal advances that have been made during the past 10 years in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

  Mr. Bowis
  Parkinson's disease is associated with a deficiency of a substance called dopamine which is essential for the transmission of nerve impulses. In recent years there have been developments in new variants of "dopamine agonist" drugs which assist in the maintenance
  862
  advertising with the change in their and our levels of smoking since then in each case with the present levels of tax and retail price.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the estimated changes in prevalence of cigarette smoking in countries which have introduced bans on tobacco advertising, together with the changes over similar periods in the United Kingdom:

  of the body's level of dopamine. The use of self-administered injections of apomorphine, the usual drug prescribed for the condition, is becoming widespread. The use of brain tissue transplants remains experimental and is not currently being carried out in the United Kingdom.

  Safe Sex
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the role of the Health Education Authority in providing national public education campaigns to promote condom use following recent research into sexual attitudes and lifestyles.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1987, the Health Education Authority has had a continuing role in providing public education on HIV/AIDS and sexual health by delivering information about responsible sexual behaviour. The national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles showed the impact of public education, providing evidence of considerable awareness of HIV/AIDS among those reporting behaviour which carried a higher risk of infection, and of increased condom use both by those with more partners and by people under 24. It is important that the HEA and other agencies continue their national and local efforts to promote sexual health.

  Local Authorities (Charging Guidance)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance she has issued to local authorities regarding charging for home helps, day care and community alarms; what are the financial implications of this guidance; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidance about charging for nonresidential social services for adults was sent to local social services authorities in January, and copies of the circular (LAC(94)1) are available in the Library. Powers to charge are discretionary and so it is not possible to quantify precisely the financial implications of this guidance.

  Car Parking Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards the charging of nurses to park their cars on NHS premises.

  Mr. Sackville
  Charges for car parking on national health service premises are a matter for local determination in the light of local circumstances, including the needs of patients, visitors and staff and the availability and cost of providing such facilities.

  Emergency Fees (Collection by NHS Trusts)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS trusts are required to collect emergency fees under the Road Traffic Acts.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health service hospitals, including those managed by national health service trusts, are empowered to collect the emergency treatment fee under section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and it is Government policy that it should be collected. The fee, which must be covered by motor vehicle insurance policies, is payable by vehicle users in respect of each person given immediate treatment or examination arising from a road traffic accident.

  Bed Allocations
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence she has that health authorities use age as a criterion for allocating acute patients to different hospitals within their area;

  (2) what is her Department's policy on the use by health authorities of age as a criterion by which patients are allocated beds in specific hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities are responsible for purchasing appropriate services for all age groups in their resident populations. Children and young people in hospital should be provided with accommodation, facilities and staffing appropriate to their age and development. Depending on local circumstances, hospitals may elect to admit people over the age of 75 to specifically designated wards to ensure they receive the most appropriate care.

  Reports (Costs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to advise all health authorities and trusts to review the costs of producing, publishing, printing and distributing reports in order to maximise the proportion of funds spent on direct health care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Communications about the services being purchased on behalf of patients and the way they are 864
  provided are an essential part of serving the public. National Health Service trusts are required to publish, as a minimum, an annual report, annual accounts, a summary business plan and a strategic direction document; health authorities are required to provide a range of information as part of their public accountability. We expect them to make the best, most cost-effective use of their resources.

  Paediatric Intensive Care
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will detail by region the(a) recommended and (b) actual number levels of paediatric intensive care beds; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no nationally agreed levels for paediatric intensive care bed provision. The British Paediatric Association has recently published a report "The Care of Critically Ill Children" which recommends that there should be one bed per 48,000 children. The report, which is available in the Library, shows the regional distribution of paediatric intensive care beds. The National Health Service Management Executive, in its executive letter of 27 January 1994 has asked district health authorities to review the current level of paediatric intensive care beds in order to develop in collaboration with other district health authorities and hospitals, a strategic plan for the purchasing of paediatric intensive care which takes into account local needs and resources. Copies of the letter are available in the Library.

  Alternative and Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis has been made of potential cost savings to public funds if alternative and complementary medical treatments, with particular reference to osteopathy, chiropractic and homoeopathy, were more widely available on the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has commissioned a study by the medical care research unit of Sheffield university which will examine the impact complementary therapists—such as osteopaths, chiropractors, and homoeopaths—have on the prescribing patterns, cost of drugs, hospital referral practices, patient satisfaction and repeat attendances, within general practice. The study started last December and will take two years to complete.

  Ambulance Service, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the response times by the London ambulance service to 999 calls for each of the last five years; and what were the target times in each of those years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The target response time for emergency calls in each year was 95 per cent. responded to within 14 minutes. The percentage of calls responded to in the target time is shown in the table.
  865

  Year

  Percentage of ambulances responding within 14 minutes

  1988–89

  82·8

  1989–90

  78·8

  1990–91

  73·7

  1991–92

  64·0

  1992–93

  58·5

  The London ambulance service's performance against the patients charter standard of a 95 per cent. response within 14 minutes has been unacceptable. In December 1993 the Government announced £14·8 million additional investment for the London ambulance service in 1994–95. The additional funding will be used to replace 40 per cent. of the vehicle fleet; recruit and train 240 additional ambulance personnel; accelerate the paramedic training programme and improve their communications systems.

  In response to this investment, the London ambulance service has agreed with its managing agency, South West Thames regional health authority, interim targets of achieving an 80 per cent. response rate within 14 minutes by September 1994 and 85 per cent. by April 1995. When these targets have been met, the Government will expect the London ambulance service to establish an early date for the full achievement of the patients charter standard.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to whether the south Yorkshire ambulance trust meets patients charter standards; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for local purchasers to ensure that contracts and actual performance meet patient's charter standards.

  Accident and Emergency Services, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with regard to the review of accident and emergency services in London; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There has been no special review of London's accident and emergency services. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 21 October 1993 at column 316.

  Mentally Disturbed Children
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mentally disturbed children were in adult wards in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is a matter for health authorities to determine what arrangements are made locally about admission of children to hospital. However, our advice to purchasers contained in the guidance the "Health of the Nation Key Area Handbook: Mental Illness", a copy of which is in the Library, refers to a range of services which they need to consider so as to meet the needs of children and adolescents and this includes designated in-patient and day patient facilities.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the risks to humans of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government receive advice on all matters relating to spongiform encephalopathies in humans and animals from an independent, expert committee, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), chaired by Dr. David Tyrrell FRS.

  The Government, on advice from SEAC, are satisfied that all the necessary safeguards are in place to minimise further spread of spongiform encephalopathies in animals and to prevent any risk of transmission to humans.

  Scientific evidence has not revealed any link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle and incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a human spongiform encephalopathy.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which agencies are employed by each(a) regional health authority, (b) district health authority and (c) trust to deal with public relations; and what are the estimated costs involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the individual health authorities or trusts. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen for details.

  Agency Nurses, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of agency nurses who were employed by the Wandsworth health authority for the period 1 to 31 January.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Wandsworth health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Dr. Enid Vincent, the chairman, for details.

  Sir James Ackers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to ask Sir James Ackers to repay the sum paid to him on his resignation as chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority;

  (2) if Sir James Ackers has repaid or offered to repay the sum paid to him on his resignation as chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir James Ackers has not repaid or offered to repay the sum paid to him on his resignation and we have no plans to ask him to do so.

  Mr. John Hoare
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the detailed make-up of the £111,940 severance pay made to Mr. John Hoare, former Wessex regional health authority general manager.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Hoare received a compensationary payment of £119,940 calculated on the basis of his final salary of £53,970 multiplied by the period remaining on his contract (26·67 months). He was allowed to purchase his lease car at a cost of £8,000, leaving a payment of £111,940.

  NHS (Meetings)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require all NHS authorities to publish the agendas of all meetings whether or not open to the public.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. All national health service authorities are required by the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 to supply the press, on request, with a copy of the agenda for all full meetings at which approval for specific action is required.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that persons appointed to be chairmen of hospital trusts record their financial and professional interests in a register of interest a copy of which should be placed in the Library.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are currently consulting on draft codes of conduct and accountability for national health service boards. In these we propose that where there is a potential for private interests to be material and relevant to NHS business, the relevant interests should be declared and recorded in the board minutes. We also propose that directorships and other significant interests held by NHS hoard members should be declared on appointment, kept up to date and set out in the annual report. The codes are to be implemented in all NHS trusts and authorities, subject to consultation, from 1 April 1994.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will be chairman on 1 April of(a) Trent regional health authority and (b) Sheffield community health trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Michael Carlisle and Mrs. Kathryn Riddle respectively.

  Steroids
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce tests for diabetes before steroids are used on patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to issue prescriptive guidance on such tests which are a matter for the clinical judgement of individual doctors.

  Steroids, which are powerful drugs, may cause side effects especially in high doses. Doctors are fully aware of this possibility and to minimise the risk the dose is reduced as quickly as possible to the lowest maintenance level. During this period the patient is monitored for side effects.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1991–92 from the use of steroids in (i) England, (ii) the west midlands and (iii) Coventry.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths from the use of steroids, 1ICD E932·0, in England, West Midlands regional health authority and Coventry in 1991 and 1992.

  1991

  1992

  England

  1

  0

  West Midlands RHA

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  868
  1 International Classification of Disease 9th revision

  Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce her decision regarding the future of Coventry and Warwickshire hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a local matter for Coventry health authority. Coventry health authority has recently completed a consultation on the transfer of services from the Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital to the Walsgrave Hospital. As the local community health council agreed the health authority's proposals, the authority is free to begin implementing its plans. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mr. A Guy, for details.

  West Midlands Health Authority
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to satisfy herself(a) regarding the proper financial management of the West Midlands health authority and (b) that proper accountability procedures are in place.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have proposed, and are consulting on, the introduction of a code of conduct for the NHS which will make explicit the standards of conduct expected of those in the most senior positions in the NHS and provide a basis for setting standards for their staff. The NHS Management Executive, which is responsible for ensuring that there is a strong accountability and management framework at all levels of the NHS, has taken a number of steps to strengthen financial management across the NHS. These include guidance on the role of the director of finance; revisions to standing orders, standing financial instructions and financial directions. Measures are also being taken to strengthen internal audit.

  In West Midlands regional health authority the new board has taken a range of measures to strengthen financial management and accountability procedures within the region. These actions have been closely monitored by the NHS Management Executive.

  Drug and Alcohol Dependence
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to local authorities and health authorities regarding responsibility for funding detoxification during the treatment and care of drug or alcohol dependence.

  Mr. Bowis
  Our guidance circular "Alcohol and Drug Services within Community Care" (LAC(93)2), which was sent to local authorities and health authorities in January 1993, makes it clear that health authorities continue to be responsible for the funding of the health care element of alcohol and drug services, this would include detoxification facilities. Copies of this guidance are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the imposition of time limits on the funding of residential care for the treatment of drug or alcohol dependence.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for the local authority to decide, in the light of the assessed community care needs of the client
  869
  concerned and the programmes offered by treatment providers, how long to fund residential care for the treatment of drug and alcohol dependence.

  Health Expenditure (Southend)
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress she is making in increasing the health funds available in areas which are underfunded; and what are her proposals for improving the situation in Southend during the next three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  One of the most important aspects of the reforms of the national health service is the progress we have made in distributing resources fairly to regional health authorities who have previously been underfunded. It is for them to do the same for district health authorities who have not had a fair share of NHS funds taking account of their resident populations and particular local characteristics and circumstances.

  The allocation of funds to South Essex health authority is the responsibility of North East Thames regional health authority, and the hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, the chairman, for details.

  Bexley Health Authority
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received in respect of the funding of Bexley health authority;

  (2) what representations she has received about thefunding of Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received representations from a number of people, including my hon. Friend in respect of the funding of Bexley health authority and Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to announce the appointment of a chairman for the new merged Bexley and Greenwich health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We expect to make a decision on the chairmanship of the new merged Bexley and Greenwich health authority shortly.

  Agency Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the expenditure on agency services for each year since 1990 for(a) regions, (b) districts and (c) NHS trusts;

  (2) if she will list for each year since 1990 the expenditure on external contract staffing and consultancy service for (a) regions, (b) districts and (c) trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 14 December 19931: Since 1991–92 expenditure for agency services is defined as expenditure on external contract staffing and consultancy services which includes non-patient services provided by non-national health service bodies. Information for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is shown in the table. The figures are not comparable with those for earlier years but confirm the effectiveness of the government's policy of encouraging overall value for money in the NHS by using alternative sources to supply a range of services.
  870

  Expenditure on external contract staffing and consultancy services

  £ thousands

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Regional Health Authorities

  25,813

  26,372

  District Health Authorities

  34,591

  39,788

  NHS Trusts

  13,184

  38,957

  Source: Annual financial returns of regional health authorities, district health authorities and National Health Service trusts in England.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1992–93 are provisional.

  2. The number of NHS trusts increased from 57 in 1991–92 to 156 in 1992–93.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many task forces she has set up since becoming Secretary of State; if she will list them; and if she will provide a breakdown of their cost.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: Task forces on the following have been set up since April 1992. Information on expenditure could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Task Forces

  1. 'Health of the Nation' Accidents

  2. 'Health of the Nation' Workplace

  3. 'Health of the Nation' Physical Activity

  4. Review of Clinical Input into Contracts

  5. Mental Health Task Force

  6. Interdepartmental Task Force on Smoking

  7. Corporate Governance

  8. Community Care Support Force

  9. Norwich II

  10. Black and Ethnic Minority Health

  11. NHS Research

  12. A Strategy for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting Research

  13. Nutrition

  14. Chiropody

  15. St. Vincent's Task Force for Diabetes (Joint Department of Health and British Diabetic Association Task Force)

  16. Data Quality

  17. Day Surgery

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions of child abuse cases have been sent directly to the Crown court since October 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information readily available centrally relates to trials completed at the Crown court following the issue of a notice of transfer, under either section 53 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (certain cases involving children) or section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (serious fraud cases). No cases were recorded in the period 1 October to 31 December 1992. Information for 1993 will be available in the autumn.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes there have been in the Government's policy on forestry since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
  871
  Sir Hector Monro
  Our forestry policy was set out in September 1991 in the booklet "Forestry Policy for Great Britain". Last month we published "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme", which is a comprehensive statement of the action we are taking to promote sustainable management at home and in other countries, including the initiatives we have launched since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money, in the form of grants for private forestry owners, the Government receive from the EC annually; and what conditions are attached to these grants with respect to promoting public access and environmental concerns.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Government expect to receive £7·1 million from the European Community as co-financing of grant-aid for the afforestation of agricultural land and other forestry operations on farms in 1993–94. Agricultural land, for these purposes, includes all arable land and grassland.

  To qualify for co-financing, member states have to obtain approval from the European Commission for national programmes setting out the aid schemes for which reimbursement will be sought. In Great Britain, the principal aid schemes are the woodland grant scheme and the associated farm woodland scheme and farm woodland premium scheme. Participants in these schemes are required to follow the environmental guidelines published by the Forestry Commission. In addition, the community woodland supplement, introduced in 1991 as part of the woodland grant scheme, provides grants for the creation of new woodlands near towns and cities on condition that the woodlands are open for informal public recreation. Similar arrangements apply in the schemes operated in Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the timetable for community forest initiatives has been affected by the Government's plans to privatise the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Ministers have asked the forestry review group to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, to review options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to our other economic and environmental policies. Ministers will await the advice of the review group before considering what action, if any, should be taken in respect of the ownership and management of the commission's woodlands. The work of the review group has not affected the progress of the community forests initiative.

  (Average £/farm) Net farm income Projected

  Net farm income Actual

  Farm type

  Level

  Per cent. change

  Level

  Per cent. change

  LFA: Mainly sheep

  1989–90

  7,911

  -26

  9,350

  -7

  1990–91

  7,268

  -22

  9,252

  -3

  1991–92

  10,941

  +18

  9,573

  +15

  1992–93

  11,568

  +21

  10,946

  +34

  872
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the national forestry plan that was promised to the United Nations conference on environment and development in 1993 is due to be published.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This was published on 25 January, under the title "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme". A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to ensure that Britain implements the principles set out in the statement of forest principles endorsed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 28 January,Official Report, column 461.

  Livestock Farms
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the average number of(a) suckler cows and (b) ewes for (i) the average hill unit and (ii) the average upland unit and the gross margin based on the most recent market prices.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The table shows the average number of suckler cows and ewes on livestock farms in the less-favoured areas as represented in the farm accounts scheme, together with the estimated 1993–94 farm gross margins.

  Farm type

  Average number of stickler cows

  Average number of ewes

  Estimated 1993–94 farm gross margin

  £

  LFA: Specialist Sheep

  11

  684

  32,583

  LFA: Specialist Beef

  60

  112

  42,859

  LFA: Cattle and Sheep

  55

  467

  49,871

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the(a) projected and (b) actual levels of farm incomes, and the percentage increase/decrease which this represents with the previous year for (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1990–91, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1992–93, (v) 1993–94 and (vi) 1994–95.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested as derived from the farm accounts scheme in Scotland, is set out in the table. No actual income levels are available for 1993–94 and neither actual nor projected income figures are available for 1994–95.
  873

  (Average£farm) Net farm income Projected

  Net farm income Actual

  Farm type

  Level

  Per cent, change

  Level

  Per cent, change

  LFA: Sheep and cattle

  1989–90

  9,838

  -18

  9,334

  -19

  1990–91

  6,803

  -27

  8,359

  -12

  1991–92

  8,932

  +7

  10,458

  +11

  1992–93

  11,308

  +8

  11,610

  +9

  LFA: Mainly cattle

  1989–90

  9,984

  -5

  8,457

  -12

  1990–91

  6,211

  -27

  8,424

  -4

  1991–92

  7,653

  -9

  7,066

  -13

  1992–93

  7,135

  +1

  9,464

  +31

  LFA: Mainly arable

  1989–90

  8,016

  -2

  14,019

  +34

  1990–91

  12,964

  -8

  16,895

  +14

  1991–92

  14,745

  -13

  12,414

  -22

  1992–93

  15,694

  +26

  —

  —

  Lowground cattle and sheep

  1989–90

  5,526

  -12

  8,758

  -12

  1990–91

  7,796

  -11

  9,819

  +22

  1991–92

  6,121

  -38

  8,458

  -32

  1992–93

  10,321

  +22

  15,308

  +60

  Cropping

  1989–90

  5,650

  +168

  19,214

  +191

  1990–91

  21,625

  +13

  15,592

  +6

  1991–92

  7,995

  -49

  6,930

  -57

  1992–93

  16,190

  +134

  17,186

  +105

  Dairy

  1989–90

  27,109

  +16

  27,414

  +17

  1990–91

  27,384

  —

  21,932

  -21

  1991–92

  18,068

  -18

  21,345

  -6

  1992–93

  23,529

  +10

  28,353

  +23

  (1) The system of farm classification changed in 1992–93. The actual levels and percentage changes shown are those for the nearest comparable type or combination of types except for LFA: Mainly arable farms wHere there is no comparable type.

  (2) Under the farm accounts scheme comparisons in income in one year compared with the previous one, both in the case of projected or actual figures, are calculated from data on exactly the same farms ie an identical sample. This sample changes between projected and actual and also between years. Hence the figures do not provide a precise comparison either between projected and actual or between years.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of Scottish farm units included in the calculations on annual farm incomes on which the level of hill livestock compensatory allowance is based for the years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1992–93, (e) 1993–94 and (f) 1994–95.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is set out in the table. No information is yet available for 1994–95.

  Income forecasts in respect of

  Number of businesses1 in sample employed to calculate income forecast

  1989–90

  180

  1990–91

  191

  1991–92

  186

  1992–93

  199

  1993–94

  220

  1 Each business in the sample can comprise a number of farm units.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the(a) projected and (b) actual members of farmers who received hill livestock compensatory allowances for (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1990–91, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94 and (v) 1994–95.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The numbers of farmers who received hill livestock compensatory allowances under the schemes from 1989 to 1993 were:

  Scheme year

  Number

  1989

  18,206

  1990

  18,137

  1991

  17,904

  1992

  17,903

  1993

  17,382

  Projections of the numbers of farmers are made according to the previous year's scheme.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of farm incomes which are used to calculate the level of hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if she will make a statement.
  875
  Sir Hector Monro
  The latest farm income estimates used in considering the level of hill livestock compensatory allowances were lodged in the House of Commons Library on 30 November 1993.

  These estimates showed that incomes on livestock farms in the less favoured areas were expected to increase substantially in 1993–94. Subsequent estimates published on 31 January 1994 also show a similar level of increase overall despite the reduction in rates for hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) percentage and (b) number of hill livestock compensatory allowance claimants are estimated to have volunteered information to the colleges and universities responsible for collating information on which the calculations of farm incomes are based; and what (i) percentage and (ii) number of these claimants were from the severely disadvantaged areas for (1) 1989–90, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1991–92, (4) 1992–93, (5) 1993–94 and (6) 1994–95.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is set out in the table. It is not possible to split the farm accounts sample between severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas.

  Year

  Total number of claimants

  Number of claimants supplying incomes data

  Percentage of total supplying incomes data

  Per cent.

  1989

  18,206

  255

  1·4

  1990

  18,137

  294

  1·6

  1991

  17,904

  316

  1·8

  1992

  17,903

  318

  1·8

  1993

  17,382

  323

  1·9

  (1) Incomes data is supplied only for full-time businesses while the total number of claimants will include many small units.

  (2) The business supplying incomes data can comprise more than one unit.

  A1 (Dualling)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the dates for the commencement and completion of the dualling of the A1 trunk road between Meadowmill and Amisfield.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The construction of a dual carriageway between Tranent and Haddington, including Meadowmill to Amisfield, is the major priority on the Al. Draft orders for this scheme, published on 30 March 1993 were the subject of a public local inquiry in June 1993. Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, construction will be considered by the Secretary of State for inclusion within the trunk road programme for 1994–95. A specific date for the start and completion of the scheme cannot, however, be given at this time.

  North-West Sutherland
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what time limit he set for the feasibility study, "A Rural Framework for North West Sutherland", in respect of(a) presentation of the draft report, (b) consultation and(c) presentation of the final report.
  876
  Sir Hector Monro
  As a condition of its contribution to the funding of the feasibility study the Scottish Office Environment Department required that it be kept informed of progress on the study; have the opportunity to comment on the final draft report which was to be submitted by 31 March 1993; and receive a copy of the final report at least five working days prior to publication. These conditions were fulfilled.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State For Scotland what assessment he has made of whether the feasibility study, "A Rural Framework for North West Sutherland", meets the objective which he set out on page 5 of his document, "Rural Framework 1992".

  Sir Hector Monro
  A main purpose of "The Scottish Office Rural Framework" was to identify a number of themes to act as a focus for thought and action about the future of rural Scotland. It was a consultation paper and did not seek to prescribe the way forward or the activities of existing organisations. It is now for the North West Sutherland council of social service and the Scottish Crofters Union to decide on whether or how to take forward its feasibility study into the possibility of restructuring itself into a rural framework organisation, having regard to the particular circumstances of north-west Sutherland and to the views and wishes of interested parties.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conditions he attached to his part-funding of the feasibility study, "A Rural Framework for North West Sutherland".

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office Environment Department contributed £1,500 towards the cost of a feasibility study into the possibility of restructuring North West Sutherland council of social service into a rural framework organisation. It did not, however, commission the study. The report of the study is the property of NWSCSS and the Scottish Crofters Union, and its implementation is a matter for them. Standard conditions were set requiring that the Scottish Office Environment Department be kept informed of progress on the study; be given the opportunity to comment on the final draft report and receive a copy of the final report prior to publication.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be publishing the audit regulations covering self-governing schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A consultation document on the Self-Governing Schools Grant and Recovery (Scotland) Regulations 1994 was issued to a wide range of interested bodies and individuals on 17 January 1994. We have asked for responses by 18 February 1994. Once we have considered these responses, we shall bring forward final regulations as soon as possible.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further proposals he has for improving the Scottish criminal justice system.

  Mr. Lang
  I am today publishing a consultation paper entitled "Sentencing and Appeals", which seeks views on
  877
  a number of proposals for improving the ability of our system of justice to deal with crime effectively and fairly. The paper seeks views on possible changes of the system of fiscal fines and the sentencing powers of the sheriff courts and invites views on the case for introduction of sentencing guidelines. It proposes revised procedures for dealing with criminal appeals and invites views on whether there is a need for change to the criteria by which criminal appeals are determined. The paper also seeks views on whether the current arrangments for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland are satisfactory and sets out a number of possible options for change.

  The consultation paper is the fourth in a series seeking views on proposals for improving the delivery of justice in Scotland. We are inviting comments by 16 April. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the allocation of funds to each regional council for the provision of sheltered placement schemes in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: The grant-aided expenditure for sheltered employment for each regional authority for the years 1989–90 to 1993–94 is given in the table. GAE is the level of expenditure which is taken into account in distributing aggregate external finance to local authorities. It is, of course, for the authorities themselves to determine actual levels of expenditure on a particular service.

  Sheltered employment grant-aided expenditure

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central

  304

  317

  329

  407

  340

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23

  26

  26

  27

  24

  Fife

  611

  828

  1,144

  1,179

  1,186

  Grampian

  1,023

  1,161

  920

  825

  1,249

  Highland

  384

  420

  496

  512

  469

  Lothian

  755

  828

  940

  957

  1,260

  Strathclyde

  1,976

  2,352

  2,683

  2,677

  2,342

  Tayside

  560

  906

  1,018

  1,035

  1,080

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of organisations representing disabled people to discuss comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State met the all-party disablement group on 24 February 1993.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People is taking forward his remit from the Prime Minister to identify areas where further action, without expenditure implications, can be taken to eliminate discrimination against disabled people, within the Government's policy of tackling the problem through a programme of education, persuasion and practical help backed up by targeted legislation, as necessary.

  Quarries
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he issues in respect of the establishment of new quarries; what plans he has to amend these guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: National planning guidelines on the working of aggregates in Scotland were issued in 1977. These guidelines which are still extant examines the various issues arising from quarry developments. The guidelines indicate that quarrying is essential to the national economy and that proposals for the extraction of aggregates and other minerals should be provided for in an environmentally acceptable manner. In the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200) a commitment was made to review all planning guidance. In July 1992, a draft national planning policy guideline entitled "Land for Mineral Working" was issued for consultation. The finalised version will issue in the near future and will provide the strategic context within which local authorities will provide up to date development plan policies for mineral working. Such policies will be developed in full consultation with the local community and with regard to the economic needs and environmental considerations of their area.

