Sitting of 19 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    HILL SAMUEL BANK AND UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
    MALVERN HILLS BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Diversification Strategies
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to study attempts at defence diversification strategies in other NATO states.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My Department has no plans for such a study.
    Ms Eagle: I thank the Minister for that surprising response. Given the money and effort that the Clinton Administration are putting into defence diversification in America, and given that last week's announcement meant the loss of 18,500 more jobs in defence-related industries in this country, why on earth will the Government not consider setting up a proper defence diversification agency to deal with some of the issues?
    Mr. Aitken: I know that the idea of a defence diversification agency is the one and only policy that unites the entire Labour party. Labour puts the diversification agency first; we put the front line first.
    However, the hon. Lady's bright idea is not very workable or sensible. For a start, such a study would really be a non-examination of non-strategies. No European NATO state has a defence diversification policy, for the simple reason that our partners believe—as we do—that such a policy is best decided on by industry, rather than Government trying to make decisions that are really the province of business.
    As for the American experience, it has been much criticised. It covers a number of areas that are already covered by Government Departments in this country, such as resettlement for all service men. The Wall Street Journal recently described the American diversification policy as "unblemished by success".
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Minister for Industry obtained European Commission approval for intervention funding for the naval shipbuilders Swan Hunter for the construction of merchant vessels? In that context, will my hon. Friend take heart from the willingness of the owner of Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie in another NATO country— France—to invest in Swan Hunter if Her Majesty's Government will place the order for the refitting of the landing-ship logistics potential of the Sir Bedivere with Swan Hunter? Is not this a case of another NATO country's investment making unnecessary diversification funding?
    Mr. Aitken: We have made it clear that foreign ownership is no bar to the future ownership of Swan Hunter. As for my hon. Friend's question about funding in general, that is properly the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has been extremely effective and sympathetic in trying to work out a policy for this difficult subject.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister feel no conscience at all about the tens of thousands of defence workers whom he sacked last week? Why does he refuse to contemplate establishing a defence diversification agency as part of a diversification strategy that would provide packages of assistance for the downsized defence communities, and also help the defence industry to diversify its technology and skill in the civil market? The United States has done it; the European Community has done it; why will not the British Government do it?
    Mr. Aitken: The British Government have done something rather better. The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep lately. The question relates to defence diversification for industry, and if the hon. Gentleman had been awake he would have noticed that "Front Line First" announced either orders or invitations to tender that are worth more than £5 billion to British industry and that will underpin or create some 10,000 jobs in our defence industries. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to adopt a whingeing, carping tone when he should be welcoming the statement.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who call for a defence diversification agency have learnt nothing from the 1970s when Governments were unsuccessful at picking winners but adept at spending hundreds of millions of pound in trying to do so?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Labour party has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. It wants to take us back to the old days of clause 4 ideology, of looking after the means of production, distribution and exchange and back to the National Enterprise Board and quangos, all of them doing jobs much better done by industry itself.

    Gulf War Syndrome
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an independent inquiry into Gulf war syndrome.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I have no intention of doing so, as there

    161
    remains no clinical evidence that those who served in the British armed forces in the Gulf conflict are suffering from unexplained symptoms that would call for such an inquiry.
    Mr. Campbell: If the Americans have discovered that there is such a disease and are paying compensation to their armed forces, should not we be paying ours and taking a serious look at the problems facing them? Or is it the case that when there is a war, we wave the union flag and tell our lads how good they are before they go abroad to fight and call them heroes, but turn our back on them when they need our help? It is always the same with this Government and they have been 50-faced on this issue—let us pay our lads now.
    Mr. Hanley: Two points need to be made in answer to that question. First, in July last year I invited anyone who believed that he was suffering from the syndrome to which the hon. Gentleman referred to come forward. In the whole of last year, 52 people came forward, of whom 27 have now seen medical examiners—their general practitioners —and 17 have been found to be suffering from recognised health conditions, none of them peculiar to their service in the Gulf. Solicitors have also put forward the names of some 300 further people, but we have not been given details about them and they have not submitted themselves to medical examination. We are, therefore, trying to do all that we can to ascertain whether their illnesses have been caused by anything that happened in the Gulf, but, at the moment, the evidence is to the contrary.