  Sporting Rates
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of representations he received calling for the abolition of sporting rates prior to his announcement of 3 November 1993; if he will list the individuals or organisations which made such representations; and if he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1994]: The current rating liability of sporting rights in Scotland dates from the Sporting Lands Rating (Scotland) Act 1886. Given the long period of years over which representations on this subject have been made, it is not practicable to identify all representations received prior to my right hon. Friend's announcement, on 3 November 1993, to exempt sporting rights from rating.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to take action to introduce a fairer system of rating of football stadiums in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1994]: I propose to table shortly a draft order introducing a revised method of valuation for Scottish Football League club grounds.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of chairpersons and board members of the local enterprise companies in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding 11 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 17 December, at col 884.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask sthe Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the full text of the advice he has received from Forestry Commission scientists about the extent to which boreal forests have driven global carbon dioxide fluxes during this century, and information about the relationships with tropical deforestation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: I have arranged for a copy of the briefing to be placed in the Library.

  The Forestry Commission's research is focused on temperate rather than boreal or tropical forests. The Commission's scientists contribute to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which was set up under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meterological Organisation, and the Commission has published a research information note, No. 189, on "Climate Change: The Contribution of Forestry to Response Strategies", which summarises some of the panel's main conclusions relating to forestry. The Comsmission has also published a research information note, No. 160, on "The Storage of Carbon in Trees and Timber", which describes preliminary calculations on the amount of carbon which can be stored in different tree species. I have arranged for copies of both notes to be placed in the Library of the House.

  New Towns
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently on the waiting lists for housing in each of Scotland's new towns.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The information is as follows:

  New Town

  Number of people on waiting list as at 31 January 1994

  Cumbernauld

  1,351

  East Kilbride

  4,234

  Glenrothes

  1,323

  Irvine

  1,526

  Livingston

  1,367

  Property Lettings
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has issued to Scotland's development corporations relating to the continued letting of properties that become vacant in light of his decision to proceed with wind-up.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The guidance issued to development corporations in August 1992 about the disposal of their housing stocks set out a number of measures designed to increase the choice of landlords available to tenants. These included the sale of vacant properties to housing associations. The hon. Member was sent a copy of the guidance on 31 August 1992.

  Housing, Irvine
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects Irvine development corporation to begin transferring properties to the Irvine housing association.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: The corporation is negotiating the transfer of newly built homes and vacant properties to Irvine housing association. The negotiations will not be concluded until after Irvine housing association is registered as a housing association by Scottish Homes. It is not, therefore, possible to set a date for the first transfer.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes are proposed to the Scottish Office's revised fee scales for applications for planning permission; how much additional revenue will be raised by the increased charges; which bodies will benefit from the increased charges; what representations he has received from local authorities relating to the charges; and what assessment he has made as to the level of the proposed charges.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: There are no proposals at present to change the revised fee scales approved by Parliament in December 1993 for introduction on 13 January 1994 and on 3 January 1995. However, the scales are kept under regular review.

  Based on the latest information available, and assuming receipt of similar numbers and types of application an additional £1 million may be raised in Scotland in 1994–95. The principal beneficiary of increased charges is the tax payer because the more income local authorities raise through fees and charges the less they need support from the Government in the form of aggregate external finance or from council tax payers.

  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations from local authorities in relation to the costs applicants for planning permission have to pay.

WALES

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

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1 February at col.611.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that within the schools' inspection framework that responsibility of schools for raising awareness and understanding of environmental and conservation issues is subject to inspection and comment.
  881
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  School inspections are a matter for the Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales. Inspectors have to report on the quality and standards of education in accordance with OHMCI's framework for inspections. I have asked the chief inspector to write to the hon. Member.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to change the terms of the proposed Welsh Economic Council to take account of the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Economic Council will be able to take account of the strategy in its deliberations.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to work with the voluntary sector to promote sustainable development.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government's plans for involving the voluntary sector in working towards sustainable development are set out in the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development published on 25 January. Within this the Welsh Office will be seeking to ensure that the voluntary sector in Wales is appropriately catered for in the United Kingdom round table and citizen's environment initiatives.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the number of local jobs that would be created in each of the travel-to-work areas adjoining the localities currently nominated for wind farm development and awaiting planning permission.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Heritage Trusts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will bring forward to increase the number of heritage trusts in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government's response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report on the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments (Command 2416) emphasised our commitment to supporting voluntary sector activities in this area. The Department is assisting the architectural heritage fund in its efforts to encourage the establishment of further historic buildings preservation trusts in Wales. The Department's financial support in 1993–94 includes a contribution of £100,000 towards the AHF's loan fund and a grant of £11,300 towards the cost of a development officer. On 4 March I shall be addressing the AHF's conference "From Mansions to Mud-Walled Cottages", which is expected to generate further impetus.

  EU Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has attended meetings of the EU Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministerial colleagues from the lead Departments covering the subject area concerned represent 882
  our interests at meetings of the Council of the European Union and my senior officials also attend to advise those Ministers when this is relevant. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Welsh Office represented the United Kingdom at the informal council on regional policy held in Liege on 12 and 13 November last year.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of sheep scab have been reported in Wales in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since controls on sheep scab were deregulated in June 1992, figures for the number of cases have not been collected and consequently the information is not available.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Redwood
  Promotional advertising and other campaigns run by my Department in the current financial year and which have each cost over 10,000 are as follows:

  Advertising

  Television

  Newspapers

  Radio

  Outdoor1

  None

  None

  None

  Drink Drive

  1 Posters.

  Objectives for national drink drive advertising are set and measured on a United Kingdom wide basis by the Department of Transport. Additional research activity is currently being carried out in Wales specifically to evaluate advertising activity.

  Other Promotional Activity

  Caring for the Future

  Community Care

  Council Tax

  Education Charters

  How Is Your Child Doing At School?

  Planning Development Control

  Programme for the Valleys

  Sheep Annual Premium

  My Department's publicity programme for 1994–95 has not yet been finalised.

  Cadw is my Department's only executive agency. In 1993–94 it has undertaken no television advertising. Budgeted expenditure on other general promotional activity is £232,000, of which £95,000 is budgeted for general press advertising. For 1994–95 budgets and plans are not yet finalised. It is expected that expenditure of a broadly similar amount will be incurred, primarily directed towards the agency's "Makers of Wales" promotional campaign.

  Welsh House Condition Survey
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects his Department to publish the next Welsh house condition survey.
  883
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I expect the results of the survey to be published in the spring.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to exempt public bodies from being required to put out to competitive contract activities costing less than £100,000 a year.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Purchasing by public bodies should be based on value for money. Goods and services should be acquired by competition unless there are good reasons to the contrary.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each public body for which he is responsible all activities costing less than £100,000 a year, together with the appropriate payments in each case, which they contracted out for competitive tender for the latest convenient financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to establish a Welsh Energy Efficiency Office on the lines of those that currently exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There has been a regional energy efficiency office in the Welsh Office since 1983.

  Industrial Aid
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much central Government money was spent on developing industry in Wales for each year since 1979 in(a) cash price and (b) 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  Expenditure through the Welsh Office's main schemes for business support is shown in the following table. The figures do not include grant-in-aid for development agencies in Wales, nor expenditure by DTI on United Kingdom-wide schemes.

  Cash prices1 000's

  1993–94 prices 000's

  1979–80

  55,417

  136,208

  1980–81

  111,500

  231,614

  1981–82

  134,198

  254,177

  1982–83

  131,766

  232,976

  21983–84

  85,359

  144,235

  1984–85

  49,939

  80,347

  1985–86

  105,090

  160,193

  1986–87

  117,128

  173,465

  1987–88

  76,726

  107,882

  1988–89

  93,287

  122,915

  1989–90

  68,542

  84,440

  1990–91

  57,806

  65,900

  1991–92

  74,147

  79,496

  1992–93

  70,927

  73,232

  31993–94

  77,188

  77,188

  1 Expenditure comprises regional development grant, regional selective assistance, regional enterprise giant, and exchange risk guarantee scheme.

  2 Figures for regional development grant up to 1983–84 are gross of receipts. All other figures are net of receipts.

  3 Latest provision.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the Welsh Office has spent on the operation of the assisted places scheme in each year since 1981; how many pupils have been covered by the scheme since 1981; and if there was any overspend on the budget allocated in each of these years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Cost of assisted places scheme

  Number of pupils in assisted places scheme

  Overspend

  £

  £

  1981–82

  160,783

  114

  —

  1982–83

  274,777

  220

  —

  1983–84

  459,626

  318

  —

  1984–85

  626,876

  403

  —

  1985–86

  842,488

  495

  —

  1986–87

  1,519,772

  580

  429,772

  1987–88

  1,394,246

  622

  47,246

  1988–89

  1,359,681

  633

  —

  1989–90

  1,589,392

  631

  —

  1990–91

  1,756,283

  634

  —

  1991–92

  2,064,813

  662

  116,813

  1992–93

  2,457,230

  700

  57,230

  Wind Power
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his national policy for Wales for wind farms.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's policy is to stimulate the development of renewable energy sources, including wind power, wherever they have prospects of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable in order to contribute to diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many wind farms have so far been constructed, or have been approved; and for how many planning applications are pending.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at the beginning of February 1994, the operational status of wind farms in Wales under the non-fossil fuel renewables orders 1 and 2 was:

  Number

  Generating

  6

  Under construction

  2

  Planning approved

  2

  Information on planning applications pending is not collected by the Welsh Office.

  Equipment Thefts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen from his Department in the last three years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of equipment stolen from the Department during the last three financial years are set out in the following tables:
  885

  £

  Financial Year 1990–91

  Wax jacket

  780·30

  Camera

  780·30

  Financial Year 1991–92

  Desk top calculator

  25·00

  Office equipment

  70·00

  Radio/cassette player

  133·50

  1 generator

  1493·51

  1 microwave

  1 strimmer

  1 wheelbarrow

  Tools

  546·67

  1 microwave

  140·00

  Landrover wheel, tyre and padlock

  418·58

  Radio telephone and various lifejackets

  759·28

  3,586·54

  Financial Year 1992–93

  Radio/cassette player

  168·50

  Radio/cassette player

  168·50

  Laptop computer

  2,000·00

  Pallet truck

  150·00

  2,487·00

  A55 Conwy Tunnel
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the original tender price for the A55 Conwy tunnel project; what is his current estimate of the final cost of the contract; and how much of any estimated increase in cost is due to matters other than price inflation provisions within the contract.

  Mr. Redwood
  The tender price for the main contract for the A55 Conwy crossing project was £102 million. The final cost, excluding the price inflation provision within the contract, is of the order of £144·5 million. Most of the increase reflects the unforeseen circumstances encountered during the contruction of this large and complex scheme. Price inflation provision accounts for around a further £18 million.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that Welsh interests are represented on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  Consideration is currently being given to appointing a suitable candidate from Wales.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

Lord Wright of Richmond
Sir Patrick. Richard Henry Wright, GCMG, having been created Baron Wright of Richmond, of Richmond upon Thames in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life— Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the Lord Howe of Aberavon.

Police Disclosure of Information
2.48 p.m.
Lord Denham Lord Denham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider it acceptable for a member of the police to pass details to the media after arresting or charging a person.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the responsibility for authorising disclosure of information to the press rests with chief officers. Home Office guidance suggests that no names should be published at the point of arrest or charging. Unauthorised disclosure of information is a disciplinary offence and could lead to dismissal.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the passing of any privileged information by any member of the public service to the press for money is in fact the start of corruption?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asked the same question and added "for money". That puts quite a different interpretation on the matter. There are occasions when disclosure to the press is appropriate. It is acceptable if it is has the approval of the chief constable and there can be a proper public interest in investigating crime. Therefore, there is no ban in general on mentioning names once a person has been arrested. That is a matter hr the police. If my noble friend is suggesting that police officers deliver information to the newspapers in return for money, that is a very different matter.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House the position once an offence has been committed but before anybody is arrested? Does he agree that it is unhelpful when details, for example of burglaries, are let out which simply tell other criminals where to go?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, these matters are very complicated and that is why they must have the approval of the chief constable. The guidance which the Home Office gives on these matters specifically relates to the
200
effect with regard to contempt of court. It may well be that the issuing of information about people could prejudice a subsequent court hearing.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in answer to his noble friend, the Minister referred essentially to the position of the police. Is he aware that it is commonly believed that there is always money on offer from the media to people who will provide them with such information? Has the Minister any comment to make on his view of the media's behaviour in this regard as well as the behaviour of the police?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to comment on the media's behaviour in how they dispose of their money. What is important is whether police officers are in receipt of money for divulging information. If that happens, they are subject to disciplinary procedure.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between the case where an arrest is made and not followed by a charge, in which case it is not proper for the police to disclose the information about the arrest, and, on the other hand, the case where an arrest is followed by a charge, in which case it is quite proper for the police to release the information if they consider it proper to do so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is impossible to make clear distinctions of when it is proper and when it is not proper to issue that kind of information. That is why it is up to the chief constable to state the conditions on which information should be released officially from the police by their press office. I believe that that is the correct position. As I said, the guidance issued to the police particularly warns of the dangers of interfering with contempt of court.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that at all events the present situation does not appear to be wholly satisfactory, that the Question is well founded, and that some further investigation should be made? Does he further agree that far too much of such information and too many details are being published by the media irrespective of whether they do, or do not, pay the police for it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the situation may be unsatisfactory in your Lordships' minds as to what emerges in the newspapers. I do not dissent from your Lordships' holding views on that. What is important is whether the law is adequate. At the moment we are not convinced that the creation of a specific criminal offence is required for something that can be adequately dealt with by existing means. If, behind all this, my noble friend is suggesting that police officers are divulging, for money, information which they should not divulge, that is an extremely serious charge. If there is evidence of that, it will be taken up by the chief constable or the commissioner as appropriate.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, if money is passing from the media to those who work in police stations, whether they are police officers or civil employees, in order to induce them in breach of their contract to disclose

201
unauthorised information, is not the prime responsibility both morally and legally with the media rather than with the police?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whether or not people should invite others to disclose information for money is a matter of concern for those offering the sums of money. It is a matter of individual choice whether anyone accepts that offer. If they accept the offer, the responsibility is theirs. It would be difficult to frame a law which would forbid newspapers offering money for information.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister more than once said, "if' something happened. There is no evidence that anything did happen of that nature. If we are not careful, are we not in danger of casting aspersions by innuendo on the police force, or on the police officers involved? That is not the sort of Question we ask in this House unless we can produce positive proof.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, makes a helpful and valuable point. Behind all this is an inference regarding certain cases that occurred in the past. All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is that on the occasions in question action was taken to ensure that proper propriety was, and will continue to be, accorded by the police.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that perhaps the Question is directed principally at the police? Does he not agree also that there are more bodies and authoritative councils which might also be embraced, not least, unfortunately, dissemination of information from the Cabinet?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if my noble friend wishes to table a Question on dissemination of information from the Cabinet, somebody will be delighted to answer it. But that has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

London County Courts
2.57 p.m
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many complaints in respect of the working of the county courts in London have been recorded in the last year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, during the year ended 31st December 1993 the 13 London county courts issued 260,000 cases and 89,000 warrants. During the same period the courts recorded 3,064 complaints, of which 1,393 were referred to the courts administrator. During the first half of the year the new Central London County Court received 1,040 complaints, but only 436 in the second half. That downward trend is continuing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. However, is he
202
satisfied that this matter is now under control and that the number of causes for complaint will continue to diminish?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would be wrong to be satisfied, but I believe that considerable improvements have taken place. Two factors affected the level of complaints this year. First, the Courts Charter indicating how complaints could be made was issued at the beginning of the year; secondly, two large county courts in the centre of London were amalgamated to give the new Central London County Court. Carrying out an amalgamation of that kind while business was still being conducted imposed severe strains. I believe that now that matters are settling down improvements will continue.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord give a high priority to the quality of service provided by the county courts, not least because the majority of civil cases are litigated there? Is he satisfied that sufficient resources have been available to the county courts, in line with the undertakings given to this House during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Act, to ensure that they can deal effectively with their increased workload as well as to ensure that their staff are properly trained? Can the noble and learned Lord also inform the House whether he is contemplating appointing additional circuit judges not only to deal with the existing jurisdiction limited to £ 1,000 in small claims cases, but also to make feasible a significant uplift on that limited monetary jurisdiction?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I certainly attach very high importance to the standard of service given in the county courts. I have already indicated the improvements that have been made in the service in central London. One of the factors which shows the improvement is the very much shorter length of time one has to wait for a trial in the county court than was the case in the past. On the noble Lord's second point, the arbitration jurisdiction is a jurisdiction of district judges. I shall certainly take into account the availability of district judges in considering whether any extension of that jurisdiction should take place. There has been quite a substantial increase in the total establishment of circuit judges and district judges over the past few years.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that a recent report of a joint working party of the Bar Council and the Law Society stated that the principal problems facing London county courts are inadequate staff training, insufficient technology and unsophisticated filing systems, the organisation being described by a London county court judge as a "cottage industry"? It advised that, as the Lord Chancellor has decided to turn the county court service into an executive agency,
"Before this melting pot of change has solidified into whatever shape it may take",
it is vital that there should be an appraisal by independent management consultants of a number of

203
aspects of the system to ensure that the courts are appropriately' resourced and are run in the most efficient way.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am aware of the recent report to which my noble and learned friend referred. I should have thought that cottage industries have some very good features. In so far as the county court service has those features, I am glad to applaud them in that respect. We are seeking to modernise the systems used in the county courts. We have made quite substantial strides in recent years in that respect and we continue to do so. I am hoping that a comprehensive computer system called the Local County Courts System will be in operation towards the end of this year. So far as concerns the filing system, it will have an effect in improving that. As much as possible we are seeking to use modern technology in the county courts. So far as concerns training, there is always scope for improvement. But quite substantial improvements in training have taken place over recent years. Another contributory factor in that improvement is the fact that the turnover of staff is much less than it was.
Lord Ezra.: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that recently there was a television programme which was highly critical of procedure at the county court? It gave the impression that when contestants are called to sessions of that court it is a matter of pure chance as to whether or not their case is actually heard. It certainly left me with the feeling that that would be the last place I would want to go if I had any case to put forward.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is always possible to give an impression. My general impression is that the standard of service in the county courts is very good. If the noble Lord should by any chance have a dispute that he wishes to resolve, I believe that he will have it resolved in the county court to his satisfaction, and probably more cheaply than in most competing tribunals.

NATO: Defence and Aid Expenditure
3.5 p.m
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the annual defence expenditure of NATO countries and what funds are allocated by those countries each year as aid to the economies of the former Warsaw Pact countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, in 199: 2, the latest year for which comparative figures are published, the defence expenditure of NATO countries worldwide was estimated at £ 295 billion. More than £ 3.9 billion was provided by NATO countries as bilateral and multilateral assistance to the former Warsaw Pact countries over the same period.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that in Moscow there are women in the underground stations selling garments from the family wardrobe and family ornaments in order to raise funds for the home? In view of the Zhirinovsky factor, can she give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will inject into the European Community a more proactive and not illusory but visionary foreign policy which will raise the prospects for eastern European countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are many reasons why different household goods and even personal goods are sold in countries of the former communist bloc to raise funds. I shall not comment in detail on that, but I shall comment that the United Kingdom has taken particular trouble to work with the two European funds— TACIS for the former Soviet Union and PHARE for the eastern European countries — to improve the targeting of their resources and also to make sure that they are following programmes which can be replicated by those countries when such time comes that they can actually manage this. We are of course well aware of all the problems that nationalism, wherever it exists, can cause and we are particularly keen to make sure that not only do the European funds work well but that our own know-how fund— some £ 17.2 million to Russia— is working to the best quality possible.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in view of what is happening in, say, Belarus and Ukraine, it is time to consider whether there is any more peace dividend and whether in fact we might not have to stop some of this economic aid in order to protect ourselves as members of NATO?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of the grave disquiet at some of the things happening Belarus and Ukraine. It is true that we are managing to influence some of the areas of government in both those two countries. I believe that as long as it is feasible to influence them to take control of their nuclear plant and to improve their economic performance we should keep that line of influence running. It may not be indefinite. It probably cannot be; and the money would not anyway last that long. But I believe we should be trying to influence them.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, following rather closely on the last supplementary question, is the noble Baroness aware, as I am sure she is, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, accompanied by, of all people, the American representative to the United Nations, has been touring eastern Europe and arranging cascade sales of arms— "cascade" in this context meaning the downwards and onwards sale of old NATO weapons as new NATO weapons are procured?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am extremely surprised to hear what the noble Lord has just said, that the US representative to the United Nations should be doing this. I shall certainly look into the detail of what the noble Lord said and write to him.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of criticism of the operation of the know-how fund, including criticism of its failure to spend its budget in some countries, including Russia, because of incompetence on the part of those administering the scheme? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that she will investigate these criticisms and will try to speed up the process between the decision to support a programme and the gap of many months before contracts are issued?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is the first time that any deep criticism such as the noble Baroness has just made of the know-how fund has been put to me directly. I was present at the meeting of the joint assistance units with all the ambassadors from central and eastern Europe earlier this week. I have met many of the leaders of the countries receiving these funds. On every occasion, and without exception, it has been the British know-how funds which have been said to be best targeted and the best applied and which give the best value. It has been the PHARE and the TACIS funds which have been criticised in the way which the noble Baroness described.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, during the visit of the President of Armenia last week, did the noble Baroness have an opportunity to discuss with him the effects of the blockade imposed on that country by her neighbours and the need therefore for additional aid funds? Can the noble Baroness say whether it is possible for us to now consider opening a mission in Erevan so that better relations can be fostered between this country and Armenia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that I told your Lordships last week that we keep this matter under review. I did discuss with President Ter-Petrosyan the problems faced by Armenia and the ways in which they may be overcome. I have nothing further to add at the moment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister accept that, whatever may be said in the countries concerned, including what is said by our own ambassadors there, those who are involved in providing some of this aid in the United Kingdom, including educational projects, feel deeply frustrated by the delays in issuing contracts? Can she tell the House that she will look into these criticisms?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if those who are frustrated by such delays will write to give me details, I shall look into each and every one of them. But, by and large, the delivery of all that the know-how fund has been doing has been far superior to what is given by some others. One of our problems will always be to get the response from the receiving nation to the questions that we must pose to make sure that public money is properly disbursed.

Sarajevo
3.12 p.m
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress there has been on the removal of heavy weapons around Sarajevo.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the NATO decision of 9th February required all heavy weapons in Sarajevo, except for those within two kilometres of Pale, to be withdrawn to 20 kilometres from the city or placed under UN control. The parties have so far made a limited response, although the ceasefire is generally holding. UNPROFOR is continuing to monitor the parties' compliance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I hope that she does not think that I am asking this Question in a superfluous manner, considering the debate which we had on Monday. However, the subject is so important that I am sure the House wants to hear about the progress being made. On Monday one of the uncertainties was the chain of command. Can the Minister assure us that whoever is doing the negotiating, whether it be General Rose or anyone else, is able to say to the Serbs, "If you do not comply then the attacks will be made"? If he has to say, "If you do not comply, I shall have to see whether the various people concerned will agree to the attacks being made", does the Minister agree that that is a very bad negotiating position? Her assurance on this point will be very welcome.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I do not in any way dispute his right to come back to this question, which we discussed on Monday. I can tell him that the chain of command which I described in the debate, with consultation between the UN Secretary-General's special representative Akashi and General Rose, the UNPROFOR commander, together with the Commander-in-Chief for the southern region of NATO, is the command structure. Both the designated NATO commander and the UNPROFOR commanders must approve the air strikes. They will have the former prescription— if the Serbs do not comply they will indeed act— and not the latter prescription given by the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United Nations is now calling for 3,000 more troops to be deployed around Sarajevo? Does that mean that there has been a change of policy; and that the United Nations is now embarked not on a humanitarian mission but on a peacekeeping mission before any overall peace has been agreed? I ask for an assurance from the noble Baroness that in no circumstances will any further British troops be sent in the present situation.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall deal first of all with the question about British troops. General Rose has made a request to the UN that more

207
UN troops should be provided. We shall consider that with other UN troop providers and perhaps others who have not yet provided troops. What I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is that the UNPROFOR role, by virtue of the North Atlantic Council decision that it should supervise weaponry in Serb camps, is a wider role than it was before; but it is still not going down the path which the noble Lord indicated.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is still a high degree of imprecision in this situation which could be disastrous? We talk about placing heavy weapons under UNPROFOR control. What precisely does that mean? Does it mean that UNPROFOR will be in a position to prevent the weapons being fired? That seems to me to be t he only sensible interpretation. If that is so, that would be a little more precise. As regards the weapons being subject to NATO air strikes when the ultimatum expires, can the Minister say what that means? Does that mean that they will be attacked or that they may be attacked?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thought that we went over this ground fairly thoroughly on Monday. It is for the UNPROFOR commanders, together with the UN special representative, to decide whether the parties have complied with the terms of the NATO declaration, including whether they have complied with the provision to put their heavy weapons under UNPROFOR control. If they have not done so, then the UNPROFOR commanders, together with the UN special representative, have the power to act under Security Council Resolution 836.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the present attempt to lift the siege of Sarajevo is of the utmost importance? If she agrees with that, does she accept that it is vital that the UN Secretary-General's request for extra troops should be met? In contrast to what my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has just said, can she tell the House that the Government will be responding positively to the request to provide extra troops to support General Rose?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note carefully what the noble Baroness has said. I remind your Lordships that Britain is already the second largest contributor of troops after France. There are many other nations with troops available who could also help. It is true that we have the finest commanders and the finest command structure. There has been no hesitation by the British Army to do their very best in Bosnia, and many people are alive today thanks to them. But I do not believe that your Lordships would expect me to say more at present. It is a very delicate matter. I do not wish to say or do anything which will exacerbate the situation. I believe that the noble Baroness knows me well enough to realise that Britain will do its best.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, no one wishes to exacerbate the present situation. But should we not begin looking to the future? In view of the confusion which seems to exist, does the noble Baroness agree that it is time that Article 27 of the United Nations Charter, which proposed the setting up of a military
208
staffs committee under the control of the permanent members of the Security Council, should be considered so that responsibility can be gathered into one set of hands?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, to see that matter carried through. He knows that I share with him, in certain circumstances, some sympathy for that view. To carry that out when we are in the middle of one of the most difficult situations that the UN and NATO have ever faced, is not the right time; but I agree that the matter should be addressed. I shall do my best to see that that is done.
Lord Carver: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that, under pressure from the United States, the media or anybody else, Her Majesty's Government will not make General Rose's task any more difficult than it is already?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that comment. We are doing our best not to make the tasks of General Rose and the special representative Akashi any more difficult. The delegated authorities to the Commander-in-Chief South, to Mr. Akashi and to the UNPROFOR commanders, is what counts. The UNPROFOR commanders have the authority, and it is they, not US anchormen such as Larry King, who interviewed Gerry Adams, who will take the decision.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Commons Registration (East Sussex) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Hill Samuel Bank and United Dominions Trust Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Inquisitorial Tribunals and Inquiries
3.21 p.m
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman rose to call attention to the current procedures of statutory inquisitorial tribunals and inquiries investigating allegations of serious fraud and other misconduct; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are two problems each of my own making. First, in framing the Motion for debate I have opened up such a wide range of tribunals and inquiries that it may be difficult to see the wood for the trees. It may be helpful to my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry to know that the wood upon which I shall be focusing will be the

209
injustices and unfairness that can be occasioned to individuals who are participating in such inquiries and tribunals.
Secondly, I believe that if one criticises a particular system, there is an obligation to try to suggest remedies. I am in some difficulty because I can only repeat the findings and advice given by the Salmon Commission in 1966 and the Franks Committee in 1958, which made firm recommendations about the way in which the unfairness that can result from inquisitional inquiries can be reduced if not entirely eliminated. I shall be referring to those two bodies.
I acknowledge that the DTI, which is responsible for a wide range of inquiries under the Companies Act, has in its revised guidelines tried to strike a balance between public advantage and private rights. But at the end of the day the system of an inquisition— and these are inquisitions— cannot be entirely fair.
Tribunals and inquiries come in many shapes and sizes. I suppose that at the top of the list is a Royal Commission. I shall not dwell on that because it is a commission which looks into national policy and the like. The most prestigious inquiry is that held under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. It is also one of the rarest because there have been only 20 such inquiries since the passing of that Act. The Salmon Commission looked at the matter in 1966 and stated that that formal inquiry should be confined to nationwide crises of confidence; for instance, the leakage of the bank rate in 1957.
At the other end of the range are an enormous number of tribunals and inquiries which come under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, revised in 1992. They come under the supervisory umbrella of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. They cover a wide variety of administrative-type inquiries, ranging from parking adjudication— I am not sure what that is but I am sure that it is important— to the national lottery, which is still to come into operation, and Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. Scores of inquiries come under the supervision or overall guidance of that Council' on Tribunals. I shall not be referring to those, except to say that whatever safeguards apply to one type of inquisition should apply to all.
There is a scale of inquiry which falls in the middle band between those two extremes. That is the band to which I shall refer today. Those inquiries are authorised by various Acts and have their own rules and I shall refer to them. There are also inquiries which are set up without any statutory authority; for example, the Scott Inquiry, which is now taking place and to which I shall not refer.
The common feature in all those inquiries is that they are inquisitional. They have been set up to inquire into allegations of misconduct and they can be very unfair. They are unlike judicial proceedings in courts, which are adversarial. In such judicial proceedings there are opposing parties: plaintiff and defendant, prosecution and accused. Most important, there is the judge who presides, hears both sides and finally gives his verdict.
210
Inquisitional inquiries, to which I am referring, are chaired by a president, an inspector or whatever he may be. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when presiding over the Profumo Inquiry, said that he had to act as "detective, inquisitor, advocate and judge". Acting in that variety of roles must give rise to a serious risk of much unfairness.
The Salmon Commission inquired into the 1921 Act and stated:
The inquisitional procedure is alien to the concept of justice generally accepted in the United Kingdom".
That is a fairly dramatic statement to make about a system that is widely used today. The commission went on to state that if the procedure were to be retained— and it may be necessary "in exceptional circumstances"— certain cardinal principles must be adopted. Although those remarks were directed at inquiries under the 1921 Act, they are equally applicable to any form of inquisitional inquiry. Indeed, the Franks Committee made that clear in its 1958 report.
Some of these inquiries are held in public and some in private. Neither is sub judice. That has serious consequences. If the inquiries are held in public, the media can be most selective on what it reports. Representatives will attend the inquiry all day and there will probably be only one paragraph about it in the daily paper. They will pick out the most newsworthy item and if that happens to be salacious, so much the better for the sales. I can understand the reasons. Not being sub judice enables an inquiry to be badly distorted in the media. At an inquiry held in private, of course, the press will not be present. Its members can predict, estimate and guess what the evidence is or will be and what the outcome will be. The 1966 report of the Salmon Commission stated:
"The press should exercise extreme caution in reporting proceedings".
Perhaps in 1966 such remarks may have had an impact on the press that they do not necessarily have today.
If the inquiry is held in private— and company inquiries are always held in private— no witness hears what other witnesses have said about him, however damning it might be. If the one being criticised is called before his critic gives his evidence, the inspectors do not have the allegations or other evidence to put to the one being criticised at the time he is giving evidence. The inspectors cannot tell him that he has already been criticised because that criticism comes from a witness who comes later. The inspectors can recall a witness, but rarely do that.
Whether an inquiry is held in public or in private, no witness can cross-examine any other witness. If the inquiry is held in private, a witness will not know what has been said. If the inquiry is public, he may hear what has been said, but has no right or power to criticise or to challenge that. A witness can take his legal adviser with him to most inquiries, but that legal adviser is not allowed to give evidence, to address the inquiry, to cross-examine or to question any witness.
In a private inquiry, no witness knows what has been said (apart from in his own evidence) until the report is published. The report may contain something about which a witness, who has not heard it before, will express astonishment when the report is published. A

211
witness might say, "If only the inquiry had asked me about that, I could have told them what happened", but the witness was not asked. He did not even know that the point had been raised during the inquiry and the inspectors had not put it to him — either because they did not consider that it was important or because they had overlooked the fact.
If there is a clear conflict of evidence between two witnesses, the inspectors decide whom to believe. The disbelieved has no opportunity to cross-examine his accuser. He can be branded in a report as a liar and not have the opportunity to cross-examine those who have accused him, or to test their evidence.
One of the six cardinal principles that the Salmon Commission laid down was that in such circumstances a witness
"should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel any evidence which may affect him".
That was directed at the 1921 Act, but must surely apply with no less weight to any inquisition that might expose someone to unfair treatment.
Where inspectors intend to raise a criticism about someone in their final report in a Companies Act inquiry, they are required to give a draft of that report to the man or woman to be criticised and invite them to comment. Those who see that draft then have to try to convince the inspectors that they are wrong. They have to try to do that without any opportunity to see the evidence against them, let alone the opportunity to cross-examine their accusers on it.
Perhaps I may give some brief illustrations of the sort of unfairness that has resulted from this procedure. I refer first to an inquiry under the Companies Act 1985, the report of which made serious criticisms of certain individuals. Those criticisms were based on a complete misunderstanding by the inspectors of the facts— I believe that that is widely accepted. The individuals had no proper opportunity to respond to them. However much one is damned, there is no appeal in such circumstances. The individuals were therefore left with that criticism in the report. It ruined their careers. That is gross unfairness and should not be allowed to happen.
Another case relates to a DTI inquiry into share and option movements which occurred ahead of a takeover bid in 1988. I see from press reports that, despite the media fanfare with which that inquiry was launched, it is still on-going. Nothing has been heard of it since. No doubt a lot of expense is still being incurred. Many people who are involved in that inquiry have already waited for over five years and must be hoping for an outcome. Surely that delay must be unfair to all those involved.
A further example relates to a highly publicised notice in 1991 stating that an official receiver was taking action under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to disqualify a director from acting as a director. I do not know whether or not that application was justified— nor can anyone else until the proceedings are heard— but I understand that, due to other proceedings that are pending against other people, it is unlikely that the inquiry will be heard until 1996. In the meantime, the individual concerned does not know with
212
what he is likely to be accused and has no opportunity to give an answer to it. It cannot be fair to keep someone under such a cloud for five years.
I now turn to a slightly different category, but again these are examples of the unfairnesses that can result from this type of inquisition. I should make it clear that many such inquiries are conducted most properly and that no unfairness is caused, but when unfairness does occur, it can be very traumatic and very damaging to innocent people. Into this different category of examples come the inquisitorial inquiries, such as those that are carried out by district auditors which condemn individuals who may have to wait a very long time, often incurring considerable expense, before having any opportunity to challenge that inquisition's findings, let alone clear their names.
I have taken a fairly random selection of inquiries that can cause concern and in which unfairness has been caused to individuals who are innocent or who are assumed to be innocent, as we all are unless and until we are proved otherwise.
The purpose of the inquiries is to report on the facts. They should not pass judgment by drawing conclusions from conflicting evidence that is not tested by cross-examination. My purpose in this Motion is to express my concern about "the inquisitorial procedure" which the Royal Commission under Salmon said was:
"alien to the concept of justice generally accepted in the United Kingdom".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.37 p.m
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with me that we are most grateful and indebted to my noble friend Lord Boardman for raising a subject that is often swept under the carpet. Noble Lords will recollect that the Government tried to solve some of the problems in the City of London by introducing what is known as the Financial Services Act. When that Act was going through another place, many of us said, "Let us be careful about this because we could over-regulate the City". I think that anybody who has endeavoured to work with the Financial Services Act will agree that the compliance costs, regulations and red tape of that Act have not achieved the result for which the Government wished. One of the fears of many of us in the City is that if the City is over-regulated, other financial centres will benefit because business will go to those centres.
I very much agreed with the points made by my noble friend Lord Boardman when he drew attention to some of the cases which have been shown to be completely unfair. I remind your Lordships of the Blue Arrow case which went on for nearly four years. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the individuals concerned, but what I do say is that to keep a person under threat for four years is completely barmy and does not accord at all with our interpretation of justice.
There has also been the Levitt inquiry. Many of us were completely astounded at the sentence of community service that was given for an obvious fraud on many members of the general public. There has also been the Barlow Clowes case, which again involved

213
taxpayers' money, lengthy proceedings, etcetera, etcetera— not to mention the Guinness affair, which went on for years and years. In each of those cases individuals were under threat because of the allegations that had been made against them. As my noble friend Lord Boardman said, they did not have an opportunity to refute those allegations. That meant that our system of justice consequently came under close scrutiny and criticism.
We have had the recent case of an individual in the National Audit Office who alleged that there had been certain misdemeanours within Westminster City Council. I do not know whether there have been, but it was completely unfair, in my view, to keep the people alleged to have perpetrated some kind of swindle in suspense. Under threat, one of them committed suicide. There must be something wrong with our legal system — and I remind noble Lords that I have no legal knowledge at all— when in many cases the tribunals, investigations, court cases, trials and the rest of them go on for far too long. With the greatest respect to any of my legal colleagues here, it is a bonanza mainly for the legal profession in many cases.
When I was Chairman of the Back-Bench Finance Committee in another place, I was worried, as many of us were, about the accusations of insider dealings within Lloyd's of London. After I led a delegation to the Lloyd's Council an independent committee was set up under Sir David Walker. I had the honour to be a member of that committee which looked into what was known as the LMX spiral. Many Names in Lloyd's lost a lot of money because of poor underwriting and lack of communication between members' agents and the managing agent. The committee began work in March 1992 and its report came out six months later. I should have thought that that was one way in which we could look at the question of investigations to see whether we could truncate the time it takes to reach a report.
There are too many regulators. Within the City of London there is the Securities and Investments Board, which does a first-class job of work, there is FIMBRA, LAUTRO, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, and now we shall have the Personal Investment Association, the PIA. All those bodies— I shall not call them quangos— overlap and take our eye off the main objective.
I suggest that when we have allegations or trials under the Companies Acts, or whatever, we must look at the jury system in this country. In many cases the complexity and complicated points in a court case are just not understood by the jury. Jury members just do not have the knowledge to understand them. I should have thought that it was high time that we looked at the proposal to have a court— what we would call it I do not know— of experts in the Companies Acts rather than believe that we can leave an ordinary jury to deal with it. In many cases, I am convinced that the jury are blinded by science.
My main point in supporting my noble friend Lord Boardman is to cut out the unfairness of a threat hanging over an individual about something which he or she has not had the opportunity to refute. We have the Serious
214
Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and so many other avenues, but we do not seem to pick simply on one to deal with allegations of fraud or whatever it may be.
My noble friend referred to the case where a person was told, or it was alleged, that he was unfit to be a director. I do not know whether he was unfit, but such a person should be able to prove his fitness or otherwise as soon as possible because in many cases he is probably in the meantime being deprived of any livelihood. He cannot stay on any board and consequently there is hardship, and so far as I know he has no recourse to anyone at the end of the day — four or five years later, or whatever it takes— for compensation for loss of earnings.
We spent so long on the Financial Services Bill and there were so many drafts and redrafts that the final Act was nothing like the original Bill. It was revised, I believe, six or seven times before it saw the light of day. I urge my noble and learned friend and the Government to concentrate on how in the case of inquisitions, trials or whatever we can overcome the long delays, even if it means dispensing with the jury system. In my view, it would mean justice for those people who are alleged to have done something but who have not had the opportunity to refute it.
3.46 p.m
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the House should be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, for introducing such an important subject for debate. It is my fervent hope that during the course of this debate the problems can be aired in a constructive manner and that the upshot of our contributions will acknowledge that, whereas we are all of one mind that fraud must be eliminated, must be pursued, we should not lose sight of the fact that Britain is still way out in front in the league table of business ethics and morality in financial and other commercial operations.
If one were to take a snapshot view of some five years' press comment relating to business practice in Britain one would probably come to the conclusion that business practice, and particularly financial practice, left a great deal to be desired. The reality is far removed from that conclusion. In addition, one would probably infer that fraud in the City of London was rampant. Again, not so. I think that it behoves me to remind the House that the daily foreign exchange dealings alone of the City of London amount to over 300 billion dollars — more than the comparable turnover of New York and Tokyo combined.
The reason for such prominence being given to the apparent problem of fraud in the City is simply derived from the fact that, as one of the three great global centres of finance, it is bound to attract the bigger attempted frauds. The sheer volume of banking business going through London and the availability of very liquid markets means that criminals who specialise in this area will target the UK banking system. These are frauds on the City not of the City, and this distinction is important.
The current procedures of statutory inquisitorial tribunals arose from the considerable public dissatisfaction with the system for the investigation and

215
prosecution of serious and complex fraud and from the feeling that the fraudsters were "getting away with it". Following the report of the Fraud Trials Committee in 1986, the Serious Fraud Office was established in 1988. Frankly, just looking at the extent of the responsibilities of the SFO I think that working there must be one of the most onerous jobs in the country.
Be that as it may, it is imperative to have a system in place which can deal with complex fraud and, indeed, the very existence of such a system probably has a deterrent effect on would-be fraudsters. There is no argument about the need for such a system; what can be questioned is whether the methods employed during investigations of fraud are acceptable or, on the other hand, are the systems which are currently in place adequate in the face of premeditated fraud or should we have some form of statutory regulation which would make investigations more clear-cut?
I fear that I am falling into my own trap of conveying the impression that there is a huge problem of fraud. I do not believe that this is so. Just let us cast our minds back 30 years or so: insider dealing was rife— as indeed it still is in many countries. Even some 10 years ago the role of non-executive directors was nothing like as onerous as now; audit committees were the exception rather than the rule that they have now become; very few companies had internal audit departments; the role of external auditors was quite superficial by comparison with the in-depth analytical review of the financial affairs and statements of the company which is, I hope, universally carried out now.
The Companies Act, FIMBRA, IMRO, LAUTRO, SIB, Cadbury have all combined to make all of us involved in business and finance extremely aware of the responsibility 10 dc all in our power to prevent, search out and eliminate fraud. The growing awareness of the role and responsibility of the board has changed corporate governance beyond recognition.
The existing systems in place in companies almost certainly prevent much fraud but, sadly, there will always be people whose sole aim is to defraud. The investigations into fraud must be, of their nature, extremely difficult and fraught with what I call the "probability factor". In a murder case there is a body — or nearly always so; in a fraud case there is often very flimsy evidence. If I pass a cheque to someone over a lunch table, am I perceived as guilty of some fraudulent activity?
However, all fraud has to be investigated— deeply — in order to stamp out crime, improve business ethics and maintain our national and international reputation. In the course of such investigations rough justice is often seen to be the norm. Totally innocent parties can be prejudiced and, despite the maxim that "everyone is innocent until proved guilty", mistakes do happen. Surely, my Lords, we must endeavour to ensure that nobody should make premature judgments on the basis of superficial evidence. Rough justice has no part in our business world— or should not have.
Looking at the whole issue, I suggest four options which could improve the current system. First, it is imperative that the investigatory process should be
216
expedited with real force. As has already been stated, the longer the process takes, the more likely it is that the innocent will be irreparably damaged.
Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, I believe that there is a very strong argument against trial by jury for cases of complicated fraud. Very few people, however well educated they are, can understand the complexities of most of the cases that come before them. The documents themselves are almost incomprehensible to those who are unused to finance. On the principle of juries always trying to adopt the line of "proof beyond reasonable doubt", I am not surprised that many juries acquit. There must be a case for fraud cases to be handled by judges alone, provided that those judges are fully trained in financial practices and are completely financially and computer-technology literate.
Thirdly, consideration should be given to the introduction of plea bargaining. The director of the Serious Fraud Office had some very interesting comments to make on this issue in a speech he made at the London School of Economics on 10th November 1992. In essence, he made the following points: the avoidance of a contested trial by making a plea of guilty yields enormous benefits in terms of cost, time and manpower; and, if defendants knew in advance what the sentence would be they would weigh up the cost to them of going ahead with a trial and hoping to be found not guilty against the cost of anxiety, monetary outlay and many other factors. That could result in the defendants being more inclined to plead. Mr. Staple also made the point that he believes it is possible to introduce a system encouraging guilty defendants to plead, while at the same time protecting them from improper pressure to do so. Surely that should be encouraged. I do commend Mr Staple's speech to your Lordships. It can be obtained from the SFO.
I turn now to my fourth option. Every possible attempt should be made to ensure that there is no trial by the press during the course of investigations of fraud. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, referred to that fact. Why is it that during the period while a suspect for a murder is being investigated the press obey the sub judice rules, yet we have the appalling spectacle of hoards of baying pressmen being alerted that an arrest is about to be made of a suspect in a fraud case? Trial by jury is one of the principles of our judicial system— to my knowledge, trial by the media is not.
By its very nature fraud is obscure and difficult. By its very nature it is exceedingly complex. What concerns me greatly is that, because it is so complex, it is imperative that we realise that the skills and knowledge base of all the members of investigatory teams cannot possibly be of the highest order. That is a fact; it is just not possible to ensure that every single person engaged in such a task has all the background experience which will equip him or her with the ability to make fair and correct judgments and to arrive at the right conclusions.
As a mere novice in the business of understanding computer science, I can still see how computers can, and indeed do, increase the risk of fraud. Computers and conspiracy are an explosive combination which require intense vigilance in all companies and institutions and,

217
indeed, penetrating investigation when vigilance has failed. If we cannot get that right— and, by "right", I include making sure that the innocent are not irreparably damaged— we will be forced ultimately to go down the road of statutory regulation. That would be a sad development, a development that might not yield the required results as there is no assurance that tighter regulation would reduce the level of attempted fraud as fraudsters are not generally part of the authorised network.
The "open" system of regulation has enormously benefited the development of the City as the top international financial centre. The existence of our open system has ensured, for example, that foreign banks have felt welcome here. They have come in their hundreds. At the last count there were 537 foreign banks from over 70 different countries in the City of London. We should bear in mind that there is no evidence that a single bank has left London as a result of the too-well publicised occurrences of fraud. To the contrary, every indication supports the view that London remains attractive because of its openness.
As I implied at the beginning of my speech, in a debate like this there is a danger that we will concentrate too much on the negative aspects of our business and financial activity. As in all areas of human activity and endeavour, mistakes do happen— but so do successes, many successes. We have unsung heroes in the battle against crime, among them the City of London police. I am sure that noble Lords will recall the story of the bond which was stolen in broad daylight in a street in the City not too long ago. It involved over 200 million dollars, nearly all of which has been recovered in the course of arrests and trials in seven countries around the world. It is quite a success story, but not too much media publicity has been given to that particular success.
In conclusion, I feel that the current strategy in preventing and dealing with fraud is probably right. The combination of "watch dog" agencies with those strange acronyms (FIMBRA, IMRO, LAUTRO and SIB), together with the vigilance of the DTI and Customs and Excise, ensure that as much as is probably humanly possible— or, acceptable in a democracy— is done to prevent fraud. Perhaps it is the tactics that need looking at again— the tactics employed in, to quote the wording of today's debate,
"the current procedures of statutory inquisitorial tribunals and inquiries investigating allegations of serious fraud and other misconduct".
3.56 p.m
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is sad that such a debate should be necessary. I have asked myself why. I stand four square behind my noble friend Lord Boardman on the points that he made. However, I wonder why we should reach a stage now where we are to some extent querying the integrity of our own system. When there is any doubt, it seems as though a Minister or an official runs for cover and immediately appoints someone to head or run an inquiry— an inquiry which is usually, and more often than not, unfair and unjust for a high proportion of people.
218
I wonder why that has happened. Drawing on my limited experience, I believe that such changes have probably taken place only over the past 20 years. I do not cast doubts upon the integrity of those in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury or other bodies which seek to control the system, but I wonder whether the move towards the centre is correct. I believe that it was Samuel Johnson who said:
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless".
When I worked in such fields in the City of London and in other places we controlled ourselves. We were controlled by our bosses. The name of the house was all important. You could not deal in shares in any way other than through the bank itself which held the shares in your name. You had no control over financial matters. Your partners or directors had a corporate and collective responsibility. You were a known Name and you knew with whom you did business and with whom you did not.
Over the passage of time we have seen many comments in the newspapers about dishonesty, lack of integrity and fraud across the board. But those of us who have worked in the financial world— and I must not mention any names— were often told, "We do not lunch with them"; "We do not meet with them"; "We do not join syndicates with them"; or, "We do not work with their clients". Often when we heard such phrases, within a matter of six months or a year we would read a headline in a newspaper that someone had run off.
Why does such a problem occur? More often than not I believe that the frauds— if that is what they are called — do not begin intentionally. People set up a business in a genuine effort to try to make money, but when things go wrong and they see their shares collapse they run for cover and their standards drop. At such times it should surely be the responsibility of the board of directors or the shareholders themselves to exercise influence.
I was interested to note that there are many speakers in this debate, but not so many months ago we had a debate on corporate governance when I believe only three or four people spoke. There is a need for guidelines, and we know what those guidelines are. The noble Baroness has referred to audit committees and remuneration committees. The controls are fairly obvious and can be implemented by people and organisations themselves.
I believe that the move towards the centre in terms of control is wrong and it is also more costly. When I first went to work in the financial world I used to shake hands with people. The other day I was present at a meeting where there were, I believe,15 lawyers and no client. I tried to shake hands, but one man said to me, "You cannot shake hands on that. It must be a legal agreement". In the early days one gave one's word, and one's word, as we have heard before, was one's bond. A similar situation arose in the case of a horse deal in the East End: one spat on and then slapped one's hand and that was legally binding. The punishment for breaking the rules entered into with that gesture was death. Today one can complete a commodity deal on one sheet of paper but it needs 40 to complete a loan. The banks regard everyone who borrows money with intense suspicion, as if they were about to run off with the

219
funds. Something has gone wrong because more and more paper covered in small and large print is produced; and some of us find as we get older that we can no longer read even the large print.
I worry about these trends. However, they are not just symptomatic of the financial world, which is what we are discussing today, where people conclude transactions for greed and gain and not necessarily for glory. In the area of public life generally we have had the Scott inquiry and examples of people who have genuinely sought to do things which they think are in the national interest. Perhaps we should remind them that,
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
Why is it that we are regarded with suspicion in whatever we do? For a period of time I chaired a government committee on Middle East trade. I dealt with countries which had problems of terrorism and all kinds of other problems. I dealt with Syria, Libya, Iran and with countries that were often under sanctions. I believe that Britain was the first country to impose sanctions on another country.
It is interesting to note that Britain now probably has the highest standards of all in trying to ensure that sanctions imposed by the United Nations or other bodies are adhered to. Perhaps noble Lords are aware that other countries allow their citizens to do anything which they believe to be right in the national interest provided they have consulted on the matter beforehand. Here, if one wishes to communicate with certain countries which might prove to be useful trading partners once one has persuaded them to conform with the regulations involved with sanctions, one has to obtain a permit to communicate with them. That applies of course even to parliamentarians. Parliamentarians need to approach the Department of Trade and Industry, make an application on paper that is almost of banknote quality and state the nature of one's discussions with the country concerned. It is as if the Government are saying, "We know what is best for our citizens", when more often than not it is the citizens who now best what is good for the Government.
It has been said that,
"Knowledge without. t integrity is dangerous and dreadful".
The bringing together of knowledge and integrity is a difficult feat. I believe that there are many of us who still think that one does business with someone or works with someone because one likes and trusts that person and not so much because of the organisation in which that person works. If there are to be controls in this area, I believe they should be as decentralised as possible and that firm guidelines should be laid down. Those noble Lords who may have had friends who have had to appear before public inquiries of one kind or another will know that, however innocent a person may be— I have taken part in such an inquiry myself— he will feel his heart start to pound and wonder whether he has done anything wrong. One feels that there is no sense of justice in such an inquiry and that one is talking to people who know nothing about the subject which they are investigating. One feels that they are learning on the job and are changing their minds as they go along, having reached a conclusion at the beginning.
220
I worry about these inquiries. I am not so worried about the cost of them, as they keep an enormous number of people employed, but I worry about the time that they take up. Often one is asked to appear before one's peers in an organisation and given a rocket for having done something wrong. One accepts the rebuke, even if one knows it is unjust, and that is the end of it. The rebuke is short and sharp, and if it turns out later to have been unjust, one is told, "Bad luck. That is just part of the system and it will help you to grow up".
I have not said anything terribly constructive, but I feel that somehow officialdom has sought to impose itself upon people in a way that has reduced their integrity. It is sufficient for someone to say that an action is within the law; he no longer makes a subjective judgment about the morality of what is involved. I still believe that a handshake ought to be legally binding. However, I must confess that things go wrong all the time and one's integrity is questioned. I end with a quotation from Kipling:
"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too"
4.5 p.m
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boardman for initiating this debate. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a completely different form of inquisitorial inquiry into other misconduct, or rather alleged misconduct, where: the procedure used often seems to be exceptionally hard. I refer to what are sometimes called back duty inquiries, where a taxpayer, or frequently a non-taxpayer, comes to the attention of the Inland Revenue. These begin with a letter to the taxpayer demanding that he re-affirms the declarations he has already made in his tax returns, and asking him to give unrestricted access to his private records. There is also a demand for an interview, where the inspector reads something called the Hansard extract which is a statement made in the other place by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on 5th October 1944. This statement warns the person of the penalties for non-disclosure of all income— up to three times the tax involved as well as penal interest. There is the threat of possible criminal proceedings; but then it also suggests that those penalties might be mitigated in return for what is called full co-operation.
In other words, exercise your right of silence at your extreme peril. It is in the interpretation of the word "co-operation" that problems arise. In many cases— not all, of course— it takes a great amount of determined pressure before the inspector is prepared to indicate in advance the nature of the questions which he wants answered at the interview or even to tell the taxpayer what he is inquiring into. Let me add that there are in fact few complaints made by individuals about the way the Inland Revenue has conducted their hack-duty inquiry. Perhaps that means those individuals are just pleased to be out of the clutches of the Inland Revenue; but I think it probably means that on the whole inquiries are conducted in a firm but reasonable way, and in accordance with the Inland Revenue's long-standing procedures. But it is those procedures which I believe