    Secondly, on the American evidence, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is taking the words of Back Benchers —be they Senators or Congressmen—and making them into a claim by the Pentagon. There is absolutely no evidence from the United States that there is a "syndrome", and there is certainly no scientific or medical evidence of chemical or biological warfare being deployed against us, on any level.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is not it the case that the shells that have been accused of causing the syndrome are made of depleted heavy metals with a lower atomic number than the normal isotope? Would not anyone with an A-level or even an O-level in physics know that there is less radioactivity in such shells than in the luminous dial of an average watch?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that one of the possible causes of any so-called Gulf war syndrome was depleted uranium shells and that the toxicity of depleted uranium is similar to that of lead.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that there may be a case for an investigation, not necessarily into what happened to British troops in the Gulf but into pre-medication against possible poison gas attacks? Is not there something that we could learn for the future?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that yet another suspected cause of a possible syndrome were the injections given to our troops before they left. It has all been investigated carefully, and the Surgeon General recently wrote to the British Medical Journal to say that there was absolutely no evidence of any cause from the source to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    Contracts
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of defence contracts has been awarded to United Kingdom companies; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Measured by volume, United Kingdom companies have been awarded 90 per cent. of the direct contracts placed by the Department during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of how welcome the defence orders announcements have been in my constituency, where already Graseby Microsystems is supplying electronic equipment for Challenger tanks and Vinten is supplying reconnaissance pods for the Royal Air Force? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that they are immense technological spin-offs, wholly beneficial to British industry overall, and a result of our defence industry activities?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, far from the defence industries having taken for granted those announcements, they were extremely relieved to hear that the success of the "Front Line First" study had enabled us to confirm those orders, thereby securing up to 10,000 jobs and £5 billion worth of investment in those industries.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the course of his extensive statement last week, the Secretary of State referred to a number of procurement programmes, but made no reference to the Hercules replacement programme, to the attack helicopter or, indeed, the support helicopter, all of which, in their own way, are important to British companies. Can he confirm that those are still in the long-term costing? Will he tell us why they were not referred to last week? When may we expect decisions in respect of all three?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can confirm that all three are still in the programme. They were not referred to last Thursday because we had nothing new to say on those matters. We are considering the various tenders or continuing the contractual negotiations on the support and attack helicopters and we shall report to the House as soon as those are concluded. We are assessing the short-term requirements of transport aircraft in view of the age of the current Hercules fleet.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important thing of all is to buy the right equipment for our service men? As his answer shows, British industries are manufacturing the right equipment. However, there is also the question of mid-life updates and refits. For example, the Tornado GR1 refit is on order, which is a massive investment. There is also the question of the C-130J aircraft in which there is human British input.
    Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the case and we are anxious to ensure that United Kingdom defence industries, which are second to none in the world, as their export achievements demonstrate, should continue to have a strong home base to ensure that they can make the maximum contribution to the national interest.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Swan Hunter shipyard went into receivership more than a year ago. He will be aware of the heroic struggle for survival by the shipyard workers on Tyneside. He will be aware that that struggle will have cumulated after his decision to procure the Sir Bedivere at Swan Hunter or elsewhere. Is he now able to tell the House where the Sir Bedivere will be procured?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a question specifically on that matter on the Order Paper. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the defence White Paper "Front Line First" offers a great opportunity for the civilian sector to get involved with basic pilot training? Is he aware of the excellent facilities at Prestwick, with the British Aerospace flying college?
    Mr. Rifkind: There are indeed good opportunities for the private sector, including those at Prestwick. I also draw attention to the increased opportunities for local employment in Benbecula following the decision to retain the range and the likely increase of contractorisation there and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence has approached the United States Government with regard to the possibility of purchasing an American aircraft as an alternative to the Eurofighter 2000?
    Mr. Rifkind: No, I will not confirm it because it is not true. As with the procurement of any large project, before coming to a final decision on production, we wish to be aware of the available alternatives. I must emphasise that Eurofighter remains the firm commitment of the British Government to meet the needs of the Royal Air Force in the next century.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of my constituents who work at British Aerospace were delighted by last week's announcement of the mid-life update of Tornado aircraft? They will also be made happier by the commitment that my right hon. and learned Friend has just given on Eurofighter 2000. They would be ecstatic if they were also given the opportunity to work on the replacement for the Hercules, if that large aircraft were given an opportunity to compete with the C-130J in future.
    Mr. Rifkind: Ecstasy is not normally at the disposal of the Ministry of Defence. Even if we cannot provide ecstasy, we will certainly do our best to come to a sensible and wise decision about the matter that my hon. Friend raised.