221
need to be considered. Can we still allow the Inland Revenue to operate under methods of interrogation laid down some 50 years ago?
The Court of Criminal Appeal has not hesitated to throw out cases where it felt that the accused had been subjected to oppressive questioning or had confessed under the fear of threats or because of promises of favourable treatment. Is it not right that every sort of statutory inquisitorial tribunal and inquiry should also conduct itself in a way that conforms to the current high standards required of the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act? Should it not also have to conform to rules of natural justice— rules that include the right of a person summoned to appear before such an investigation to be told if he or she is accused or suspected of any offence or of any civil wrong doing? Such a person should have the right to be told from the very outset exactly what those charges are or what they may be. He or she should have the right to be told the nature of any evidence against him or her. He should have the right to confront and cross-examine any witnesses who have made allegations about him; and he should have the right to have the time to prepare and present, with legal assistance if necessary, a defence before any provisional finding of guilt is made by the very same person who has to make the final finding as well.
Those being investigated for so-called white collar crimes, for tax evasion or for abuses of their public duties should certainly not be given any special privileges. On the other hand, I hope that your Lordships agree that they should not be given less protection than, for example, an alleged mugger.
4.11 p.m
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Boardman for introducing this timely debate. I hope that the authorities will pay attention to it.
I very much enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Selsdon. I too remember the time in the City when one either did or did not lunch with somebody. I remember an over-enthusiastic and junior director of the place where I worked introducing to the lunch table somebody whom the chairman did not much like. Afterwards the chairman, in a rage, tore the page with his signature on it from the lunch book. The issue went that far. It was not a bad principle. On the other hand, did we control ourselves that well?
There was a Guinness scandal in 1886 when the merchant bank which first brought our shares to the market underpriced them and gave them to its friends, so it is alleged. I am looking into that myself for certain reasons, and it appears that that happened.
We dressed matters up in the old days, but we were not always whiter than white. I have never opposed the idea of some extra regulation, especially now that business is becoming so much more international and we are so much more tied to other countries, where standards are perhaps not as high as ours. There is, I am afraid, a Gresham's law in business standards: the lower tends to replace the higher unless one is very careful.
222
I would put a ring around the word "inquisitorial" in this Motion to get to the heart of the subject, because in effect we are talking about the introduction, in a clumsy form, of the inquisitorial system of justice which applies on the Continent. The Board of Trade or DTI inquiry is like the examining magistrate in France. The difference is that it is done in the wrong way in public in that the DTI goes in and the media report the fact. It is also done the wrong way in private in that there is no possibility of reply. The single most important contradiction is that the inquiry can compel the giving of evidence and then, if the witness who is so compelled is subsequently prosecuted, in practice if not in theory his evidence is given to the prosecution in a trial, totally vitiating the right to silence. I believe that that issue should be considered much more carefully.
4.13 p.m
Lord Spens: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. I seem to have spent my life for the past eight years following Guinness.
I speak with a certain amount of experience of these tribunals. I have weathered seven in the past 10 or 12 years. It is only recently that it has occurred to me that they may not be all that they should be. The three tribunals with which I have been involved recently concerned Milbury Homes, House of Fraser and Guinness. The Guinness tribunal is still going on some eight years after the events being investigated.
As a merchant banker, one runs an occupational risk of appearing before such tribunals. It seems to me that the first port of call is the adviser, who always has to take some of the blame. I have never been able to understand why advisers should be thought capable of running a company. I have only ever been slightly criticised. That was for not putting someone on the board of a company, even though as an adviser one has no duty or powers to put someone on a board. That approach by the inspectors was extraordinary.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howe, when he faced the Scott Inquiry. He clearly found it an uncomfortable experience. He was not faced with the problem, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, of the use of evidence against him, because people in his position have immunity.
I wish to focus on Section 434(5) of the Companies Act 1985, which follows the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. It states:
"An answer given by a person to a question put to him … may be used in evidence against him".
In 1971 Lord Justice Sachs, in the Pergamon Press case (which I believe is the test case in the whole issue of inquisitorial trials), said:
"The Inspectors' function is in essence to conduct an investigation designed to discover whether there are facts which may result in others taking action; it is no part of their function to take a decision as to whether action be taken and a fortiori it is not for them finally to determine such issues as may emerge if some action is taken eventually".
That is such an important statement that it was included in the handbook which is handed to inspectors when they start an inspection.

223
I believe that until 1987 everyone was reasonably happy with inspectors, although perhaps the flowery comments of some of their subjective judgments caused problems; otherwise they were reasonably acceptable. In January 1987 a political decision was taken to change the procedures. In the Guinness tribunal the inspectors were told to investigate offences and the police were deliberately kept out of the investigation for four months. The effect of keeping the police out of the investigation was to obviate any problems arising in connection with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Indeed, that was so important to the Guinness trials that from the very first day of the preliminary hearings the prosecuting counsel, John Chadwick, QC, said:
"It will come as n surprise to your Lordship or to anybody else when I say that if Mr. Parnes' transcripts of evidence were not admissible the prosecution would have to think seriously whether to proceed against him at all.
We know that that decision was taken. We know the dates of the meetings between Ministers, DTI officials, Home Office officials and the Crown Prosecution Service. However, we ran into the brick wall (at least in those days it was a brick wall) of the public interest immunity certificate which was issued to prevent us from obtaining the detail of those meetings. That was long before Mr. Justice Smedley and Matrix-Churchill. The trial judge decided that he had no power to go behind the certificate. He then ruled that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act did not apply to businessmen of intelligence and sophistication and that that had been decreed by Parliament. That ruling was supported in the Appeal Court and this House declined to hear the appeal.
The matter has not ended there. Mr. Ernest Saunders has taken his case to the European Court and has won the first round in that the court has said that that was a prima facie and major breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It has required the Government to reach a friendly settlement with Mr. Saunders, failing which the court will rule formally later this year. The mind boggles at what sort of friendly settlement can be reached, with a man one has put inside for five years on the basis of rigged evidence. Therefore, I assume that we shall find ourselves in front of the European Court and will have to await its ruling.
It is a shame that four men have received long gaol sentences and huge fines totalling some £ 11 million on the basis of an apparently obscure route of using against them in a criminal trial evidence obtained without the protection of PACE. On any basis that has to be an abuse of the system. I think someone has described it as a sort of "noble cause corruption".
However, there is another problem with these tribunals. At the same time as the Guinness tribunal started, another secret tribunal was created. This was a licensed dealers' tribunal, which examined under the chairmanship of a Member of this House, with two lay assistants (two very respected City people appointed by the DTI and the Treasury), one of the transactions over which I was at the time facing two charges. This tribunal in 1988 apparently ruled that there had been no false market and no breach of Section 151. The judgment of
224
that tribunal and the 2,000 pages of evidence which went with it were concealed from the inspectors on the main Guinness inquiry; they were concealed from the Bank of England and they were concealed from the defence until the 54th day of the trial in which I was involved.
The judge ruled that, luckily, none of the witnesses had yet been called, and so I had not been hurt. But what he had missed and what he did not draw attention to was the fact that in fraud trials under the 1987 Criminal Justice Act, Section 6, there is a clause which allows one to make a "no-case-to-answer". It is quite clear that had that evidence been made available to the defence, that application would have been made and six years and many hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of costs would not have been incurred— costs which, incidentally, I have not yet been repaid.
It seems to me that these two tribunal systems were very different in their categories. One was a Roskill-type tribunal— the latter one— which found effectively in a judgment against the Government argument that there had been a false market and there had been breaches of Section 151. That evidence was kept from all those people for all those years. Unless we have some system which allows cross-transmission of evidence as regards tribunals, these injustices will go on.
4.23 p.m
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boardman for raising this subject this afternoon. Unlike many of your Lordships who have spoken already, it is many years since I worked— if that is the operative verb— in what is known as the City, or indeed worked as a professional in any way; and so much of what I have to say and what I have learnt has been within the portals of your Lordships' House, and indeed within this Chamber.
When I looked at the Motion we are discussing, I thought it might be reasonable to take a fairly light-hearted view. I hope that my noble friend and those of your Lordships who have spoken before me will accept my apologies if I should tread on any toes, be it ever so lightly. I hope that your Lordships will accept that the thrust of my comments, if my noble friend will forgive me, are inquisitorial and I hope may throw some light upon another view which has not yet found its way into the debate this afternoon.
The thought of inquisitorial tribunals and inquiries, indeed, sets my imagination rolling on pictures of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger with hot tongs, electrodes or the rack. That might be a light-hearted thought, yet which of us might not take that view if we were to be suddenly charged in the course of business with an unending list of offences? Much of this was touched on by my noble friend Lord Selsdon when he said, "Our word is our bond". The thrust of this afternoon's debate is that we have moved away from that.
My noble friend Lord Boardman also refers in his Motion to serious fraud. I am sure your Lordships will know what he is aiming at. Any of your Lordships who have had cause to deal with the activities, the figures

225
and, indeed, the practices of the common agricultural policy, Euro-finances, green pounds and other activities on a Euro-scale will be astonished at the serious fraud. Indeed, my first thought when considering the subject of fraud— though it might not enter your Lordships' minds, let alone that of my noble friend— is, "Is that all?". I am astonished at their moderation, and I cannot help thinking how easy it is to perpetrate these activities.
However, it is the third element in my noble friend's Motion that I should like to touch on— "other misconduct". I shall try to narrow my remarks to the reports of the Department of Trade and Industry and the inspectors who are appointed. Your Lordships may not be surprised to hear that many of these reports are filling my shelves in Scotland and in London. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam nearly did himself a mischief attempting to lift the report on the House of Fraser affair, which is a mere 752 pages. It is quite short compared with some other reports that have been presented.
The main thread running through this aspect of the DTI report concerns an inquiry involving what are termed in Section 431 onwards of the 1985 Companies Act "relevant persons", which usually turn out to be a Queen's Counsel and a chartered accountant. These inspectors are appointed under the 1985 Act and previous Companies Acts by the head of the Department of Trade and Industry. Somewhere, somehow, under the terms of this Act somebody has to investigate all the facts and figures and perhaps come up with conclusions.
Regarding the report on the House of Fraser affair, when I put my name down to speak in your Lordships' House in a debate on 28th March 1990, kilos of paper appeared and I received several representations, including one from some of the interested parties that they would be obliged if I would read their side of things. Your Lordships will be aware that I am quite capable— at least I hope I am— of making up my own mind, such as it is.
However, as regards the main theme of this narrow aspect of the inspector's inquiry and report, someone, somewhere must carry out exhaustive, diligent and professional inquiries to establish facts. When all this is completed, then perhaps a report should be presented. Your Lordships have already heard— and doubtless we shall hear more— about how this should be publicised. I recall several tales of when these reports have appeared — indeed, my noble friend Lord Clark quoted one particular aspect, I think it was in 1968— and perhaps the remarks might have been a little unfair. But of course hindsight is valuable and the words used by the inspectors were quite mild when certain facts were subsequently made clear.
I wonder whether the current system covered by the Motion of my noble friend Lord Boardman requires improvement. So far as the Serious Fraud Office is concerned, one thread has run through the debate so far: the length and detail of the inquiries. I look forward to hearing something on that from my noble and learned friend when he comes to wind up. We may also hear more of that in future.
226
I believe that the system is changing, as has been touched on by my noble friends Lord Selsdon and Lord Moyne. Systems within commerce and finance are turning more and more to self-regulation. The front page of today's Financial Times has a major headline:
"Taskforce set up to cover abuse in the equity market".
This has been set up not, thank goodness, by the Department of Trade and Industry, let alone by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but by the Securities and Investments Board. Perhaps we might agree that professionals who understand how business is done in the City of London might be the best judges of how to deal with any prospective misconduct, abuses or fraud.
The point was made fairly forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that, if there are problems within the City of London, the rest of the world seems to think that they are not sufficiently serious to be worse than anywhere else in the world. Indeed, the standards in the City of London are of the highest. As a good Scottish accountant, I believe that the figures referred to by the noble Baroness prove that the City of London is pre-eminent. We hope that it will remain so.
I refer briefly to the House of Fraser report and to the debate in your Lordships' House. It has been mentioned that all the offences mentioned in that report were part of a fast moving situation and thus some form of monitoring or control would be required. I believe that the Securities and Investments Board is the best body to undertake that. Perhaps I could ask your Lordships to consider one aspect. I hope that my noble friend who opened the debate will agree with my point. I refer to the position of the auditors. They are appointed by the shareholders.
Where there are problems— pray God that it does not come to a dispute between the auditors and the directors — we should take on board these points. First, under the Companies Act the auditors have the right to be heard and represented at the annual general meeting. Is that enough? Secondly, noble Lords will be aware that I am something of a sportsman. My noble friend Lord Selsdon might have been to the part of the world to which I shall refer. American football, a rough, violent and detailed game, has not one but, so far as I am aware, five judges, line judges and umpires. When there is a problem, one sees one of those gentleman throw down on the field a yellow duster. When play ceases, those gentlemen gather together and the situation is resolved there and then. Could not such a system be used in a dispute between auditors and directors? With regard to many of the enormous Department of Trade and Industry inquiries and some of the other matters about which we shall hear, a change of auditors might be the first sign to my noble friend Lord Boardman and any other financial observers of a problem.
I conclude by declaring an interest. I do not refer to the colourful activities mentioned previously. My noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry will understand that I refer to one specific organisation in Queen Street, Edinburgh. I do not refer to the Faculty of Advocates or the Law Society of Scotland, to which I owe my interest and curiosity in and training on the

227
subject. I believe that the benefits from that organisation will bring the evils that have been referred to today to a satisfactory conclusion.
4.32 p.m
The Earl of Harrowby: Lords, I have waited five years to see such a Motion appear on the Order Paper. I have first-hand knowledge of one specific case. I should like to explain to noble Lords the consequences which can arise.
I am not a lawyer. I shall not dissect the legal niceties. I shall not speak about the rights and wrongs of the specific inquiry to which I refer, except to note that there were no convictions after appeal and it cost the public and private sectors tens of millions of pounds. I intervene to express my shame that natural justice in my country can be as abused as it was in that case.
I shall speak about that specific case. Three men were criticised for not having their finger on the pulse. Since the end of the war, I have been connected with large, medium, small and very small firms in commerce and industry. Never have I met three men who formed a better and more impressive top management team. The inspectors criticised those men. The criticism was entirely idiosyncratic. The two inspectors just did not realise that in a firm with 100,000 employees tens of thousands of pulses, not just two, have to be tested and one has to delegate. In just the same way, Ministers are responsible for the actions of their civil servants. There was a complete misunderstanding in that case.
The outcome of the case is relevant. Three first-rate senior executives were hounded into resignation. A Minister may resign, but he does not lose his reputation because everyone knows that he is taking the blame. Everyone remembers the case of Sir Thomas Dugdale. That situation does not arise in an inquiry when an individual is criticised. The individuals to whom I refer were hounded by the national press which gave no relief. I have little regard for the national press. I do not include the local press or indeed other forms of the media with my condemnation. However, in this instance, and generally, the national press were spurred on by the inquisitorial ethos in much of the legislation about which we speak, of which the DTI is probably the main proponent.
Lastly, those individuals were undefended by the legal profession both in the specific case to which I refer and in general. The legal profession accepted that inquisitorial possibility in the first place. I regret that no noble and learned Law Lords are present to participate in the debate. So often one has heard them speaking in this Chamber defending the rights of the accused. It would have been interesting at least to hear their comment on the Motion moved by my noble friend.
I was brought up with my father's dictum that there is no such thing as fairness, and that one suffers if one assumes that there I s. That may be so, but it does not relieve the remainder of us of the obligation to resist unfairness when we find it. In such cases, unfairness inevitably occurs. Reference has already been made to Dr. Morrow's suicide note. There is the Clothier report. What will happen from the Scott Inquiry?
228
I had a label on me of "time expired". My retirement from the connection of which I speak took place before the inquiry proceeded. I regretted that bitterly; I would have resigned along with the three individuals if I had been in a position to do so. My heart went out to my ex-colleagues who had to make the difficult decision whether to accept those resignations in the light of the need to balance the unfairness on the one side and the interests of the organisation on the other.
Inquisition is one thing: it is an undesirable concept. An inquiry is quite another matter. An inquiry, as we know it, is a request by the Secretary of State for advice on whether he should refer a specific case to the DPP. Under no— I repeat, no— circumstances should such a report be published. It is personal to him, and it was so designed. If the full glare of publicity is required for any reason, then the format of that inquiry must be judicial so that individuals are protected within the law.
No doubt my noble friend the mover of this Motion will follow the usual procedure and withdraw it. In my ignorance of parliamentary procedure, I would not have done so. I would have demanded the necessary change in legislation or, I suspect, in ministerial habits and procedures. One thing is clear. Destroying men's lives, some of them good men, must stop.
4.40 p.m
Lord Morris: My Lords, like all other speakers, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boardman for his most timely tabling of this very important Motion. My only regret is that it is a timed debate. The subject is very wide indeed. At the outset I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Harrowby that he should have no feeling of disappointment that, unhappily, no Law Lords are taking part in the debate. I say that in the certain knowledge that the debate will be wound up by three of the most distinguished lawyers who have served this country. I refer of course to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Williams, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I beseech him to stay, for he is in for a treat. Of that I am certain.
My major reason for intervening in this debate is familial. Even before I came to this House I became particularly interested in a Royal Commission which happened to be chaired by my noble and learned and well beloved relative, Lord Salmon. It was a very interesting Royal Commission in a number of regards. First, it broke a world record for Royal Commissions. It was formed in February 1966, and reported in November 1966. To my certain knowledge no Royal Commission has ever reported with such expedition.
The list of members of that Royal Commission and all those who gave evidence to it is like the most elegant, sparkling necklace, including as it does names of such high repute and quality. That quality is mirrored in the report itself.
My noble friend Lord Boardman is absolutely right. This debate is certainly not on that Royal Commission report. However, if the principles and major recommendations of the report had been borne in mind when Parliament gave the powers to Ministers of State in various departments to set up tribunals and inquiries, those appalling injustices could not have happened.

229
That was a point suggested by my noble friend Lord Boardman, and he is absolutely right. Let us take just six short recommendations (which are sub-recommendations of the third recommendation). On those alone and nothing else, if those fundamental principles were brought to bear, there would be no problem.
The background to those principles is very interesting. It is stated in the first sentence before they are listed in the report. I beseech noble Lords to listen to the language:
"The following cardinal principles … should be observed to minimise the risk of personal hurt"
"hurt", my Lords,
"and injustice to any person involved in the inquiries".
I stress that word "hurt". We are not talking about injustice. We are talking only about hurt. The reason that those cardinal principles were adumbrated in the report is that the commission recognised full well that, where there is a conflict between the public and private interest, if one individual is harmed in the name of the interests of the state, then an injustice is very likely to come about. The procedures for avoiding that injustice have been known over the centuries. They are adumbrated in the procedural recommendations, which are as follows:
"Before any person who is involved in an inquiry is called as a witness, he should be informed in advance of allegations against him and the substance of the evidence in support of them".
If that alone had happened in the case of the terrible experience of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, he could never have experienced the appalling suffering and the terrible expense that he went through.
The recommendation also states that,
"He [the witness] should have adequate opportunity of preparing his case and of being assisted by legal advisers … His legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds … He should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or counsel and of stating his case in public at the inquiry … Any material witnesses he wishes called at the inquiry should, if reasonably practicable, be heard … He should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel any evidence which may affect him".
Those procedures follow the procedures in a court of law. They have been worked out over centuries. Only if those rules of procedure are adhered to can there be any hope of individuals not being harmed by tribunals of inquiry.
I do not like the term "inquisitorial". It is tendentious. But "inquisitorial" refers to nothing other than a tribunal of inquiry. I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston when he suggested that the presence of a jury has a deleterious effect in terms of time on an action in fraud. I am convinced that the presence of the jury is absolutely essential in cases of fraud. Undoubtedly, the length of time that fraud trials take is directly the result of incompetent prosecution and weak judges. There is no other reason for it. I close by again thanking my noble friend Lord Boardman for giving us the opportunity of attending this debate.
4.48 p.m
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the whole House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, for this wide-ranging debate on matters of
230
real public importance. I begin by declaring a professional interest in the subject matter. I am counsel for the Fayed brothers, whose case will come before the European Court of Human Rights next month. But in what I am about to say, I speak for myself. I express a long held view— one that was expressed by many noble Lords— that the DTI inspection procedures are unfair and urgently in need of law reform.
I should, first, like to explain why my views differ from those that were expressed by two of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, seemed at one point in his speech almost to doubt the need for effective public measures to tackle and regulate serious fraud as though it were not a serious problem. My own view is that serious fraud has become a serious problem and that, on the contrary, more effective measures on the lines of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission are needed, but that the procedures accompanying them must be fair.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, seemed to think that one of the great menaces in this area at the moment was of trial by the media. Again, I disagree. I believe that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 strikes a fair balance between the crucial needs of the right to fair trial and the equally important need for open justice and freedom of public information and debate.
However, having explained the issues on which I differ, I join with almost every other Member of your Lordships' House in explaining why I believe the current procedures to be unsatisfactory and unfair. I hope that I summarise all the points that have been made so far, and one or two of my own, by concentrating on the unsatisfactory features of the system.
Under the Companies Act, the Government are allowed to publish an official report of an investigation, which is highly condemnatory of an individual and effectively finds him guilty of serious criminal offences, despite the presumption of innocence, which is the golden thread of our legal system, and despite the fact that the individual stands condemned not by a court of law but by government appointed inspectors. The inspectors' condemnatory report is admissible in evidence in any legal proceedings and can also be used in proceedings to disqualify him as a company director.
The report may be made and published on the basis of a process which has each of the following eight features present. First, it need not respect the presumption of innocence. Secondly, the process is conducted in secret by the inspectors with no safeguard of open justice. Thirdly, it does not require the inspectors to follow any prescribed procedures, but leaves them free to conduct their investigations in any way that they consider appropriate. Fourthly, it does not require the inspectors to inform the individuals under investigation about the identity of witnesses against them. Fifthly, it does not entitle those under investigation to confront or cross-examine witnesses or even have access to the file containing the evidence against them. Sixthly, it entitles inspectors to reply upon evidence that would be inadmissible in a court of law and to prepare a report on the basis of evidence of that kind. Seventhly, it vests in the Secretary of State a sweepingly broad discretion to publish the inspectors'

231
findings to the whole world with massive publicity, even though the findings are likely or certain to destroy the reputation of those under investigation. Eighthly, despite the severe damage to personal and commercial reputation, the process does not allow the condemned individual any right of appeal or indeed any effective access to a court of law at all to challenge the findings or to attempt to recover his reputation.
I should explain to non-lawyers that that last aspect arises because the Secretary of State and his inspectors enjoy privilege from libel proceedings and also because English judicial review does not provide an effective remedy for an excessive but lawful exercise of the inspectors' draconian public powers. Indeed, English judicial review does not provide an effective remedy regarding the substance of the inspectors' factual findings, unless it can be shown that the inspectors have taken leave of their senses— a kind of judicial certificate of official insanity on the part of the inspectors.
Like Ministers, our courts have given very wide latitude to inspectors to regulate their own procedures. For many years several independent and authoritative bodies have powerfully criticised the unfair system of publication of inspectors' reports for lack of effective safeguards for individuals against the misuse of public powers. Perhaps I may mention just one or two instances. In 1980, the Law Reform Committee of the Senate of the Inns of Court of England and Wales was strongly critical, referring to the fact that some inspectors had been:
"unable to resist passing judgments which they are not really well qualified to make".
It referred to the fact that no confrontation or cross-examination was allowed and said that the method of inquiry was "inherently unfair" and carried a high risk of being unfair And it explained why. I agree with that committee's proposed reforms, which call for fundamental changes in the machinery for the supervision and control of companies, including the creation of an SEC type of commission. In preparing for this debate, I was interested to discover that in the United States there are much more effective safeguards for the accused than exist in this country.
Other critics were the Bank of England and the Securities and Investment Board, which are both specialist and experienced regulatory bodies. They informed the Select Committee of the other place a couple of years ago that in their view inspectors should establish facts rather than make judgments. They pointed out that one advantage would be that published reports:
"would not lambast individuals without any apparent remedy".
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, voiced similar, well founded concerns. In a letter published in The Times in September 1974— almost 20 years ago — Lord Fletcher, a senior solicitor and former Deputy Speaker of the other place, wrote:
"The procedure is lot merely an unsatisfactory method of ascertaining truth It lends itself to the publication of reports criticising and reflecting adversely on the conduct and reputation of individuals … These reports are particularly injurious because they are promulgated by the government and assumed to be the result of a judicial or semi-judicial investigation".
Surely the time is over-ripe for action by the Government to remove a source of real injustice. The
232
very important aim of uncovering and prosecuting commercial fraud and other criminal misconduct does not justify the use of unfair and excessive means by government appointed inspectors. To be a fair system the inquisitorial system must fully respect the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. In my view, it fails to do so and there is a pressing need for reform.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him to recognise that of course I accept his perhaps rather unfair rebuke. I was trying to point out not that there should be no laws, but that laws should be firm. I feel that it is better to sort things out near the root of the problem rather than throw money and lawyers at it after it has flowered.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is not for me to rebuke the noble Lord at all. What I believe is that the great old system, when gentlemen were gentlemen in the City of London and things could all be done with a handshake and by self-regulation, is, alas, long gone.
4.59 p.m
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, for raising these issues. My own contribution may not find entire favour with all noble Lords who have offered their thoughts so far. It seems to me that the grossest defect of the present system is described in the one word, "delay". It cannot be right to delay these matters for the length of time that we have seen recently.
I shall mention two names. I know neither of the people, and neither of them would recognise me in the street. It seems to me to be quite monstrous and indefensible that two persons, criticised and charged in Blue Arrow and in Guinness— Miss Brimelow in Blue Arrow, and Mr. Mayhew of Cazenove in Guinness— should have been hanging in the wind year in year out and ultimately find that the charge is dropped. I find that wholly indefensible.
The present powers of the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry or, as he likes to call himself, the President of the Board of Trade, are required. We need to look carefully at the operation of the powers in practice. There is a serious argument for a full-time body of inspectors. At the moment, as has been said, it is normally a Queen's Counsel and an accountant. They build up no body of experience and expertise.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me leaping on my usual hobby-horse— that is, my suggestion that High Court judges should retire at 65. If they did that, not least of the benefits would be that there would be a permanent inspectorate of exceptionally high quality which might be better relied upon to introduce the elements of fairness which are sometimes lacking. Of course, we have concentrated this afternoon on a fairly limited area. But the area is extremely wide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, pointed out. The Inland Revenue have draconian powers, as do many other tribunals— VAT tribunals not least among them.
It seems to me that the two characteristics one wants in DTI inquiries are quite simple. First, their procedures

233
must be recognised to be fair, and plainly they are not. I cannot begin to approach the demolition which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, applied. I do not agree with all his criticisms but many of them cannot be gainsaid. So there must be the acceptance that the procedures are fair, even if the findings are adverse to an individual on occasions, as is inevitable.
The second characteristic of an inquiry is that it should establish fact. One significant blemish over the past 10 years (a blemish one sees no longer) is the rush of blood to the head of both inspectors who see it as an opportunity for violent and vituperative language rather than confining themselves to a recitation of fact— a recitation of fact, incidentally, which is often much more devastating and effective than headline paragraphs towards the back of the report.
However, that is not a problem one needs to overstress. In 1989— 90 there were only five DTI outside inspections and even internally only 158. It is important also to bear in mind the mechanism and the regime that operates. It is designed essentially to protect companies or their shareholders from wrongdoing. It is designed to protect the public and maintain high standards in the financial community. I suggest that that inures to the benefit of both the public and the financial community. After all, small investors do not have lunch and do not keep books that record their luncheon guests, so far as I am aware; they do not conduct their business on the shake of a hand. They invest the totality of their modest life savings either by pension contributions indirectly, unit trusts or similar small transactions. They are given lamentably little protection at the moment by our system of company legislation or indeed by the operation of many companies.
There have been many examples recently where it seems to many of us that companies have been used as vehicles for directors' benefit and it is almost a heresy to point out occasionally that the company is not the property of the director; it is the property of the shareholders. There is hardly a day now (I hope to put this point moderately) where one does not read the business news in a reputable newspaper and sees another saga of greed and corruption with directors taking multi-million pound going away presents, to use the phrase of my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, not for running their institutions properly but as a consequence of departure in shame and disgrace. That cannot be justified and it is a significant blemish on the operation of commercial transactions in this country. It is partly to deal with that that the DTI regime exists, though I agree, with significant blemishes.
One must bear in mind also that the mechanism of being able to trade as a corporate entity is an extremely attractive privilege. It is a limited company. I have no friends who are Names at Lloyd's, but I expect they recognise the benefit of limited liability trading these days— one cannot have the penny and the bun forever. If one wants the attraction— and they are extremely significant for limited liability, plc or corporate trading — one is bound to incur some disadvantage. Some of the advantages have been understressed, whereas the disadvantages of that sort of inquiry may have been
234
overstressed. After all, one has corporate secrecy; limited liability; the shareholders too often are passive either through ignorance in the case of small investors or acquiescence in the case of large pension fund and corporate investors whose history over the past 15 years has not been marvellous.
All those advantages inure and there must be some consequent disadvantages to those who may be subject to DTI inquiries. As an immediate step, we need the introduction of some safeguards; not endless cross-examination of every witness by counsel or solicitor for every person who may be investigated. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that the history of the Orkney child abuse inquiry does not encourage one along that path when I believe £ 6 million of public money was spent — I almost said "wasted"— with no conclusion at the end of the day.
I conducted an inquiry— not a DTI inquiry— into allegations of abuse at a children's home. I sat with a lay assessor. We had to determine our own procedures, bearing in mind that simple lodestar that we should try to be fair. It is too easy a palliative to suggest that all inquiries to be just must be public. It would have been a gross wound to the child complainants in that case for their complaints, sometimes of serious sexual abuse and sometimes of violent abuse, to be heard in public. We must offer the opportunity for representation, to do as I believe we did; namely, to give a reasonable opportunity for people to know what they must meet; to give them the opportunity to read the transcript of their evidence and return if they wish or make re-submissions in writing; and, fundamentally and most importantly, to give anyone about whom complaint is made the opportunity to reply before the report is in final form.
There is therefore a degree of consensus among your Lordships, although I tried to apply a slightly cautionary brake. I must not use the phrase "cavalry charge" because my friend the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not here today; he was troubled about cavalry charges yesterday. We need to be cautious about doing away with a system which has virtues. What it needs is immediate improvement substantially along the lines of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and ultimately, in our belief on this side, in the proper incorporation, funding and resourcing of something on the lines of the SEC in the United States. I am not sure whether that will please all your Lordships who peer from the other side of the House, but that is our remedy.
Finally, the Scott Inquiry may be intended to be outside the remit of this Motion. But, as it was referred to, in our opinion it is doing good public work and we are saddened by and deprecate what appears to be a fairly vigorously co-ordinated effort to rubbish the findings before they are published.
5.9 p.m
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I join in the thanks to my noble friend Lord Boardman for bringing before the House this afternoon this Motion, which raises a matter of great interest to its Members.

235
he noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave us perhaps a timely warning that we should not exaggerate the extent of fraud and the extent to which it affects business in this country. At the same time I think it is right to say that one cannot really imagine ourselves going back to those innocent days when all business was apparently done on a handshake. I have no doubt that even today much business takes place on the basis of trust. Indeed, any lawyer who looks at the files tracing the history of a dispute often finds that it begins in a situation of great trust which breaks down only gradually. The fact of the matter is that there is fraudulent behaviour around and one has to have machinery in place by way of appropriate regulatory authorities and so on to deal with that kind of conduct.
It is particularly important nowadays, when the market is no longer simply national but is to a high degree international, that those who are doing business on the market, or are thinking of doing business on it, should have confidence that it is a market in which they can operate with the knowledge that there is machinery to deal with matters such as fraud. It is fair to say that the amount of investments which are placed in the City of London tends to show that the systems we have command a good deal of confidence.
Nonetheless, in the course of the debate various different kinds of bodies have been mentioned. There has been much said of the DTI-type inquiry, but of course there are many others. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, mentioned ones such as the Orkney inquiry. It is perfectly plain that the procedures will not always and cannot always be the same.
Reference has also been made to criminal investigations. The matters there are for the Serious Fraud Office. Those are not in the same kind of way public inquiries.
These various kinds of inquiries point to different regimes which may all have a bearing on some particular case. It may, for example, be required at the outset that Ministers decide whether or not an inquiry should go ahead or whether or not it would be appropriate to give priority to the system of prosecution. That is a difficulty with the kind of inquiries set up for the DTI because they may often involve— not always of course— questions of criminal misconduct and there may come a stage, either before the inquiry is set up or even while the inquiry is running, when a decision has to be taken as to whether it would be more appropriate to go ahead with a prosecution or with the inquiry. That in itself can be one of the factors that leads to the kind of delay which has been mentioned several times in the course of the debate.
We would all share the belief that it is desirable that inquiries of whatever kind should be disposed of with the greatest possible speed. I remember noting that the famous trial in the last century of the city of Glasgow banker— there was a huge fraud on that occasion— had all been completed within four months of the discovery of the fraud. That would be unthinkable nowadays. It clearly would be desirable if it could be done, but the simple fact of the matter is that things are very much more complicated today than they were then. One does not have a simple set of books to look at.
236
So far as speed is concerned, it depends on what particular aspect one is looking at. If one is dealing with trials, in that connection a working group has been set up by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to look into the question of trials and to see whether anything can be done on that. On the matter of inquiries, there are two competing values. It is said, on the one hand, that these should take place speedily. But, on the other hand, it is said that they should always have the full type of safeguards with full cross-examination and so on. One cannot necessarily have both. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, the Orkney inquiry had a very great deal of cross-examination. The question is whether a faster procedure could not have been devised or used in that circumstance. It is easy to criticise but one must remember that sensitive issues relating to children and so on arose in that case and people wished to put their points of view. But speed and a full and elaborate procedure of cross-examination do not always go hand in hand.
It is true to say that there is a worry about the length of time taken to publish DTI reports. That can be because the investigation takes a long time; it can be because the investigation is delayed by a prosecution; it can be that even if the report has been prepared, publication is in the end delayed because of, shall we say, criminal proceedings. Those are all matters which may affect the speed with which the result of such an inquiry may come to be known.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made a very powerful contribution criticising the matter of DTI reports. It is right to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, that they apply to people who are operating under the system of limited liability. A great privilege goes with that and those people are, after all, stewards of shareholders' funds. It is therefore important that a system is in position which ensures that any wrongdoing is rooted out and lessons are learnt for the future.
I accept that there must be occasions when individuals feel that they have been criticised unfairly. That has to be balanced against the important benefits which flow from the reports published. No one in the debate has suggested for a moment that a lot of those reports do not contain most valuable recommendations. The reports often reveal malpractices or defects which may be cured by changes in practice or indeed by remedial legislation. The reports are prepared by distinguished and authoritative inspectors. I noted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that perhaps retired judges might be used for that. It is true to say that the present inspectors are invariably people of great distinction in the law and in accountancy and that their reports have carried great weight.
It is also true to say that at the end of the day the inspectors, if their reports are to carry great weight, should feel free to express the conclusions which they reach in the light of their investigations. They do that in various ways. Not all the reports which appear are of the same tenor. Some are more like plain factual statements; others are more highly coloured. Some are perhaps

237
slightly exaggerated in the telling by the press. But I accept that some have been highly critical. Where the criticism is justified, that is proper.
Criticism has been levelled at the particular form of procedures used in these reports. I am sure noble Lords will have noticed what is said. It is true to say that the procedures have been to a good extent changed or improved in practice over the years, and it is correct to say that that the guiding star in all such procedures must be, according to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the Pergamon Press case, fairness.
The procedures must be fair. As a result of the examination of procedures in the Pergamon Press case, the practice which has been alluded to of making the critical passages available to people for their comment, before publication, has been introduced. To some extent that meets the kind of criticisms which have been made. I do not believe that the speed or the effectiveness of such inquiries would necessarily be improved by the kind of suggestions which have been made for perhaps fuller cross-examination and so on.
In the event, people may feel that the criticism has been harsh. If it has been fair, then obviously that is no bad thing. On balance, even though occasionally there may be criticisms which people feel are unjustified— I accept that it is difficult for them to get redress in such cases — nonetheless, the public interest is served by the kind of system which we have at the moment.
A particular matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in connection with the DTI inspectors. That was the use of the particular powers under the Companies Act to obtain answers to questions from people which could then be used in evidence. He said that this matter had now been taken by Mr. Saunders to the European Court of Human Rights. I wish to be quite clear. The matter has been to the Commission and it has held the application to be partially admissible. It has not yet proceeded to consider it or to report on its merits. Therefore, we do not yet know whether it has found that there has been a breach. After that, the matter will almost certainly go to the Court of Human Rights. The Government believe that the position is in line with the convention and they are prepared to defend the matter. In case there is some doubt about it, at present I stress that the position is as I have stated.
In the course of various remarks, there was a suggestion that jury trials were not really appropriate for matters relating to fraud. That is obviously a question which has been much discussed over the years. As I believe we all know, in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, he recommended that jury trials should not be used in certain of these cases. The arguments against their use have been made by several noble Lords. But there are very powerful arguments in their favour. The Government remain unpersuaded that they should abandon jury trials.
Obviously, there are difficulties in presenting the issues to a jury, but how they present their case is a matter for consideration by the prosecution and the defence. Over recent years the use of graphics and so on
238
has made the presentation more vivid and understandable. But finally, despite what may be said, when one strips down the technicalities, the issue at the heart of any fraud case is whether or not the defendants were acting honestly or dishonestly. Ultimately that is the decision that has to be reached. The Government remain persuaded that that is an issue which is best decided, as it is in all other spheres, not by a judge or judges, however distinguished, but by ordinary members of the public who come to it with fresh minds and who apply their best endeavours to reach a decision on the matter. I believe that that remains the best way. We should be seeking to refine our procedures in order to make the evidence vivid to the jury rather than introducing a novel procedure which would have uncertain effects.
In conclusion, there is no single solution to the question of procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has given us a very good example of the kind of inquiry in which he was engaged where the approach which he used was obviously geared to the matter being investigated. Obviously, that would not have been an appropriate way to approach the inquiry into a major tragedy like the King's Cross disaster or into the one with which I am very familiar; namely, the Piper Alpha disaster. There, something very different had to be used.
Whatever form is used, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, the key must be fairness. One has always to consider the appropriate procedure in the circumstances having regard to fairness. For example, I know that in the procedures used in the large disaster inquiries that is something which is very carefully considered. Even if the precise formulation in the Salmon Report is not always used exactly, the principles and the spirit of that report very much guide those who are looking into such matters. They are concerned to make sure that the procedures are fair. In that they have regard for the kind of principles which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, laid down when he carried out investigations some years ago. They have become the guiding star for the setting up of such inquiries. I believe that I can assure noble Lords that these are principles which are all designed to ensure that the issue is resolved, having regard to fairness to all those who have an interest in the inquiry.
As I say, there is no single solution. I do not say that all our inquiry procedures are perfect. Obviously, they are constantly subject to review and improvement. The debate which we have had today has taken a wide-ranging look at these various matters and I have no doubt that the Government and others involved will have found in the debate much valuable material for consideration.
5.27 p.m
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in the debate. As I predicted when I opened it, the Motion was drawn in such a way that was bound to attract a variety of special cases and points of view. I welcome those and I am sure that I am not expected to respond to them. The universal theme throughout the debate was that we must look for fairness. There were a number of findings of unfairness in the present system.

239
I was a little disappointed that, apart from the speakers on the Front Benches, we did not hear from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches able to speak on the subject of fairness. It i s personal fairness with which this debate is concerned.
I very much welcome what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I can go along with almost all the points he made as regards the faults in the present system. I reserve judgment on the question of the SEC on the American style. As regards the criticisms which he made about the present system, I believe that they were fully justified. I wish that in my opening speech I had been able to put some of them as well as he did.
There was less acceptance from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, of the weakness in the safeguards that exist. I was somewhat disappointed with his response to that. The noble Lord referred to the Scott Inquiry. In my opening remarks I said that I was not going to make any reference to it. It is not a statutory inquiry. I do not believe that he would expect me to respond now. In saying that we should exercise caution in doing away with the present system, the noble Lord failed to recognise the damage and unfairness which is caused in certain instances under the present system.
Several noble Lords have referred to the question of speed: to the excessive delay in many inquiries and to the damage that has resulted. I was therefore disappointed when my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry suggested that speed and method do not necessarily go hand in hand. Perhaps I got the wrong impression from him that speed was rather more important than the fairness of the outcome. I am sure that that would not be his view. My noble and learned friend is shaking his head. I believe that fairness must come first. Of course, speed is very important, but we want fairness and, subject to that, the maximum speed.
My noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry suggested that the procedure has improved over the years. I wish that that were so. I think that procedure has tended to slacken since the rather rigorous guidelines that we were given in early reports, such as that of the Salmon Commission, to which my noble friend Lord Morris referred.
I wonder whether the balance between public advantage and private rights is correct. I do not think that we in this House should accept a system which can lead to very clear cases of unfairness. I think that the House would be wrong if it were to say that such a system is unfair but we should nevertheless put up with it because it is the best that we can produce or is at least quick. I hope that the procedures will be considered with considerable care to see whether improvements can be made.
I very much endorse the majority of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the many points that have been made by my noble friends. With that, I thank ail those who have participated in the debate and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Car Crime
5.31 p.m
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux rose to call attention to the increase in vehicle thefts and related crimes; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of my remarks in this debate, which I believe to be the first of its kind, is to consider what part we in this House can play in reducing vehicle crime in the United Kingdom.
I must declare an interest in that I have served as chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance since its formation in June 1992. The aim of the alliance is, put simply, to seek a reduction of vehicle crime in the United Kingdom and Europe.
The alliance (ESVA) has two related components: first, a registered parliamentary group which enjoys the support of Members of all parties in both Houses, and, secondly, a network which includes manufacturers, insurers, motoring associations, component suppliers, police, the probation service and several other organisations which aim by their combined efforts to reach a shared goal of significantly reducing vehicle crime.
I have had the privilege of meeting Ministers from the Home Office, the Department of Transport, and the Department for Education over the past 18 months and I am encouraged by their interest and support. Furthermore, all those departments, together with the Department of Trade and Industry, have been shown a draft of my speech to encourage input and support in combating this problem.
Although our remit includes road vehicles and we have an awareness of closely related problems associated with the construction and plant industry, I propose to concentrate today on theft of cars.
The situation is very serious: reported crime for the 12 months to June 1993 indicates that vehicle crime, at 28 per cent, is the most reported offence in England and Wales. In round numbers-1 million offences of theft from cars and 600,000 thefts of cars were reported, and the insurance industry paid out over £ 700 million in vehicle crime claims. Actual theft from cars is probably closer to 2.5 million offences per year rather than the reported 1 million and is clearly a serious problem which will be raised later in this debate.
The gravity of the car theft problem in England and Wales is well illustrated by the following two points. First, I refer to the key findings from two recent international crime surveys compiled by two researchers from the Dutch Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. This research, conducted in 20 countries across the world, reveals that England and Wales have the worst record for theft of cars. Furthermore, there is no other crime where we compare so unfavourably. Secondly, professional, as opposed to unplanned, theft of cars is growing rapidly. The Metropolitan Police reported that 36 per cent. of cars stolen in England and Wales in 1991 were not recovered. That indicates a professional crime where the vehicle's identity is changed, it is broken down for parts or it is shipped out of the country. The

241
Metropolitan Police now report that in London over 50 per cent. of cars are not recovered and that vehicle crime is clearly becoming more and more organised.
How and why England and Wales have reached this unhappy state is unknown. It should be noted that theft of vehicles in Northern Ireland, and especially Scotland, appears to be less of a problem. A key point, to which I shall return, is that our information systems are inadequate and deny us all the opportunity to study and correct this situation.
Let us consider what is being and can be done. The Home Office declared 1992 as "Car Crime Prevention Year" and I consider that it has made solid progress. Its campaign slogan, "Car Crime— Together— We Can Crack It", has been taken up by motorists, manufacturers, insurers and police. While that attitude is developing in our communities, I would like to explore how the same winning strategy can be developed within government and its various departments.
When we think of cars, I suggest that we all turn first towards the Department of Transport. The MoT test is currently under review, primarily to review its overall integrity, but I would urge the department to be mindful of the opportunities to incorporate significant vehicle theft detection and prevention initiatives while conducting this review.
The House is probably aware that a car's registration mark (commonly known as the number plate) is not the "identifying or distinctive mark" of a car. There is a unique vehicle identification number (VIN number) which is stamped into the vehicle's chassis. It is also carried on the VIN plate located under the bonnet, and in new cars may also be present, and visible through the windscreen, on the nearside of the dashboard. This number— and, incidentally, the engine serial number — is recorded on the vehicle registration document (more commonly known as the log book).
We propose that all this information is checked at every MoT inspection to ensure that the car is what it is said to be. This would discourage the practice of vehicle ringing. For those of my noble friends who are unfamiliar with the expression "ringing", I should explain that the term was originally used in connection with the antecedent of the car; namely, the horse. A "ringer" was a racehorse that raced under the false identity of a poorer performing animal and won at long odds. In vehicle crime, the criminal normally obtains a badly damaged vehicle, then steals a similar car in good condition and transfers the vehicle identification details from the damaged to the stolen car. The stolen car will then be sold with little risk of detection and is also called a "ringer".
It could be said that it is an imposition to ask motorists to present their vehicle log book when applying for an MoT certificate, but it would also represent a small contribution by every motorist to combating vehicle crime. I would also encourage the Department of Transport in its efforts to tighten up on administrative procedures associated with the MoT to reduce inspection incompetence and outright fraud. The development of a national computer base recording all MoT checks, together with mileage information, would
242
have a dramatic effect on organised crime while also enhancing the quality and perception of the MoT system.
Another review currently being undertaken by the Department of Transport concerns the format and efficacy of the driving test. While this may not at first sight have much relevance to the reduction of vehicle crime, I would suggest that it may well have the greatest potential in enhancing the attitudes of young adults both towards driving safely and towards the avoidance of vehicle crime.
Over 50 per cent. of applications and passes of the current system are achieved by 17 year-olds— and yet no reference whatsoever of this important landmark in a young adult's maturation has ever featured in a debate about the curriculum for 12 to 16 year-olds. The Green Cross Code and cycling awareness schemes feature in the education of our 5– 12 year-old children, but then there is a great void.
I urge the Departments of Transport and Education to work together to see how best they can both reduce vehicle accidents and vehicle crime among young adults, by using as a catalyst for some fresh thinking the proposed changes in the format of the driving test, which were outlined last week. I suggest that we can travel an extra mile in our efforts to meet our objectives of reducing both accidents and vehicle crime.
The House is probably not aware of the fact that over one-third of known vehicle crime offenders are aged 16 or under. Furthermore, no other crime is reported as exhibiting such a high proportion of such young offenders.
This evidence alone suggests that we must aim to build a formal dialogue with all 12– 16 year-olds as to their attitudes to vehicles. A successful attitude to driving, and indeed to life itself, should start to be formed not at 16 years, as suggested last week, but at a much earlier age. Furthermore, our road safety officers across the whole nation, and many other experts in both road safety and crime prevention, are anxious to increase their effectiveness in influencing this vital 12— 16 year-old age group.
It is also clearly going to be a challenge to produce relevant teaching material for young adults. I have read reports of sophisticated video games playing a part in teaching hazard perception. I suggest that we issue a much greater challenge; the development of vehicle simulators which can play a part in the training of all drivers. Teaching methods that are used for today's pilots should be employed to train tomorrow's motorists.
While we are addressing young offenders, I feel that I should also bring to my noble friend's attention some vehicle crime analysis recently completed by Northumbria Probation Service, which works at the forefront in combating vehicle crime. The issue of driving while disqualified (including also driving without insurance) is such that the case load as a result of this offence has increased by a factor of four in the past three years and is now matching the case load for vehicle theft itself.
The downward spiral associated with crime is clearly in evidence and will need to be addressed. The

243
consequences of vehicle crime, and indeed of unsafe driving, must be clearly established in the minds of young people.
The Department of Trade and Industry is also included in this vision of government departments working in partnership — especially as it is the lead department for the motor industry. Programmes are already in place to explore vehicle recycling; the "cradle to grave" approach for the motor car. A significant degree of vehicle crime arises as a result of poor practice associated with vehicle salvage. There is currently no firm requirement for any party to record the "end of life of a vehicle". As a nation we operate an asset register for vehicles with no requirement to remove spent assets. However, the DVLA, which also has a vital role to play in the reduction of vehicle crime, is to be congratulated upon working with the industry in launching a trial "certificate of destruction" initiative. There will be significant benefits to both the environment and vehicle crime reduction if vehicle recycling is approached with both goals firmly in view.
Finally, perhaps I may address some observations to the Home Office. Our studies of successful vehicle crime prevention campaigns around the world— and it has to be said that there are not very many, as it is a most challenging issue — have one common strand: sound management data which illustrate the problem and allow one to measure the outcome of any intervention. As I mentioned earlier, currently we have no capacity within the UK to access the type of information necessary to allow any organisation or group of organisations to make a measured contribution to combating vehicle crime. I am, however, aware of the plans, which were announced in the most general outline last week, for the formation of the National Stolen Vehicle Intelligence Bureau.
It is vital that this information is made available as quickly as possible and I also suggest that such an initiative is undertaken jointly by a number of interested parties and not left to reside under public sector control. The need is great and I understand that private companies already have the capacity to deliver most of, if not all, the necessary information today.
In conclusion, there is unquestionably a need to protect the integrity of markings stamped by manufacturers on to vehicles and their components. Information systems will play a major part in reducing vehicle crime but will depend on the quality of information on record. This information will be based largely on vehicle manufacturer markings and it is vital that these markings are protected. The current situation is that it is permissible for such markings to be erased and not an offence to trade in vehicles or components where markings have been erased or tampered with in some way. While I am not an expert in the drafting of law, I do feel strongly that a small step of the kind needed to protect the markings, implemented effectively, will greatly encourage the manufacturers, the insurers, the police and indeed all those associated with the challenge of reducing vehicle crime.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I and many other people will read this debate with great interest. I beg to move for Papers.
5.46 p.m
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for having chosen this subject for debate today. It is an increasing and widespread problem. Home Office statistics for 1992, the latest available figures, show that nearly 600,000 cars were stolen and that more than 950,000 were reported as being broken into and having property stolen from them.
If my experience is anything to go by, the figure for the number of cars broken into is on the low side. I am afraid to say that I have been a victim three times during the past six months. On the first occasion, sadly, my golf clubs were stolen from the back of my car. There is an expression of horror on noble Lords' faces, but it was most serious. I reported the matter to the police, who were most attentive. They came round, did their best and made all the right kind of noises. Unfortunately, my clubs were never recovered, but the theft was recorded.
On the second occasion my spare wheel was stolen from underneath my car, which was perhaps even more irritating. The theft was committed in broad daylight in a London street. Naturally, I telephoned the police, who said that if I wanted to report the matter I should go to the station. They said that there did not seem a lot of point, however, because a great deal of that went on and there was not much that they could do about it. From the point of view of insurance, it was not worth my while to report the theft and therefore I did not go to the station
On the third occasion a rear window was broken but fortunately nothing was taken from the car. On that occasion it was not worth reporting the matter. I dare say that other noble Lords have had similar experiences, but if mine is anything to go by, two out of three incidents go unreported.
My noble friend's Motion covers three areas of crime. The first is theft from cars such as I have described. In recent years manufacturers have done a great deal to improve security. They have provided better locks, coded radio cassette players with removable fronts and so forth and, I am glad to say, spare wheels that are less easy to remove. After buying a car only recently, it is slightly irritating to learn that there is now a better part for this.
The motorist has two parts to play. First, it is amazing how many people neglect to lock their cars when they leave them. If they locked their cars, the incidence of theft and stolen cars would decrease considerably. I suppose I should declare an interest. I am a member of the RAC Public Policy Committee and I commend the document which the RAC has produced called Car Crime: How To Avoid It. It gives useful tips for those who wish to avoid these unpleasant experiences.
I also believe that motorists can help themselves by not buying things like radios or spare wheels which they know or suspect may have been stolen. That may well be a pious hope — I suspect it is— but for everything stolen there is presumably a buyer somewhere. If people were a little more careful about what they bought, maybe there would be less incentive for others to steal.
A second main area of anxiety, which is much more serious, is the taking of cars without the consent of the

245
owner, so-called joy riding, or for other criminal purposes. It accounts for some two-thirds of car thefts and, as we know, may have the most horrific results which are all too frequently reported in the newspapers. The Government have recently taken steps and powers to deal with that and one hopes that they will have an effect. I should like to see penalties go even further, with consideration being given to banning young offenders from driving for a long time, perhaps to the age of 30. That would be a serious disincentive to youngsters from indulging in that type of joy riding.
The third main area, which accounts for the other one-third of car thefts, is the more traditional taking away of cars which then have their identities changed and are sold on to unsuspecting or uncaring new owners, increasingly, I believe, abroad. Here there are two measures which the Government and manufacturers could consider taking together to help combat the problem. My noble friend Lord Brougham has already mentioned vehicle identification numbers. Following manufacture, all vehicles are issued with a unique vehicle identification number prior to sale. That number is recorded both by the manufacturer and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The DVLA record contains other relevant details of the vehicle and the keeper and can be accessed by police officers. As such, it provides a valuable means of detecting stolen or incorrectly registered vehicles.
However, vehicle identification numbers are not easily visible. In most cars they are located on a plate fixed in the engine compartment or are stamped into the floor adjacent to the driver's seat. Neither location can be seen from outside the car and both sorts of vehicle identification numbers can and are tampered with by thieves. A visible number etched into the left-hand side of the facia would provide an added deterrent to criminals. It would allow a further critically important check to be made by police seeking to verify the bona fides of the car. It would also have other implications, not only for the detection of car crime but for other criminal use of cars.
I understand that a number of manufacturers are considering the provision of visible numbers. Government encouragement, or the enactment of regulations accompanied by a criminal offence of unlawfully and without reasonable excuse removing, defacing or altering a vehicle identification number, would undoubtedly meet with a positive response from the motoring public.
The other issue is vehicle registration. Of the almost 200,000 vehicles which disappear each year, a substantial number are given a new and false identity and sold on to unsuspecting or uncaring buyers, either in the UK or abroad. An essential step in the process is a ready supply of vehicle registration documents, which we used to know as log books. Many vehicle registration documents are acquired with scrapped vehicles; that is, vehicles which have been damaged beyond economic repair or, in other words, write-offs. While many such vehicles are legitimately transferred, professional thieves can use registration documents to legitimate stolen or rebuilt cars of the same model.
246
Incidentally, my suggestion would also help with the problem of insurance write-offs which I know was raised only a short while ago at Question Time by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The practice could be reduced if the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency would de-register a vehicle upon being notified by police and insurers that it was considered a total loss. Any subsequent attempt to use the original registration mark would be detected by inquiry of the DVLA files. A rebuilt vehicle previously notified as a total loss would only be re-registered once inspected and pronounced roadworthy. The inspection could be undertaken by the vehicle inspectorate at the owner's expense or by an approved agency such as a motoring organisation.
Those are two avenues for possible action to combat the growing problem. I commend them to the Government and to motor manufacturers in their appropriate place. However, I should not like to conclude my speech without paying tribute to what the Government, the police and the manufacturers are at present trying to do to tackle the problem. My noble friend referred to the initiative between the Home Office and the vehicle manufacturers to improve safety and security of vehicles. That is important and should be given encouragement. The police forces that have set up stolen vehicle squads— perhaps the best known one is the Metropolitan Police— should also be given every encouragement in their efforts.
This is a serious problem which my noble friend has identified in this afternoon's debate. I hope that we shall all benefit from the suggestions which have been made.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, for introducing the debate in such a positive way. I hope that the Government will listen to and read the noble Lord's remarks, take them very much to heart and act on them.
Noble Lords will appreciate that I shall take a slightly different tack. It would not be useful if everyone said the same in the debate so my remarks will be slightly differently angled from the opening remarks so far. This afternoon I wish to talk about crimes related to the subject on the Order Paper and look at some of the causes and suggest actions which might be taken to tackle the causes of the crimes.
I wish to give a list of the crimes. Stealing motor cars, driving without tax, without insurance and without MoT are crimes which are horrendously prevalent, as we have heard. But what is the social impact of those crimes? At one end we can see, particularly, enormous numbers of young men locked up in police cells or prison because they have engaged in the crimes. It is even more serious than that. In Manchester recently, a murder was committed which, we understand, was associated with dealing in MoT certificates. When we realise that that can be the result of such crimes, we must understand and recognise the serious nature of the problem.
To touch on the causes, what has happened over the past few years to make this country almost the car crime country of the world? On the one side, we must recognise that motor cars are an accoutrement of modern living. Young men in particular aspire to own

247
and run motor cars. That is compounded by the lack and cost of public transport. Quite often, the only way to get about is to have a motor car or access to one. However, on the other side is the fact that far too many of our young people are, effectively, part of the underclass which is becoming so recognisable now as a feature of our society. They are young people who do not have a job or who have very poorly paid jobs. They do not necessarily have the resources to buy, maintain, tax and insure motor cars. Yet the pressures of society are on them to do so.
In those circumstances, what can society do about the situation? We should, first, do something about the general problem of the underclass— that is, the under-privileged part of our community— by reducing unemployment and increasing low wages. Moreover, we could reduce the cost of legitimate car ownership for people of limited means. For example, we could consider doing away with the vehicle excise duty, the road tax. There is no reason why the revenue that is raised therefrom should not be raised by an increase in the price of petrol. That would save the motor car owner having to find a chunk of money each year. I accept that for most Members of your Lordships' House, the £ 100 or so that is required every year is almost a flea bite; it is not very significant. However, for someone who is living on unemployment benefit or income support it is an enormous chunk of money to find.
Further, we could encourage car manufacturers to produce low cost, low-powered cars. I say "low-powered" particularly because that would perhaps prevent some of the horrendous accidents that happen with young drivers who drive high-powered cars and who, because of their lack of driving experience, end up either killing them selves or other people or seriously maiming themselves or others.
We could also look at the prospect of reducing the cost of the MoT certificate. I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, about getting more information into the MoT process as a mechanism to counteract theft of motor vehicles and having things like the vehicle identification number recorded by the DVLA.
Similarly, we could look at the encouragement of low cost insurance for young, impecunious car drivers. That could be associated with the low cost, low-powered cars which it is to be hoped motor manufacturers could produce. Alternatively, we could invest significantly in public transport. Over the past few years, we have seen an effective reduction in such investment. Following deregulation, bus transport systems are far too expensive and, indeed, are just not available in large areas. That forces people to need to run and own motor cars— and, usually, they are the poorest people in our society. We put tremendous pressures upon them.
Another area that we could investigate is the provision of car parking and garage facilities, especially for council tenants. It is interesting to note that the council estates which were extensively built both before and after the war, and up until the 1960s, made no provision for the ownership of motor cars. The net result is that those people in such estates who have acquired motor cars end up harking them on the road or even
248
around the corner from where they live. Such vehicles are ready targets for crime associated with motor cars. If there was some government support for the provision of drive-ins and garages so that people would have somewhere to put their cars, that might help reduce the incidence of the kind of crimes about which we are talking.
I have attempted to try to pitch my remarks in the debate at a slightly different angle from other speakers. I hope that the Government will take note of my remarks and that they will act upon them.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I was quite sure about how I was going to start my contribution to this evening's interesting debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux until the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, started to speak. I cannot let his remarks go unchallenged. He said that we must look at the problem against the background of being the country with the most car crime in the world. Well, the noble Lord is wrong; it is not the biggest car crime country in the world. The noble Lord then went on to elaborate on a number of reasons for the situation.
The noble Lord started by talking about the cost of transport and an underclass. He said that we should, somehow or other, make motor cars cheaper to buy, to tax, to insure and to run. Whether or not you can afford to buy, tax or insure a car is totally irrelevant to the stealing from motor vehicles and the stealing of them; and, indeed, the use of a stolen vehicle for another crime. Damn it! Some of the best thieves of motor cars, art, furniture, property and shares are not an underclass by any manner of means.
The noble Lord also said that we must reduce the costs associated with motor cars— for example, the VED, the price of petrol and the £ 100, or so, licence fee. He said that we must also produce low-cost, low-powered cars. However, it is the market-place that demands what the manufacturer makes in terms of motor cycles, pedal cycles or motor cars. I cannot afford to buy a Rolls Royce; indeed, I do not think I could afford to rent one for a day. Therefore, am 1 a member of an underclass? I have bought a motor car which suits my circumstances. There was a day not so many years ago when I could not even afford that and had to rely on what else was available.
The noble Lord is not living in the real world when he talks about the reduction in such costs. Who is going to pay— the taxpayer? The noble Lord? It is a market situation. If you are a thief you are a thief. The circumstances of your background do not excuse your offence. I will not hear from the noble Lord opposite excuses couched in such social terms. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am most grateful. I hope that I did not give the impression that I was making excuses. I was trying to tackle the causes of crime. I believe that to be most important. If we do not tackle the causes, we shall get nowhere in resolving the problem.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving that explanation of his

249
speech. I placed a slightly different interpretation on it. This is a timed debate and therefore I must move on. Originally I wished to begin by congratulating the Government. Frequently we read in the press that the Government do not care about the matters that are the subject of my noble friend's Motion. In 1988 the Government set up the police research group of the Crime Prevention Unit within the Home Office police department. In June 1992 Mr. George Houghton produced an interesting paper entitled The Car Theft Index. The paper dealt with the matter of stolen vehicles.
The police research group has pulled together various pieces of information from the Association of British Insurers, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, motoring organisations and other interested groups, and compiled a single document. I hope the police department will continue with this piece of work. This interesting document raises a number of points. It is interesting to note that it is the older cars registered in 1978 and 1979 that are two-and-a-half times more likely to be stolen than modern cars. That indicates to me that cars produced since 1988 and 1989 incorporate more safety and security features than do older cars.
Some noble Lords and others outside your Lordships' Chamber may accuse the motor industry of being a little laggardly in meeting security requirements. Motor car security has become more and more important and in recent years the motor industry has responded to this need. Some 90 per cent. of motor cars produced today contain enhanced security devices. Nearly all of them have electronic central locking, deadlocks and other such features. All these devices aim to make the stealing and removal of a motor car more difficult.
I do not disagree with the remarks of either of my noble friends as regards vehicle identification numbers. I suggest that they are helpful after a vehicle has been recovered. However, I believe we should aim to prevent a car being taken away in the first place whether it is being stolen to order, for fun, to enable someone to get home because he has missed the last bus, to be broken up for spare parts, or to be sold abroad. If we could prevent cars from being taken away by improved vehicle security through the use of immobilisers or other such devices— in another three or four years no car will be produced that does not contain such security devices — car theft would be greatly reduced.
As my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara said, it is the car owner's responsibility to lock his car. However, there are measures that the Government can take to alleviate this problem. The Royal Automobile Club has suggested time and time again that public car parks should be brought into the domain of consumer legislation. Many motor cars, parts from motor cars and objects from motor cars are stolen in public car parks. The Government should introduce a simple piece of legislation imposing certain duties on car park owners. That would involve higher car park charges— I am afraid that that would not please the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell— but it would lead to a net reduction in the
250
incidence of theft of motor cars and theft from motor cars which would result in lower costs for the state, insurance companies and, ultimately, for us as users.
I also wish to refer to the other aspect of the Motion; namely, associated crime such as ram-raiding and physical assault. I understand that the RAC has gone to the assistance of some 44,000 motorists, many of whom were ladies, who were afraid that they were being followed. We hear of cars being used in the furtherance of post office robberies or other such crimes. I believe it is in that area that we can legitimately call upon my noble friend the Minister to assess what the Government can do to make it more difficult for people to commit these crimes. Further, when people are apprehended for committing these crimes, we should ensure that the penalty fits the crime.
Incidentally, my own car was stolen some three years ago. That car has been stolen twice in the past two years. The thieves were apprehended in the car. They had smashed it into a shop window. They failed to appear in court. An order was made for their arrest, but, as I understand it, nothing has happened since. My noble friend Lord Brabazon suggested there should be a disqualification from driving for perhaps 30 years for certain offences. I am sure that my noble friend was trying to ensure that the penalty fitted the crime when he made that suggestion.
I wonder whether the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes the job it has to do with as much energy as it should devote to that task. I also wonder whether magistrates use all the powers which are at their disposal in this area. I believe that these matters give far greater cause for worry than the smashing of car windscreens or the removal of vehicles which will diminish as modern technology advances.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for bringing this matter before us for debate. It always seems to me that any discussion concerning cars is emotive and in a strange way encourages the participants to show their often surprisingly heated and strong feelings.
I understand that in the boardroom or at partners' meetings any agenda item relating to cars— who should have what type of car, and why— leads to long and boring discussion and can constitute the lengthiest item on the agenda. I fully understand that people consider owning a car to be an important matter but arguments rage about the type of car that is accorded to someone according to his status. I believe that over the years practically everyone has acquired the expectation of owning a car. After a house, a car is probably the most expensive item we ever purchase. Two-car families are becoming increasingly common and often families who have three grown-up children will have five cars sitting outside the house. That can be a source of temptation to those criminally minded individuals who view the theft of vehicles, or of articles inside them, as an easy route to financial gain. Most houses were built before the demand for multi-garages was apparent. Today, with the high cost of land, it is inconceivable that people will

251
ever be able to keep their cars in secure accommodation, as they would any other item of comparable value in their possession.
As a magistrate I hear many cases relating to car crime. I believe that car-related crime accounts for over a quarter of all crime. The statistics show that 10 per cent. of all cars are broken into each year. However, the statistic that always shatters me the most is that 70 per cent. of all car crimes are believed to fund the culprits' drug addiction.
Of the annual total of one and a half million car crimes, nearly one million relate to theft from vehicles, the remainder being the theft of the vehicle itself. That figure has increased dramatically over the years but so, of course, have the number of vehicles on the road. The better news is that the increase appears to be slowing down and the numbers fell in some areas last year. It therefore seems to me that, if we are unable to keep cars in secure conditions, then we must concentrate on another approach.
I applaud the Government's initiative in helping the police to catch the criminals and, when that is done, dealing with the culprits quickly, and also in ensuring that the courts have the necessary powers for effective sentencing. Perhaps the most important initiative is one with which we can all become involved in partnership, by improving methods of crime prevention.
As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, those of us who are fortunate enough to have bought a new car in the past few years have marvelled at the new technology which is included in the purchase price. Alarms, deadlocks and immobilisers are frequently installed. However, the majority of cars on the road are older models and it seems to me that discounts on insurance premiums should be allowed for those who actively take preventive measures. That would be a gesture which would be welcomed and, I believe, cost-effective.
As a woman I particularly welcome the new Secured Car Parks scheme. That voluntary scheme makes awards to those car parks which give security a high priority by the use of such measures as closed circuit TV, improved lighting and better layout. I am convinced that initiatives will develop as technology itself develops. Sadly, criminals always try to be one jump ahead, but I am sure that, although this problem has been an escalating one, we shall see a decline as the culprits find that it is not so easy to break into vehicles and get away before the loss has been detected.
There is as much scope for tackling vehicle crime as any other crime, and technology will obviously be a great aid in the fight. But I feel most strongly that the real battle will only be won by a partnership of manufacturers, insurers, the police and, of paramount importance, the public.
I end by thanking my noble friend for initiating this debate, which in itself helps to give the issue a higher profile.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Brougham for initiating this important debate tonight. I must also compliment him
252
on having the initiative, with Barry Sheerman from the other place, to set up the European Secure Vehicle Alliance two years ago. In that short time it has forced many organisations to attach much greater priority to reducing vehicle crime. I was happy to be one of the initial parliamentary members.
I should like to concentrate tonight on the importance and success of the police and private industry in co-operating together to fight vehicle crime. One police force which has offered a remarkably successful example is Northumbria. Until 1991, Newcastle, and Tyne and Wear in general, had a car theft rate triple the United Kingdom average. The growth of car crime was matched only by the proliferation of security devices. Insurers, the police and the Government struggled to keep up as there was a lack of any universal standard against which to measure products. The Northumbria Police conceived the idea of evaluating and advising the public on security products and they turned the tide of vehicle crime in their area with PACT (Partnership Against Car Theft), which maintains and updates a register of vehicle security equipment. Only those members who fit effective products and systems are included, and they each pay an annual subscription of £ 100. Launched in 1992, the scheme has now merged with Essex Police's Sold Secure Scheme and is in partnership with the Retail Motor Industry Federation, the Master Locksmiths Association and the Car Radio Industry Association. It is supported technically by the Home Office, the police scientific development branch and the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has decided to support the initiative on a national basis. All police forces in England, Wales and Scotland will be covered by the scheme by the end of this year.
Products are tested to an exacting specification and must withstand attack by various means for five minutes. Products meeting the PACT requirements are placed on a computerised database, but 80 per cent. of those submitted for testing fail. As a result of the scheme, Northumbria has already seen vehicle crime fall dramatically. In 1990 thefts of motor vehicles increased by 30 per cent. but in 1992 they were down 5 per cent. and they fell again last year. Thefts from motor vehicles have also been reduced dramatically.
The police and the insurance industry are successfully coming together to find common ground. That is hardly surprising as Norwich Union reckons that the average car theft costs the victim £ 1,700 in lost no claims discount, excess and hire car payments. Even the average policy holder who has never made a claim has seen the cost of premiums double since 1989 to cover other clients' losses.
With police encouragement, insurance companies are offering 25 per cent. reductions to owners who fit an officially approved (for instance, by PACT) alarm or immobiliser. On the other hand, new customers may be refused insurance until they fit one of those devices. Immobilisers are a successful response to car crime and, so far, have the crooks beaten. Because they take hours in a workshop to remove, thieves are put off. German insurers are already placing pressure on manufacturers to fit immobilisers, and that will have a knock-on effect on cars sold across Europe.

253
The Stolen Vehicle Tracking System (Tracker) has received some publicity recently for its success in helping police track down stolen cars quickly, leading to several arrests. The opportunity provided by the Tracker system to attack car crime was recognised by the police in England, Wales and Scotland. In 1992 they agreed to support the implementation of the system throughout Great Britain. That is the first occasion on which all 51 police forces have agreed to work together with a commercial enterprise to tackle a major social problem.
The Metropolitan Police are working closely with manufacturers on the fitting to all models at the production stage of effective deadlocking to prevent entry to vehicles. What Car? magazine's security experts were dismayed to find lamentably old-fashioned locks on three of the latest "hot hatches" they tested last month. That is obviously not good enough, but manufacturers are now getting the message.
The Metropolitan Police are also co-operating with manufacturers on the increased safeguarding of the VIN, to which my noble friend Lord Brougham has already referred. Partnerships such as these are vital for the future if vehicle crime is to be reduced.
6.28 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, mentioned in his opening remarks, against a background of vehicle crime in 1992 accounting for almost 30 per cent. of all reported crime and the fact that every two minutes a vehicle is stolen and every minute a car is broken into in the United Kingdom, today's debate focuses on one of Britain's major social problems. I am delighted that the noble Lord has brought this subject to your Lordships' attention this evening.
I have a similar tale to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. Since I moved to London some eight years ago from South Africa, where they have an equally major problem of car crime, I have on several occasions had my motor car, my scooter and two of my bicycles stolen and my house burgled. I have often asked myself, "What have I done to deserve this?" Many disturbing figures have been mentioned this evening, in addition to the measures that the Government and the police have taken over the years to combat car crime. In my brief contribution to this evening's debate I wish to focus on the measures which are being taken and which will be taken in the future constructively to counter car crime.
Given the magnitude of the problem, it appears that, despite the consistent efforts of the police to tackle car crime, their actions have been largely reactive. Although statutes such as the Theft Act 1968, and more recently the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act of 1992, have laid down the framework for punitive measures against car thieves— more specifically, joy riders and dangerous driving causing injury and damage — the approach to tackling the problem must surely be prevention rather than cure. Certainly the fitting of car alarms, immobilisers, crook-locks, radio safeguards and wheel clamps have assisted in the fight against car theft. But countering all this has been the emergence of scanner and grabber devices which can home in on radio
254
controlled car alarms and central locking systems and unscramble the codes and even unlock the vehicles. I understand that these devices can be legally purchased.
In researching for this evening's debate I also came across the Tracker system which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. This can be installed in motor cars and provide an extremely simple but effective method of recovering stolen vehicles. With the link-up between the motorists' tracker units and the police tracking computers, since their launch in September last year there have been, as the noble Viscount mentioned, a number of major successes in recovering stolen cars. I understand that in the United States some 94 per cent. of all cars fitted with this device are located within two hours of the alarm being raised.
In a Written Answer in another place on the 4th November last year, the Minister confirmed that the Home Office and the police had for some time been encouraging manufacturers to include visible vehicle identification on all cars to improve vehicle security. It is encouraging that 51 per cent. of British-made made cars now have alarms fitted as standard, compared, so I understand, to just 10 per cent. of imported cars— although one might ask how many British cars are being manufactured now.
One of the more ingenious inventions in North Yorkshire has interested the police of late— liquid crystal display number plates which can change to read "stolen" when anyone without the correct pin number starts the car's engine. The police in Greater Manchester have also had much success recently in their trials with the "stinger" device, that being a mat covered in hollow nails about one-and-a-half inches in length which is used to bring joy riders to a rather controlled halt. I understand, however, that unless the mat is pulled away it can have a similar effect on the chasing police car.
Apart from considering the devices used to prevent car theft, it is important when addressing this subject to focus on the reasons for car crime. A recent Home Office research bulletin, No.33 of 1993, looks at the subject of careers in car crime. Perhaps I may mention briefly some of the findings. Out of a sample of 100 convicted car thieves who were interviewed— 98 per cent. of whom were male— most had several years' experience in car theft and nearly half said that they had stolen more than 100 cars. Some 35 among them said that they had stolen more than 500 cars. Most had become involved between the ages of 14 and 15 and nearly always in the company of experienced friends. Among the many reasons given for car theft was the excitement, the "buzz", the thrill of driving at high speeds in high-performance stolen cars, the relieving of boredom, as well as the financial benefits of course. All these were highlighted.
With joy riding accounting for almost two-thirds of stolen cars, this has led to the suggestion that there should be provision for a legal alternative involving comparable excitement and interest such as the provision in certain areas where there is a high rate of car theft of well structured motor projects which challenge offending behaviour and which teach car maintenance and driving skills. Would the Minister

255
comment on what, if any, educational programmes the Government have promoted to tackle the problem in this way?
I shall not deal with the subject of the trade in stolen cars. Suffice it to say that there appears to be a burgeoning market in stolen cars, which go to Spain, Portugal, the Mediterranean, Africa and even Japan. There is also a large market for stolen lorries and spare parts in the third world. Here again I would like to ask the Minister to comment on what control there has been on the trade in second-hand spare parts, as well as scrapyard dealing. Could he also comment on the RAC's recent proposed initiative to ask the Government to divert £ 1 per vehicle from the new 3 per cent. increase in car insurance premiums into a central fund to counter crime? Initiatives of this nature in Michigan in the United States have had remarkable success.
In conclusion I would say that there is clearly no simple solution to the problem, whether through more punitive measures against car thieves or more protective devices in cars. I repeat my belief that we need to focus on preventive rather than curative measures if we want to see a reduction in this major social problem.
6.38 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brougham has brought to us this evening a debate which covers a subject which is very serious. He has done so with his customary enthusiasm and experience because the subject is one which encompasses very broadly the areas of interest which I know he has previously raised in your Lordships' House.
Most of us have seen in our lifetime quite a considerable and remarkable rise in the production of the motor vehicle. Some of the statistics are now quite terrifying. Last year we had a debate, in which I was involved, on the use of diesel engines in motor cars. We were given the statistic that if we took the entire population of motor cars in the whole of the London area and decided to park them on the M.25, we would have to increase the number of lanes to 50. That is a pretty useless statistic, but it does give us some indication of how many motor cars there are just within the London area. Each one of those cars represents an opportunity, or a potential opportunity, for crime.
This debate concerns the sensitive area of motor car security. It is a subject which is fraught with potential minefields. The subject of security has already been mentioned. If, for instance, I wished to buy a set of tools or an electronic device with which to break into a motor car, I could do so quite easily. I would buy a certain magazine. It advertises such equipment for sale. To purchase that equipment I would need no licence and no permission. Not even the Home Office would hinder me since its view is that if I did not actually use the apparatus to break into another person's motor car for criminal purposes, there is no reason in law to prevent me from purchasing and being in possession of it. Let me assure noble Lords that I do not possess such equipment, although I must confess that when my dog
256
locked herself in the car last summer I wished that I possessed such equipment. That equipment is available to all.
The incidence of motor car theft now impinges on all of us. It is now essential to immobilise one's motor car before leaving it even for a matter of minutes. Even so, it can still fall into the hands of a professional car thief. It is important for us to be aware of the new technologies that, first, will prevent access to the car, and, secondly, will enable the police to recover the vehicle. I should like to spend a little more time on the subject of the Tracker system. I have been encouraged in my enthusiasm following a visit to the police stolen vehicles squad in London. I have seen the system in operation, as have other noble Lords. Noble Lords may have noted the Starred Questions by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, during the past year. The so-called Tracker system has been available in this country since September last year. I do not know how many units have been fitted to motor cars. However, since their installation from September of last year, six motor cars fitted with the tracker device have been stolen.
The particular occasion which is worth noting involves the sixth and last vehicle which was stolen. The car was broken into, started up and set off on its journey. The incident was reported on the morning of 26th January this year. A police tracking computer picked up the system's signal at 3.30 in the afternoon and the car's exact location was pinpointed by four o'clock— half an hour later. The car had been driven into a compound in which there were another 25 stolen vehicles including sports cars, high value cars and a JCB back-hoe loader. We have already referred to ram-raiding. We might also remember that a device of that nature is used for removing entire money dispensing systems used by banks. When the police entered the compound, the registration plates, chassis numbers and engine numbers had already been removed from the vehicle. That is an example of the professionalism of such criminals.
If a motor car fitted with the system is lost or stolen, the owner makes two telephone calls. The unit is then activated through the Tracker system. The first call is to the police to report the loss or theft of the vehicle; the second is to the Tracker network. The police then contact the Tracker network. However, the police also interrogate the person who has lost the car. That is very important. If the car were taken under duress, a police crew might be in a difficult position if, for instance, the car was full of armed thugs. Therefore the police need to know the circumstances so that they can adjust their action accordingly.
The unit is activated by the police computer. The police crew follow the unit's signal; the response is created by an inaudible homing signal. The technology has been available in the United States since 1986. The first area in which it was used was Boston, Massachusetts, where car crime has fallen by 41 per cent. since 1986. In the remainder of the United States car crime has risen by 31 per cent. In this country I understand that all the police forces have the equipment. If we consider the experience of the United States over

257
that period,95 per cent. of all vehicles fitted with such a device are usually recovered within 24 hours. The average recovery time is 90 minutes; the best success time to date is seven minutes. A speedy recovery is vital in reducing the damage sustained by the vehicle. Again, the experience of the United States is that the average claim on a stolen car has been in the region of 5,000 dollars. For those vehicles which have been fitted with a tracking device, owing to the speed of finding them, the claim for damage has been reduced to between 500 dollars and 1,000 dollars. Obviously that is a compelling reason for considering discount on insurance.
I suggest to noble Lords that the privilege of owning a motor car brings with it certain responsibilities. They include initially protecting the vehicle against theft. In my remarks today I have dealt almost exclusively with technological aids for the suppression and detection of crime. I am sure that it will not be too long before other systems are available. I am sure that they will be equally as effective, if not more so. However, the most effective method is, of course, for us all to work to create a society in which we have respect for other people's property. A. P. Herbert reminded us in his dissertation, Reasonable Man, which I gather he wrote in 1935, that,
"The Common Law of England has been laboriously built about a mythical figure— the figure of the Reasonable Man".
All I urge is that in our future actions, be they in the use of new technology or in the attitude of our society, we should all act like reasonable men.
6.49 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, for giving me an opportunity to speak in the debate. I start at the point at which many noble Lords will expect me to begin. I refer to theft of motor cycles. I am thankful to count five members of the all-party motor cycle group present in the Chamber. We have, if not a success story, an encouraging story to tell so far as concerns motor cycle theft. I am not trying to get any praise for myself (though of course I shall be thankful if any is forthcoming) when I say that I am chairman of the motor cycle industry theft action group, which was formed some two years ago in response to the appalling state of affairs that existed as regards the theft of motor cycles throughout the United Kingdom. The insurance companies discovered— it took some time for it to register— that they were losing 50p on every £ 1 of premium that they received. Not surprisingly, they had to do something in a hurry. The leading underwriters decided that they would no longer take on any new business and that they would exclude particularly the business of younger riders. That had an effect on the prospects for motor cycle manufacturers' sales in this country. It was quite clear that something had to be done quickly.
We formed the group and brought together round a table all those who were involved in the problem. We did that with some trepidation. In a short time we reached a consensus, an agreement, between the insurers, the police, the manufacturers, the retail outlets and owners' groups. I am happy to say that as a result
258
of some of the action taken by that group motor cycle thefts in this country have gone down in recent times by between 5 and 7 per cent. That reduction has of course something to do with a change in the pattern of ownership of motor cycles. There now are fewer smaller machines on the road. People coming into motor cycling tend to buy the more expensive, bigger machines and take a great deal of care to protect their investment— though it is still not enough.
A tagging system has been introduced for motor cycles using transponders. On a motor cycle the application is quite simple. One adds to the vehicle five chips which can be read by means of a "reader". The readers are in the possession of most of the 51 police authorities in the country. Of course, that does not stop the machine being stolen, although there should be a hologram on the machine to tell thieves that the machine is protected by that technology. It makes it a great deal easier for the police to track down vehicles should they suspect that in some back-street garage, for example, there are suspicious vehicles. A number of arrests have resulted from the use of this technology. We believe that it has had a significant deterrent effect on the theft of motor cycles.
I should also say that some praise is due to local authorities, which have in some instances spent money on installing rings and bars as permanent fixtures to which motor cycles in bays can be chained. That makes them a lot more difficult to steal; a motor cycle is a relatively easy piece of equipment to steal, particularly at night, if it is not fixed to a ring or a lamp-post (which incidentally is illegal) because it can be lifted by three or four able-bodied men into a van.
My work with the theft action group has led me to quite a close relationship with the Metropolitan Police stolen vehicles squad, whose work I have come to admire enormously. They carry out painstaking and prolonged investigations, not only into motor cycle thefts but into the thefts of cars and even of heavy earth-moving equipment and horse-boxes— about which I am quite sure, if she has time, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, will talk to us. I was told by the police that they had apprehended a large Caterpillar heavy earth-moving piece of equipment, a digger, which was trundling through in the small hours of the morning on its way to a port— they thought in Ireland. The only reason that they were able to stop it was that the thief had no idea how to turn on the lights. The police said that they were lucky in that instance because the amount of earth-moving equipment that now goes abroad is quite staggering.
The police do the painstaking work. But I am afraid that police morale is quite low. The noble Earl will be aware of that, and perhaps he will be able to reassure us on steps that the Government are taking to increase that morale. It is difficult for the police to get convictions. Often they have substantial evidence; but, either because of loopholes in the law or because the Crown Prosecution Service deems it uneconomical to proceed with the case, thieves are let off. Often when thieves are on bail they continue to offend. We all know that.
The noble Earl and his department have been most helpful in response to suggestions which I have made in

259
recent times, particularly about written-off vehicles and their documentation. I know that the noble Earl's department has urged the DVLA in Swansea to take action to see that the documents do not fall into the hands of criminals who will secure such documents and steal vehicles to match the descriptions on the documents, which was a common practice.
I say to the noble Earl— I have mentioned this point before to his noble friend Lord Mackay— that I am told by the Metropolitan Police that there is an alarming new development. As one would expect, the crooks are agile and flexible in these matters. They see that the returns from using stolen documents here are not as they were; and a great number of write-offs are being imported from abroad. They come through the normal ports of entry, where the Customs and Excise issue the receipt form on payment of duty, which can be quite small. The receipt is then taken to the DVLA, which will then issue new registration documents. That is a very dangerous loophole. I am told that such vehicles are coming in in their thousands.
The main point about this particular practice is that those imported machines, which are technically write-offs, do not go on to the police computer when they are re-registered. The practice now for write-offs is that when the documentation goes back to Swansea and a reconstituted vehicle comes about for whatever reason — it is to be hoped legal— information is then put on to the police computer, which enables the vehicle to be tracked.
I have abbreviated my remarks because the issues have been so well covered by other noble Lords. I should like to touch briefly on what is known in the trade and in government circles as aggravated vehicle taking, or joy riding. That subject stimulated a vigorous reply to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I shall not be so brutal as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand what the noble Lord is trying to say; but I disagree with his analysis of the situation. I do not like the term "underclass". If you give a dog a bad name, you will hang him. I believe that is the expression. There are many disenchanted, unmotivated, uneducated and potentially dangerous young people about. They form gangs. Gangs apply a kind of peer group pressure. They are attracted to vehicles and they steal them. There is kudos and status attached to such activity. It gives them an identity. It is quite understandable.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who said that one cannot lose anything by getting such people on to some kind of scheme. There was such a scheme at Deptford, which put young people into workshops to work on cars and to show skills. Showing skills is the key. In many cases that scheme had remarkable effects on those young people. It gave them the feeling that they were worth something. The only problem (I say this in summary) is that once one has a young person who has a conviction for taking a car under the aggravated vehicle taking law, it is almost impossible for that young man— such people are usually
260
under age— when he comes to the age of having a licence to get insurance for his motor car since he has that record.
I should appreciate the noble Earl giving his views on whether it would be worthwhile for at least a pilot scheme undertaken by the insurance companies with the encouragement of government to try to give suitable youngsters who have a record the opportunity to have some insurance, even if it means that it is subsidised insurance. If those youngsters do not get insurance, they will drive without it. That is why, although I agree with almost everything in his interesting speech, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, on one point. To ban someone from driving for 30 years is just no good. That person will drive the cars anyway and not even try to get insurance. That will be a worse menace and possibly fatalities will result. Having said that, I again thank the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter.
7 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, we on these Benches are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, not only for the work that he has done in this area but also for providing the House with the opportunity to debate a subject which directly affects something like five and a half million people in this country each year.
The most recent crime survey figures suggest that 14 people out of every 100 are likely to be victims of some form of car theft this year. Among car owners, that figure rises to one in five. Those bare statistics hide a picture which ranges from minor inconvenience and mere irritation through considerable expense and on to real hardship many noble Lords have contributed to those statistics— I hope as victims rather than perpetrators.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the singularly unfortunate noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I know that I have done so. Some months ago my husband's car was broken into at night on a London street. I lost my fishing bag, which contained a Connemara black fly to which I was devoted, having succeeded in catching my first fish with it. But rather worse, my husband, who is a barrister, lost his wig. I often wonder whether the thief now wears it when he goes fishing and whether the same man is playing golf with the clubs of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as well. Those were minor irritations for me. But for those who rely on a car to get to work, to take their children to school, to get about at all or to transport the necessities of life, it may not be simply a question of inconvenience. If they cannot afford to carry out the necessary repairs or buy a replacement vehicle, it may amount to a personal disaster too.
The cost of car crime in human terms is incalculable, as it is also in economic terms. Quite apart from the policing and law enforcement costs, its scale is reflected in insurance premiums, which in turn affect the price of just about everything that we buy. No government should forget when looking at crime that car crime is serious. It amounts to something approaching 30 per cent. of all reported crime. Nor should they forget that

261
for most people personal experience of crime as its victim comes through being on the receiving end of this type of activity. The way in which a government reacts to car crime plays a significant part in determining the level of confidence that the public have in that government's ability to tackle crime generally. The explosion of car crime in recent years perhaps says more eloquently than I can that a change of policy is needed.
So what is needed and what can in fact be done? A number of noble Lords referred to professional car crime as a type of offence which is growing. Vehicles are stolen to order, stolen to be professionally dismantled and sold off and stolen for ringing operations. Many of us know of examples. I shall not disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. No fewer than six of my immediate neighbours in the country have lost horse boxes in the past six months. One lost two in four weeks. All of them were secured and some were parked in farmyards by houses. Only one went at night. All disappeared without trace. Those people were not youngsters joyriding; they were professional thieves. And that is in just one part of the country.
Noble Lords with experience and expertise have made a number of suggestions. To me, as a layman, three developments in relation to which the Government could encourage investment and take initiatives, possibly through legislation, seem particularly worth while. I speak purely as a layman. First of all, surely it cannot be beyond the wit of manufacturers of new vehicles to fit them with some form of hidden identification which can be read by a police officer with the appropriate decoder. At present, changes can be made without any difficulty whatsoever to number plates and even to vehicle identification numbers. It must be possible to give a new vehicle an identification which cannot be erased and which would enable an accurate check to be made swiftly on its history and ownership.
Secondly, it must surely be possible to devise effective methods of immobilisation which can be fitted as standard straightaway to new cars or to old vehicles which lack such sophisticated systems. The rising number of attempted thefts is perhaps a measure of some success in this area. I am encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had to say about it. But far too many vehicles, including new ones, can still be started and driven away in seconds by anyone who is in the know.
Thirdly, I share the feelings of encouragement of a number of noble Lords who have spoken on this matter: the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso talked of tracking devices and the effective way in which experiments in the United States have shown that cars can be recovered very quickly. I know that such devices are expensive and here, as yet, they are a rarity. But, when dealing with car crime, where I understand— perhaps the noble Earl will confirm it— that the detection rate is something under 3 per cent, such devices could surely make a real impact. I hope to hear that some or all of those three developments are matters which not only are receiving
262
attention from the Government and encouragement from a distance, but will receive practical encouragement also, which means money and legislation, where appropriate.
Much more needs to be done— noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, have spoken about this matter— to ensure safer parking areas. In particular, all stations, whether they are railway stations or underground stations would benefit from better lighting, perimeter fencing, attendance when possible, patrols and above all security cameras. My local station at High Wycombe, has been transformed from a place where one could expect the back window of a car to be knocked out and the contents pinched if the vehicle were left overnight to a place where one can have reasonable confidence that one will find the car in one piece, even after several days, as a result of investment of just that kind. But most cars are stolen from streets near people's houses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that it is essential when there is urban redevelopment or new development that consideration should be given to secure parking provision for those who will live in those areas.
Rural areas present even greater difficulties and are suffering increased car crime. In many parts of Exmoor, which I know well, it is no longer considered safe to leave your car unattended while you go walking on the moor. Every summer there are heartbreaking stories of visitors who have done just that and come back to find that the consequences are the unexpected theft or breaking into of their vehicle.
Police patrols cannot provide 24-hour cover. But initiatives such as Neighbourhood Watch and the Car Watch schemes which have been set up with great effect in Lincolnshire and Cleveland have shown that they can work. I hope that the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will give some indication of the steps that the Government are prepared to take to give practical encouragement to such schemes and to setting up schemes of that type.
It is perfectly right to say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that a large proportion of car crime involves young people. I agree with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, in relation to the unhappy inability of many youngsters to respect or appreciate the importance of property which belongs to others.
There is a real need— and this was something said by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, at the outset of the debate— to educate young people into their responsibilities towards cars and the effects that their driving will have on others. For many bored youngsters on housing estates where stolen cars have become the real menace and spoil the lives of those who live there, there is, in addition, a clear need to provide the sort of schemes about which other noble Lords spoke; schemes which provide an exciting and legitimate application for young people's understandable enthusiasm for cars. Motor projects in particular, as has been demonstrated time and again, when they play some part of a probation order or even when provided for those who are not offenders but are on the fringe of offending, can divert people from committing further offences. In 1991–92

263
the Government provided— according to the figures given in answer to a Question in another place— £ 300,000 through probation supervision grant schemes for that purpose. Perhaps when the noble Earl replies he will indicate that that level of expenditure can be raised and that the Government will give further encouragement to schemes of that nature.
It is not sufficient to tackle crime of this sort merely by dealing with the symptoms with legislation such as the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act nor, unhappily, to disqualify people for longer and longer periods as suggested by the Noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Experience shows that that simply increases the number of offences of driving while disqualified. This type of crime can be tackled only by co-operation between the public, manufacturers and the Government, and that co-operation must tackle the root causes, which are boredom, lack of respect for the property of others, easy opportunity to steal, poor security and a low rate of detection.
I hope that in what he says in answer to us tonight the noble Earl will give us encouragement that the Government see the matter as a priority. If not, at the very least the quality of life for many people will continue to be adversely affected and, at worst, more youngsters will take cars, go joyriding and tragically kill others in the process.
7.12 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I entirely agree with the last point of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Those who indulge in what is described as "joyriding"— more appropriately called "deathriding"— cause enormous distress to other people. They are a huge danger to life and to civilians and it is totally indefensible in any way. That is the reason we have taken the action that we have, particularly for those involved in aggravated vehicle taking. It is the most unpleasant form of car crime. It is considered by some to be brave; it is not. It is foolish and dangerous from which only misery can come.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux outlined the scale of the problem of car theft and I shall not repeat the statistics. As usual, a debate of this nature has shown your Lordships to be a fund of information, knowledge, experience and indeed sometimes of sorrow. Everyone has had some experience in this field. I felt sorry for my noble friend Lord Brabazon when he said that he had experienced vehicle crime three times in six months and among other things he lost his golf clubs and his spare wheel. It reminded me of one individual who was more unfortunate even than my noble friend. He decided that car theft was so bad that he would tie the wheel of his car by a chain to a lamp post— as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, reminded us, that is an offence in itself. He thought that that would at least secure his car. When he returned next morning he found the wheel still attached to the lamp post but the remainder of the car gone.
I was sorry also that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, lost her special black fishing fly and her husband's wig. The interesting part was that the noble
264
Baroness did not say which caused her or him the greatest distress. I fancy I know what caused at least the noble Baroness the greatest distress!
I agree with the noble Baroness that the figures given on statistics, although they are alarming in themselves, mask the real misery and distress, apart from the costs, associated with the menace of car crime. But I should like to clarify one point in relation to the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Brougham. He said that the recent international crime survey revealed that England and Wales have the worst record of thefts of cars. That made the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, describe, rather indelicately I thought, the United Kingdom as the "car crime centre of the world".
It is true that England and Wales have the worst record of car thefts. But it is worth remembering, though it does not give us much comfort, that Italy, France and Australia follow us very closely, and that the United States is not far behind. Since the breakdown of the Eastern Bloc, car crime in countries such as Germany has also increased dramatically, although statistics are not yet available to show that. Therefore we should not see car crime as a uniquely English problem, although it is a bad problem.
Victims in England and Wales are more likely than average actually to get their cars back, while recovery rates are much lower in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. That at least is something for which we might feel grateful. Nonetheless, as my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux pointed out, vehicle crime accounted for a staggering 28 per cent. of all recorded crime in England and Wales in 1992. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that a great deal of our crime prevention activity has been geared towards tackling that specific problem.
There is clear evidence that measures can be taken which can have a significant impact on reducing car crime. The Government have been pursuing those vigorously in recent years. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said how a government approach car crime determines people's attitude to it. I can say that we have concentrated a great deal of effort in that direction.
Obviously the police cannot be left to fight car crime alone. It is something in which everyone, particularly car manufacturers and owners, must play a part. My noble friend Lord Brabazon reminded us that people simply do not lock their cars and therefore it is not surprising when they find them stolen or vandalized. It is the responsibility of everyone to look after their property, inconvenient though that may be.
The Government's main efforts are directed towards reducing the opportunity for car crime by, for instance, encouraging motor manufacturers to improve vehicle security. My noble friend Lord Brabazon was concerned' about visible identification numbers. For some time the Home Office has been encouraging motor manufacturers to introduce visible identification numbers on all new cars. I am glad to say that there has been good progress in that regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a plea for immobilisers to be fitted. The Government and the police have been encouraging motor manufacturers to fit effective immobilisers and by 1992 immobilisers were available as standard or on

265
request at the point of sale on no less than 96 per cent. of United Kingdom produced models and on 75 per cent. of imports.
Efforts are also directed at increasing public awareness of the costs of car crime and encouraging motorists to take appropriate security measures. That is a key part of our car crime prevention campaign. Our efforts are also directed at giving the courts the powers they need, such as in the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 and in the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from five to 10 years. We also encourage local probation services, voluntary groups and others to work to counter motor offending and, of course, we support the police in developing their response to this form of crime as well as to other forms of crime.
As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, there is no one solution. He is correct. Car crime must be tackled from a number of different points of view. I agree with him that it is important not just to tackle car crime but to prevent it as far as we can also.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, the Home Office ran a major national campaign throughout 1992, which we called "Car Crime Prevention Year". This campaign, which featured the imaginative use of hyenas, was continued during 1993, and another "burst" of it is planned again soon. The campaign was designed to demonstrate just what could be done if car owners, the police, motor manufacturers, the insurance industry, motoring organisations and everyone else who is particularly affected by car crime all made a concerted effort to deal with the problem. And it has provided the background against which many local initiatives have been developed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, will feel at least that there is a concerted effort by all people to try to beat this problem.
Evaluation of the results of the campaign, and of the many practical activities which formed an essential part of it, have produced some very encouraging news. Two-thirds of the people surveyed said that they would be more vigilant about car security as a result of the campaign. This has been shown in practice by a 20 per cent. increase in sales of car security equipment during 1992. Because of this new awareness— and because of other Home Office efforts in recent years— more motor manufacturers are now actually building improved security into their cars when they are manufactured. This was a matter to which my noble friend Lady Seccombe referred. For the first time they are highlighting this in their advertising. Motor manufacturers are to be congratulated on this, although, of course, much more remains to be done.
The Government are doing what they can to help the motor manufacturers in their efforts. For example, a significant new contribution is being made by the Home Office's Police Scientific Development Branch, which is offering motor manufacturers some important practical help by testing the effectiveness of the security systems which they fit on their vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, was concerned about car alarm deactivators. I think that they are sometimes
266
called grabbers and scanners. The Home Office and the police are looking into the availability and effectiveness of these devices in order to assess what additional action may be required. Motor manufacturers and the vehicle security industry are also aware of the capabilities of these devices and are working to improve the security of their products in order to counter the threat which is posed by this new technology.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to introducing improvements to existing requirements of vehicle security in order to reduce car crime. Proposals are currently being considered in Europe, and the Department of Transport is playing an active role in supporting the development of European security standards for vehicles.
I agreed with my noble friend Lady Seccombe when she said that the insurance industry also has an important part to play in encouraging both manufacturers and motorists to improve vehicle security. This can be done by offering reduced premiums to those who fit effective security to their vehicles. Home Office Ministers have met regularly with representatives of the insurance industry, who are now beginning to take account of the risk of car crime and vehicle security when they set their premiums. I was interested in the remark made by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. He said that the Norwich Union said that each car theft costs the victim £ 1,700 in the loss of the no-claims bonus. That was an important point to make because so often people think, "Oh well, the insurance will pay". In fact, of course, people lose their no-claims bonus, and the cost of the loss of the vehicle is put on to the general rates which the insurance industry has to charge.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made a plea that insurers should be encouraged to give people with car crime records some form of insurance. I do not know whether it was subsidised insurance or cheap insurance. He contrasted that with the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Brabazon that people ought to get 30 years. No, he did not say that they should get 30 years; he said that they should be disqualified from driving until they were 30 years of age. I can understand my noble friend's enthusiasm for that point of view. I fail totally to understand the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. What he is really suggesting is that people who are the cause and have been the cause of other people's distress, of other people's expenditure and of higher insurance premiums should then get cheap or subsidised insurance to let the poor little dears go and drive again. He said that if we do not allow them to drive, they will go and drive and then break the law. All I can say is that I found that the most astonishing logic coming even from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. But I shall pass over that as being an incident to which I expect the noble Viscount does not appear to attach too much importance.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the noble Earl is very courteous to give way. In the speed with which I had to finish my speech I obviously explained myself very badly. I was suggesting that some young offenders who had gone through a court which had in some way rehabilitated them and who were coming to the age when they could qualify for a driving licence were

267
unable to take up this opportunity because they could not get insurance. I was suggesting that this might be a way of stopping people from driving without insurance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining that further. I do not think that it makes my view alter very much. I find it an astonishing suggestion.
The police have also been encouraged in their efforts, and a number of major initiatives have been launched by them. These include the national Secured Car Parks scheme, to which my noble friend Lady Seccombe referred; Partnership Against Car Theft in Northumbria, to which my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever referred; and Sold Secure n Essex. As my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever said, these last two— the Partnership Against Car Theft and Sold Secure in Essex — have now been combined and are being developed nationally. I was glad that they had my noble friend's approval. I was also glad that he referred to the success of the Northumbria police, who have worked so hard and enormously successfully in their efforts over car crime.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was concerned about c it parks. He suggested that car park operators should be made liable for compensation for crime in their car parks. Car park operators could not be held liable in many circumstances. There are a number of problems in going down that route. There is still much that car park operators can do voluntarily. We prefer to support them in partnership to make these changes through schemes such as Secured Car Parks rather than to impose regulations on them.
At the beginning, of this month my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Home Office, Mr. Wardle, met major car park operators and other interested bodies to stress the need for improvements in car parks. This is vitally important, because 25 per cent. of car crimes take place in car parks. The Car Crime Prevention Group of the National Board for Crime Prevention has been asked to monitor progress in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned the Michigan car crime prevention initiative. The Car Crime Prevention Group has agreed, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, to consider how this scheme might be adopted in the United Kingdom.
The Car Crime Prevention Group, which will shortly be expanded to cover motorbikes— that will give the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, great pleasure— as well as commercial lorries, has been developed out of the Car Crime Prevention Advisory Committee. That committee was set up in 1992 to provide a channel for expert advice to the Home. Office.
My noble friend Lord Brougham mentioned that the annual MoT test also presents an ideal opportunity to detect and to deter car crime. He is quite right. It does. This is something which both the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers have discussed with the Department of Transport in the past. As a result, the Department of Transport is looking at how the MoT test could play a more useful role in crime prevention.
My noble friend also thought that the driving test
268
should be used to enhance the attitudes of young adults both towards driving safely and towards avoiding vehicle crime. He mentioned the proposals announced last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Those provide a positive encouragement to improving young people's understanding of car safety and security. The Road Runner proposal, which has been devised by Crime Concern, is also relevant. This is aimed at 15 to 16 year-olds and is designed to teach them basic lessons about safe driving, avoiding accidents and avoiding car crime. Officials from the Department of Transport are currently looking at this initiative.
My noble friend Lord Brougham raised the question of the removal of vehicle identification markings, as did other noble Lords. He argued that it should be an offence to trade in vehicles or components where the numbers have been tampered with. I sympathise with my noble friend's view which, on the face of it, certainly appears to provide some means of tackling the villains in the car trade. There are, though, a number of practical difficulties which attach to it.
The main difficulty is the possibility of criminalising the innocent seller. Those who sell these parts would not necessarily know that numbers had originally been present or that the numbers which had been originally present had been removed. Such an offence might also catch any individual who subsequently sold, in innocence, a "ringed" vehicle which he had previously purchased.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned the need to regulate the salvage industry. I am not convinced that regulation is the best way to tackle the problem of ringed vehicles. There are other promising means which are being developed. In particular, the DVLA is working with insurers and the police to tighten the vehicle registration process. The salvage industry itself, in the form of the National Salvage Group, is also working to tackle the problem. Their certificate of destruction scheme should help to ensure that vehicle registration documents do not fall into the wrong hands. The whole issue of vehicle documentation and registration is something which the car crime prevention sub-group of the national board, intends to consider at its next meeting.
My noble friend Lord Brougham also raised the issue of a vehicle crime data-base. He has adduced (quite rightly, I think) that the application of information technology to the detection and prevention of vehicle crime is by no means exhausted. There can, though, be no doubt that existing applications already provide a vital aid to the police and to the public in dealing with this type of crime.
One may take, for example, the police national computer's stolen vehicle application. This contains details of around 300,000 vehicles which have been reported as lost or stolen. Fast searches allow vehicles — perhaps a hundred miles or more from the point of theft— to be rapidly identified by the police, and the suspects arrested.
Where a car is being driven in a way which gives grounds for suspicion, but which is not recorded as stolen, the 30 million records in the vehicle owner's file

269
can quickly be searched to determine the name and address of the registered owner. The facilities have led to the rapid solution of many vehicle crimes.
Of course, crime prevention is not just a matter for the police. For a number of years, details of stolen vehicles have been made available to HP Information Plc. Potential purchasers are able to contact HP Information Plc and, for a small fee, can have the vehicle checked to determine whether, among other things, it is recorded as having been stolen. The Government would like to encourage this type of mutually beneficial co-operation between the statutory and private sectors.
If I understand my noble friend Lord Brougham correctly, he is suggesting that information technology should be further utilised to assist with the evaluation of vehicle crime prevention schemes and to provide vehicle crime intelligence. I am sure that information technology has the potential to provide considerable assistance in these areas, but there are other applications, such as Phoenix, the National Criminal Record system, and the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System, which, for the moment, must receive priority in the face of limited public resources.
Both my noble friend Lord Oxfuird and the noble Lord, St. John of Bletso, referred to Tracker. I am glad that they did because it has been very successful. My noble friend Lord Oxfuird did a very good PR job for Tracker this evening in what he said. I heard too of a story of how one individual had his car traced by the police. His car had a tracking system on it. The police went to a house and they were directed towards the garage doors. They knocked on the door of the house and asked the owner if they could have a look in the garage. In the garage was the stolen vehicle. So the system has been a great success.
I hope that the partnership with the private sector will evolve, bear fruit, and that it will allow a more rapid development of vehicle intelligence applications than would have been possible in the public sector alone. There are proposals from the Europe Secure Vehicle Alliance for a joint initiative on vehicle intelligence. That has been discussed by officials from my department and the Police Information Services Board.
I hope from what I have said that your Lordships will see that there is a lot of activity going on in an effort to tackle vehicle crime— and there is much more to which I have not had time to refer. But it is reasonable to say at the end, "So what? What effect is it having?". Recorded car crime rose by 24 per cent. in 1990 and by 18 per cent. in 1991. It increased by only 3 per cent. in 1992. It actually fell in 10 police force areas. So at least that is an achievement and where there is any improvement in crime statistics let us rejoice in that.
Although there was a disappointing increase of 5 per cent. in car crime in the 12-month period to June 1993 — the latest period for which figures are available— this rate is still much less than it has been in previous years. It just goes to show that we cannot let up.
Much has been done, but still more needs to be done. Car crime must remain high on the crime prevention agenda, and we must build on the excellent work which
270
has been carried right across the country in the past few years. As far as the Government are concerned, I can assure your Lordships that car crime prevention will continue to be given a very high priority.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting and useful debate this afternoon covering all aspects of car crime and most aspects of car crime prevention. It seems that we have all had our cars broken into or stolen at some point. There is no doubt that a lot of co-operation is taking place between all parties to combat this problem. I know that this debate will be read by all those in the motor industry and concerned with car crime prevention. I know that my colleagues and I will study the debate with interest.
I wish to thank all noble Lords for their contributions this evening, especially the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Benches. I would especially like to thank my noble friend the Minister who has replied to this debate. I suppose that, after yesterday, it must seem rather like a busman's holiday to him. As he said, car crime is still a big problem; there is a long way to go; and there is a great deal more to be done on the subject. I shall study my noble friend's reply with interest. I was glad to hear of the inter-departmental co-operation which is going on. My noble friend has given us a lot of food for thought. I thank all noble Lords, especially my noble friend the Minister, for his very full reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Immigration Practice
7.37 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the processing of Jamaican visitors who arrived at Gatwick Airport by charter flight on 21st December 1993 was carried out in accordance with accepted standards of civilised immigration practice.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the morning of 21st December last year a chartered plane landed at Gatwick Airport with 326 passengers on board. It had flown from Kingston, Jamaica. It was one of hundreds of planes bringing people to join their friends and families for the Christmas season, yet the treatment of the passengers on this plane was uniquely different and uniquely deplorable, raising issues, I suggest, of the greatest concern over the conduct of immigration policy.
This aircraft was singled out for special treatment as soon as it landed. Forty nationals of the European Union were allowed to disembark but 286 Jamaicans were corralled in their seats, not able to move, for up to two-and-a-half hours. They were gradually disembarked row by row in groups and taken to a cold waiting area known as a gate lounge.
My first question to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is this. Why was it decided to discomfort the passengers in

271
this unusual way? Gatwick is a large airport capable of handling thousands of overseas visitors. They line up and wait their turn to he interviewed, but these passengers were specially targeted and segregated. Why was that? The Minister in another place has assured us that it was not for any reasons of suspected crime. He said that it was for immigration reasons. But if there was no suspicion of crime, what excuse was there to treat people differently from the normal procedures? There can be nothing more discomforting, irritating and, indeed, suspicious than to be kept in your seat for hours after you have already been on a 10-hour flight. The normal procedure is that everybody goes to an immigration officer and is assessed individually— and that is how It should be— not as a member of some suspect and targeted group.
What then happened? According to the figures put out by the Government,57 of the passengers were detained overnight in various detention centres; 28 of them were never released. They were returned by a specially chartered flight on Christmas Day night. A further 39 were stamped with a stamp showing that they had been refused entry, although in fact they were allowed temporary admission and stayed the month with their friends or families. That is a total of 67 refusals of entry, a figure which is unreasonably high and nearly one-fifth of the whole plane— and this is in relation to people who wanted nothing more than to spend a Christmas holiday with their families, their other relatives or their friends.
I have spoken to many of them in Kingston, where I now live and work. I have interviewed many of those who came back. One was a stone mason; one was a bus conductor; one was a small coffee farmer; one was a ward assistant in a hospital. They are people with jobs and roots in Jamaica.
Most of the detainees were taken to Campsfield House in Oxfordshire where they arrived in the early hours of 22nd December. That is a place of detention run by Group 4 Securitas. It has some facilities, it must be recognised. There were television and recreational facilities. But what rankled most was the food. It is not so much that the food was uneatable, which it often is in institutional places, but that the families and friends were not allowed to bring in food to those detainees. Why? If it is necessary to detain people coming in from different parts of the world who may well find our institutional food uneatable, why not let the families bring in food? One man said to me of his experience over the next three days, "I ate only bananas and bread and tea".
However, the nadir of the experiences of this group was yet to come. Late on Christmas Eve, with about 15 minutes' warning, all the Campsfield House detainees were taken away, put into buses and then, after a long drive from Oxfordshire to Sussex, distributed into various police stations around the South of England. The police blocked the motorway behind the coaches to prevent the families from knowing where they were going. They spent Christmas night and the whole of Christmas morning into Christmas evening in a police cell. Of all the indignities which people spoke of to me, this was the worst— to spend Christmas Day, a holy day,
272
in a gaol. One said to me, "I read my Bible to calm my feelings". Being Christmas, the police did their best and some were much praised for their kindness, but there was hardly any food because the facilities were not available.
Finally, late on Christmas Day, the 27 detainees were taken, in handcuffs, under heavy police escort, and led like criminals into a plane which had been specially chartered— no doubt at considerable public expense. I find particularly the history of that last 24 hours an outrage which should never be repeated when we are dealing with visitors to this country who have committed no crime whatsoever.
The explanation so far given by the Minister in another place for putting people in police cells was that some were being disruptive and threatening.1 do not accept that as true. Even if it was true, it was no justification for subjecting all of those who were being detained to the indignity of spending Christmas in a police cell.
What I ask the noble Earl on behalf of the Government is whether he will make— or whether the Government will make — an ex gratia compensation payment, not with any admission about the detention itself but to compensate these Jamaican citizens for the distress and discomfort caused by the manner in which powers of immigration detention were exercised in this particular case. Such a payment might do something to repair the enormous damage which has been done to the good name of the United Kingdom in Jamaica and the Caribbean, as well as to race relations in Britain, which have been yet further strained by another example of official discrimination. The Daily Telegraph was absolutely right in its leader of 28th December 1993 to call this— and I quote— "a race relations fiasco", for which an apology was required at the least.
It has been said in some newspapers that many of those who were admitted on this charter flight did not return on the return flight and that this somehow shows the initial action to be justified. That is not so. Those who were admitted were allowed not one month but six months. Knowing Jamaicans, I am not in the least surprised that if you are given six months you are going to use six months, even if it will cost more to return. I understand that in only a handful of cases has there been any breach of the conditions under which people were admitted.
This experience of these visitors raises wider issues about freedom of movement and the practice and implementation of immigration policy. This was a low-price charter of a kind much used and much enjoyed by British and European citizens. There are certain to be more in these days of rapid jet travel. There will be more from the Caribbean because Jamaican and Caribbean people, as much as ours, love to travel. What is to happen? Are different rules to apply to charter flights from Jamaica and the Caribbean? The organisers of this particular charter flight are fearful. One carrier has already told them that it will expect passengers to have entry clearance before they go on a plane, thereby imposing a kind of back-door visa requirement, which, incidentally, if implemented, would put great strain upon the staff of the British High Commission.

273
I suggest that some reassurance is needed from the Government. Can the noble Earl first assure the House that no visa requirement is to be introduced for Jamaicans and other citizens of the English-speaking Caribbean? Can he also say that the carrying companies are not at risk of penalty if they carry Jamaican nationals who have a proper passport and other documents but do not have entry clearance, which is at present the norm? My understanding of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act is that an airline should not be subject to any penalty in those circumstances, but, as I have indicated, there is a lot of anxiety.
Without such assurances there will be grave cause for concern about this incident. There is already. The impression which has been created, which I hope that the Minister will do something to dispel, is that this was a deliberate action, designed to deter holiday flights of this kind. I hope that we can be assured that it was not.
On a wider level, this is another story of incompetence, or worse, by the immigration service. Last year Jamaicans were deeply shocked by the death of Mrs. Joy Gardner in the course of being detained for deportation. That case is now under investigation and I say nothing about it. There are many other cases of alleged abuse. There seems to be no effective channel of complaint. After vigorous debate in this House, the right of appeal was withdrawn in recent legislation. But the withdrawal of the right of appeal must not mean that immigration officers have untrammelled and unchallengeable powers, because if they do they will be exercising those powers in a discriminatory and racist way.
An independent monitor was recently appointed. However, I understand that she has no power to receive individual complaints. Is there any complaints procedure for those who are aggrieved by the actions of the immigration service? The relatives of the detainees were told that there was but that no forms were available. If there is a channel of complaint, who is responsible for dealing with it?
My view is that an important precedent for dealing with complaints against those with official powers was set by the establishment of the Police Complaints Authority. That authority has a certain independence and efficacy. Its decisions are capable of causing changes in police practice. Immigration officers also have powers of detention and removal. They can make decisions which affect the individual drastically. Will consideration at least be given to the setting up of an immigration complaints authority? Without some channel of appeal or complaint the wretched events such as those that I have described are likely to recur. They are likely to continue to cause bitterness to those affected by them directly and indirectly. They are likely to do damage to Britain's international reputation. They are likely to cause deep frustration, which always arises when a wrong is done and no remedy is available. I look forward with the greatest interest to hearing the noble Earl's reply to the Question which I have tabled on the Order Paper.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gifford for raising this matter tonight. I hope that the Government will treat it seriously, because it is extremely serious. Every country has a right to immigration control, to say which people shall enter its shores, to say what qualifications they shall have and how entry shall be made. But people have a right to be treated with dignity.
There are in this country a large number of British citizens of Jamaican descent. They have a right to be visited by their friends and families. It is particularly important that that should be possible during periods such as Christmas. That is a festive season when families want to be together. They have a right to be assured that their families and friends will be treated with dignity and respect.
What we heard from my noble friend Lord Gifford and what we have read in the press indicates that the people who came from Jamaica in December in order to spend Christmas with their families and friends were not treated as they should have been according to international law. They were not treated with the respect that they had a right to expect.
That is the point that I want the Government to recognise seriously. Just as there are a large number of British citizens of Jamaican descent living here, there have always been a large number of important British people living in Jamaica. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, now lives in Jamaica, as did Lord Beaverbrook and Ian Fleming. We have always had distinguished British people living in Jamaica. Neither the Minister nor the British people would have liked their families to be treated in the way in which those Jamaican people were treated last December. That is what I mean when I say that the Government must give the matter serious consideration. I do not know the reasons for the behaviour that took place. However, I know that it is not the way to behave and that if it continues we may sow only seeds of discord.
When I chaired the commission which investigated the riots in Bermuda, I said that I wanted the report to be written in this country. Bermuda is a small place and I did not want to be writing a report there. I insisted that we must come to this country to write the report. One of the members of the commission was most reluctant. He began by refusing on the grounds that he is a businessman and when he comes here to do business he is always badly treated when he arrives. I assured him that he would be treated well; that we would all have VIP treatment and that he would not even see the immigration officer because someone else would do that for him. I have mentioned that incident previously in this House because it illustrates what goes on. I believe that we must take the matter more seriously.
I oppose the removal of the right to appeal because it was introduced as a result of complaints made years ago. A study of the figures will reveal that a large number of the appeals were successful. That meant that there were a lot of occasions on which the immigration officers had made mistakes. That is a digression because on this occasion there is no question of making

275
mistakes; it was obviously a decided policy and a method of approach. That is extremely worrying because, if we go down that road, we shall create a great deal of trouble.
I do not wish to repeat myself but I wish to emphasise that the British people would not have been happy if British citizens visiting Jamaica had been treated in this way. Therefore, one cannot expect the people of Jamaica to be happy about the way in which their fellow citizens were treated when they visited Britain. I do not know what excuse or explanation the Home Office will give. However, the purpose of my plea is that it should take the matter seriously and resolve that this kind of thing will never happen again. It is a road to disaster and I hope that the Government will recognise that fact. I do not wish to say any more, except that I hope that when the Minister replies, he will be able to assure us that the Government have got the message.
8 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sure that the House will forgive me for rising to speak in the gap in the list of speakers, bearing in mind that the previous debate finished earlier than planned and that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester is unable to contribute to it.
I feel that I halve to add my voice in support of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord Pitt. I have to place on record my shame at being a citizen of a country with a government like ours that treated those visitors to our country in such a shameful way. I contrast: the treatment of that planeload of visitors from Jamaica with the welcome that I received when I visited the Caribbean last summer with a party of parliamentarians. The welcome we received was friendly, supportive, helpful and educational from my point of view and I learnt a lot about the Caribbean, its peoples and governments. I cannot find the words to express my sense of shame at the difference between the way I was treated by the people in the Caribbean and their governments and the way that our Government treated those visitors from Jamaica.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for providing us with an opportunity to try to seek some answers from the Government about this matter which have so far not been forthcoming.
Many of us saw what were disturbing and distressing pictures on our television screens over the recent Christmas period. It is not easy, even after the passage of nearly two months, to forget the shock, despair and sheer frustration of many of those who had been interviewed at that time. They were in the main people who had gone along to Gatwick Airport to meet their friends and relatives who had travelled to this country simply to spend Christmas with them in their homes, only to find that the: r visitors had to spend Christmas in detention centres, police cells or even in one case Pentonville prison.
I assumed, as I suspect did many who saw those reports, that there must be more to this than met the eye.
276
I thought at the time that the immigration officers must have had some kind of advance information, some tip-off. The nature and the scale of the operation suggested a link with crime, and serious crime at that. I assumed that in due course all that would become clear and the public would learn the full reasons for what seemed to be callous and even inhumane treatment being handed out in our name and apparently to a large number of bona fide visitors to this country. I understand that no one has been charged with any offence whatsoever arising out of the matter.
So far, despite paying lip service to the philosophy of open government, no proper explanation has yet been received from the Home Office to justify what was done to those who travelled on that charter flight arriving at Gatwick on 21st December. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has already set out in graphic detail the catalogue of events and frankly disgraceful treatment that was meted out to those passengers. I only add in amplification of the details some of the relatively minor insults which he omitted to mention: little or no information given at any time to those who were waiting to meet the people; those taken to the police cells on Christmas Eve in Sussex, many of them, permitted only one telephone call, as if they were people who had been placed in the cells under arrest. At the end of the day, as we have heard, with a master stroke of timing, on Christmas Day 27 people were sent back to Jamaica with a security guard escort on a flight which was specially chartered by the Home Office.
A number of questions are raised by those events, and I hope that the noble Earl— to whom unfortunately unpleasant tasks seem regularly to fall— will be able to deal with some of them. First, senior immigration officers subsequently told the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that this was not a criminal investigation but concerned only immigration issues. Is that correct?
Secondly, the original Home Office line was that this was a normal, routine immigration operation. Would the noble Earl be able to tell the House whether any special arrangements were made in advance for the reception of the flight and, if so, what arrangements and why were they made?
Thirdly, why was it necessary to detain some 30 people in custody for periods which ranged from 24 hours up to four days when, at the end of that time, it was not considered necessary to remove them on that charter flight on Christmas Day? On what basis were the 27 who were flown home selected? What did the operation cost? Will the Government give an assurance that those whose passports were marked with the refusal of entry will not face additional difficulty in obtaining future visas to come to this country? What compensation will the Government offer to those who suffered? Last and by no means least, what apology, if any, has been made to those people who were wrongly detained?
This sorry episode of gross discourtesy to visitors to this country is, I am afraid, something which was foreshadowed in the debates here in' your Lordships' House during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act in 1993. Section 10 of the Act

277
removed the right of appeal against the refusal of both entry clearance and leave to enter from visitors, students, intending students, those planning to stay for a shorter time than six months and from their dependants. A number of noble Lords in the House expressed deep reservations at that time. Before the Act came into force, one in four of those appeals had succeeded.
Not only does it offend against natural justice to deprive an individual of any right of appeal whatsoever against an administrative decision to refuse entry— a decision which is likely to be based on a cursory interview by a hard-pressed official— but also where such an official knows that there is no review possible, such decisions are increasingly likely to be arbitrary and increasingly likely to result in a refusal when the official knows that he cannot effectively be challenged later.
The incident leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I cannot believe that our relations with Jamaica have suffered other than great harm. What an insult to the Jamaican community in this country !
The figures which indicate that one in five Bangladeshis and Ghanaians and one in 67 Jamaicans are refused entry as visitors, as opposed to one in 2,014 United States citizens lead regrettably to the conclusion that assumptions about a visitor's intentions to leave are made more on the basis of race than on individual case assessment.
We on these Benches accept that there is a need for immigration controls. We accept that it is right that those who are not genuine visitors must be screened and filtered. However, blanket action such as that now under discussion affecting, as it clearly did on this occasion, large numbers of genuine visitors— decent people— who had simply been looking forward to spending Christmas with friends and relatives in a country which used to be regarded as the head of a Commonwealth family, does nothing but harm to our relationship not just with Jamaica but also with all other black and third world countries.
In the light of what happened here at Christmas 1993 and since the Act to which I referred became law, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that the Government are giving careful consideration, first, to publishing guidelines for immigration officers so that — it is to be hoped— such behaviour cannot occur again; and, secondly, to reinstating some form of right of appeal against the refusal of entry clearance and leave to enter for visitors. If the noble Earl can do both those things and also say "Sorry", then some good will have come out of the miserable outrage of that charter flight, which shames this country.
8.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, many questions have been asked this evening which I shall try my best to answer. If I may say so, it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, back here again. We do not see him now quite as much as we used to. Nevertheless, he has not lost his unique touch of making some pretty inflammatory speeches and succeeding in getting and then distorting the real picture. After all, the noble Lord
278
said that the treatment given to those people was uniquely different and deplorable: they were corralled in their seats and specially targeted. He described the whole exercise as a race-relations fiasco and said that it was a deliberate action to deter such holiday flights. That is very extravagant language. I hope that I shall be able to explain to the noble Lord that that really was not the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that the incident was an insult to the Jamaican community in this country. She then made the astonishing remark that it seemed that refusing entry was made more on the basis of race than individual case assessment. I am bound to say that I do not find that to be a very worthy observation from the noble Baroness. However, I shall try to deal with it.
I turn now to the facts. A charter flight arrived at Gatwick from Kingston, Jamaica, on 21st December of last year. I should make it clear that the flight was not one of the regular scheduled flights to Gatwick; it was a charter flight. There are not many charter flights from Kingston, but scheduled flights from there are normally handled without any difficulty. In this case, the airline (UK Leisure) approached the Immigration Service and inquired whether arrangements could be made for the flight's pre-clearance in Jamaica. There are no standing arrangements for the Immigration Service to send officials out to Jamaica in order to clear flights in advance. In any event, there would have been insufficient notice for those concerned to set up such an exercise.
On 15th December, just a week earlier, a similar charter flight from Kingston operated by another company had arrived at Gatwick. About 100 passengers required full interview and over 30 had been refused entry. Therefore, the Immigration Service came to the conclusion that rather more of the passengers on board this flight might require a detailed interview than would have been the case on a regular scheduled service.
Arrangements were made for the disembarkation and reception of passengers from that flight so that, if the need arose, a potentially large number of interviews could be conducted quickly and in an orderly way. A gate lounge was provided — to which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, took exception, although I do not see why — where passengers could sit while they waited for their interview. Extra immigration officers were on duty to try to process the applicants more quickly.
Every passenger was individually interviewed by an immigration officer. Every decision to refuse entry was, in accordance with immigration rules, authorised by a chief immigration officer or inspector. No one was refused entry simply because he happened to have arrived on that flight. That is not the way in which we operate immigration control; nor was it done in any way, as the noble Baroness suggested, on the basis of race.
It may be of some assistance if I explain what actually took place once the aircraft arrived at Gatwick. The aircraft arrived about four hours late with 326 people on board. It should have arrived at 6.30 in the morning. It did not arrive until 10.30 a.m. There was an industrial dispute by the handling agents which meant

279
that passengers did not begin to disembark from the aircraft until about 11 o'clock in the morning. It also resulted in the baggage not reaching the baggage hall until between 12.45 and 1.30 in the afternoon. Therefore, no passenger from the flight was able to clear the airport until one o'clock at the earliest. Those events are significant because, as it turned out, there was insufficient time to complete all the interviews on the day of arrival.
About 100 Jamaican citizens were cleared through the control after only a brief interview. The remainder waited in the lounge until they could be further interviewed when decisions were taken on their application for entry. Priority was given to passengers, who were accompanied by children, and to anyone who appeared to be elderly or infirm. The Immigration Service provided refreshments for all passengers. The lounge also contained a number of telephones, which enabled passengers to make telephone calls.
The Immigration Service set up a telephone enquiry point, some 40 minutes after the first disembarkation, so that the relatives and friends of those who were on the flight and who were making inquiries about them could benefit from such a service. An enquiry point was also set up on the concourse for the benefit of friends and relatives who wished to check whether a passenger was being held for immigration enquiries. Therefore, a great deal was done to accommodate those people on that occasion.
At the end of the first day, out of the 326 passengers,202 had been cleared and admitted into the United Kingdom,35 had been refused entry, and 89 others still required further examination.
Out of those who were either refused entry or were required for further examination,57 passengers were held overnight because the Immigration Service was not satisfied in each case that the person would comply with conditions of temporary admission. Most of those who were detained were taken to Campsfield House. The remainder were given temporary admission to stay with their relatives or friends. At the end of the second day,29 people remained in detention, all of whom had been refused entry to the United Kingdom and 27 of them were later returned to Jamaica by a specially chartered aircraft.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked about the cost to the United Kingdom of the charter flight. The answer is that it was $ 126,765, including the cost of the in-flight escorts but excluding the cost of in-country escorts, which has yet to be finalised.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said that the real outrage was that people were taken to police stations, which he erroneously called gaols. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said that people should be treated with dignity. I do not disagree with him; they should be. However, I can tell the House why it happened. Some of those who were detained at Campsfield were starting to behave in a disruptive and threatening way both to the staff and to the other people who were being detained. It was considered by the local Immigration Service managers at Campsfield that to leave the Jamaicans there would create a serious risk of violence if they we re to be held over the Christmas
280
period. That is why arrangements were made to transfer those who were detained at Campsfield, which is in Oxfordshire, in police cells in Sussex until their departure. A flight was found which could take them from Gatwick to Kingston on 25th December.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how many is meant by "some" and why, if only some, were all so badly treated?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they were not all badly treated. Campsfield House was a new place. Many of the immigration officers who were responsible said that the conditions were such that there was likely to be a serious risk of violence if some action was not taken. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, can shake his head as much as he likes. All I can tell him is that the information I have received— needless to say I have checked this fairly thoroughly— suggests that violence was likely to break out and the immigration authorities were not prepared to accept that risk.
The 25th December flight departed at 9.40 in the evening with 27 detainees on board. One other detainee, who had been transferred from Campsfield House earlier because of his disruptive behaviour, was removed under escort on 27th December.
All those who were denied entry were refused for immigration reasons. In the vast majority of cases this was because the immigration officer was not satisfied that the passenger was a genuine visitor who would return to Jamaica at the end of his holiday. In some cases passengers had apparently tried to conceal a previous refusal of entry clearance by obtaining new passports. In a few cases, the passenger was apparently coming for settlement but the individual had come without the mandatory entry clearance which it was his responsibility to obtain.
We have estimated that about 100 visitors who might have been expected to leave on the return leg did not do so. We have, of course, made it quite plain that those accepted as visitors from the incoming flight but who did not leave on the return leg are not necessarily here unlawfully. People can and do change their mind about the time they will stay. Many will no doubt leave on other flights. But I think it fair to say that, given the indications on arrival that so many intended to leave on 17th January, fewer than we might have expected actually left on the return flight.
Campsfield House, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, took such exception, was only recently opened and those passengers from the Jamaican flight who were detained there were the first to occupy some of the newly refurbished accommodation there. A range of meals, some 20 dishes in all, were made available to them. Some of those detained did not wish to eat food which was not Caribbean food. A special order was, therefore, placed for Caribbean food and, by the morning of the 24th December, six different Caribbean meals were on offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said that what rankled most was that relatives or friends were not permitted to take food to those detained at Campsfield. This was not, in fact, the case. Specific authority was given by the Immigration Service for relatives and friends to bring

281
food in if they so wished, subject only to the overriding conditions of security and hygiene. Visiting hours were extended so that as many friends and relatives as possible could visit those who were held. That provision accords with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that the detainees should be treated with dignity.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, suggested that the abolition of appeal rights for visitors under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act has led to a change in the Government's policy towards visitors. The Bill was debated at some length both in your Lordships' House and in another place. Instructions to immigration officers since the Act was passed about the criteria to be applied for all visitors, including those from Jamaica, remain exactly the same as they were before. There has been no change of policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, raised the question of a complaints procedure. Complaints about the conduct of an immigration officer can be made to the complaints section of the Immigration and Nationality Department. The recently appointed Complaints Audit Committee is responsible for monitoring complaints procedures. The committee reports annually to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Genuine visitors from all countries are welcome. Most of those who come here continue to pass through our controls quickly. Indeed, there are frequent scheduled flights into Gatwick from Jamaica, which are normally cleared without any difficulty. The Government have no plans to introduce a compulsory visa requirement for Jamaican citizens in order to travel to the United Kingdom. However, it is in the interests of anyone who wishes to establish in advance whether he or she is eligible for admission to the United Kingdom to apply to the British High Commission for an entry clearance.
282
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked whether an assurance can be given that carriers will not be penalised in the event that they arrive in the United Kingdom with passengers from Jamaica who may not have entry clearance. Carriers would not be liable to a charge under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 provided that all Jamaican passengers who do not have entry clearance are properly documented.
Our immigration policy is firm but fair. All passengers who seek entry to the United Kingdom have to be dealt with on their individual merits. Those who do not satisfy the immigration officer that they are genuine visitors who will return home at the end of their stay will be refused entry. This does though represent only a small minority of people. In 1992 some 26,000 Jamaicans came here. Only some 400 were refused entry and removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked whether the Government would give some form of compensation to these people. When a decision has been made to detain a person under the immigration Act it is the normal practice to arrange for his or her removal as quickly as possible. The period of detention is therefore kept to a minimum. This principle was followed in the case of those who were detained from this flight. The action which was taken by the Immigration Service was lawful and the question of compensation does not therefore arise.
I have attempted to cover the incident in some detail. I am satisfied that the procedures were applied in accordance with normal immigration practice. There was nothing irregular in the way in which the flight was handled. Each case was treated on its merits and considerable effort was made to ensure that the large number of people on that flight would be dealt with as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.