    Ex-service Personnel
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet colleagues from other Government Departments to discuss arrangements for ex-service men and women.
    Mr. Hanley: We meet regularly to discuss a wide range of matters, including those relevant to ex-service men and women.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that our ex-service men and women deserve the very best possible treatment? Will he, therefore, pledge, as the Labour party has done, actively to consider setting up a special unit in the Ministry of Defence to look after their special needs?
    Mr. Hanley: On the face of it, the idea is an attractive and intriguing suggestion, but it does not stand up to closer inspection. The reason is that we have the best health service in the world, the most comprehensive social security service in the world and fully comprehensive housing assistance. There is, therefore, no reason why any veteran should not find the answer to his or her problems. If there are deficiencies in any Department, veterans can discuss with Ministers ways in which to try to find solutions to them. Indeed, a number of Departments regularly talk to veterans. The Department of Social Security, for example, primarily has responsibility for war pensions. My noble Friend, Lord Astor, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, regularly meets representatives of the veterans' associations.
    Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House of the impressive percentage of men and women leaving the armed services who then secure worthwhile and rewarding employment in other walks of life? Does he agree that the training, loyalty and discipline provided by the armed services are an extremely good base for further and future careers? Is not it a fact that entry to the armed services qualifies people not only for a rewarding career in the forces, but for a career thereafter?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He does a service to the House in reminding us all that the United Kingdom's defence forces are the best-trained work force in the United Kingdom. He also makes a good point when he says that many of those leaving the armed forces go into work quickly. The statistics are that 55 per cent. of those leaving the forces walk straight into a job and that 80 per cent. are employed within two months of leaving the armed forces. There is no doubt that being in the armed forces prepares one not only for defending the United Kingdom but for any other job, should one want to take it up.
    Mr. Redmond: The Minister must be aware that with the closure of RAF Finningley, he will create much unemployment in Doncaster, especially among service personnel. Which Departments has he met to discuss the impact on unemployment of the closure of RAF Finningley? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that the RAF personnel there get a square deal?
    Mr. Hanley: The closure is subject to consultation, and the consultation period of three months has now begun. We will willingly discuss with the unions and local people anything to do with the future of those who work at RAF Finningley. The hon. Gentleman will remember that, only a few weeks ago, I received a delegation including him, local council representatives and local developers when we discussed what plans there might be if the site became available. The hon. Gentleman is being most constructive in trying to help the local community to come to terms with that closure.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces deployment in Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: Planning is in hand to enable the 1st battalion of the Duke of Wellington's regiment to be replaced when its tour in Bosnia expires in September. Whether the replacement will go ahead will depend on the situation on the ground nearer the time and on prospects for an overall peace settlement. We will keep those matters under close review in the coming weeks.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the performance of Her Majesty's forces in Bosnia is very much to their credit and to the credit of this country, and that they are worthy of our permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations, of our role as an active member of NATO and of our role as a member of the contact group? Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that the British Government will have the continuing support of the public and of the House if they give the highest priority to the safety of our service men?
    Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the UN sees the British forces as being among the most experienced, well-trained and committed of all those serving in Bosnia. We welcome that recognition, and we also recognise the important point that my hon. Friend made when he emphasised the paramount need to ensure the safety of our forces operating in the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Gapes: Given the remarks made by General Sir Michael Rose yesterday that if the 18,000 troops who are currently in Bosnia were withdrawn, they would have to be replaced by up to 50,000 combat troops, how many troops from this country do we have on standby ready to send in? What commitments does the Secretary of State have from the United States Government that they would support such an action, given that it is their proposal to lift the arms embargo that would precipitate it?
    Mr. Rifkind: General Rose did not suggest, nor would the Government approve, the sending of British forces to Bosnia in a combat role. We have made it quite clear from the very beginning that there is no question of such a deployment.

    Royal Air Force (Maintenance Duties)
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of private contractors in RAF maintenance duties.
    Mr. Aitken: The overall performance of private contractors in carrying out maintenance work for the RAF is good. Only in a very small number of cases has quality fallen short of that required. In those rare cases, we seek either redress or rectification under the terms of the contract.
    Mr. Jones: How can the Minister step up the rate of civilianisation of maintenance at RAF St. Athan when, last year, damage was done to Tornado aircraft which led to the loss of millions of pounds to the taxpayer? There is also deep unease among the 1,800 personnel at RAF Sealand in
    166
    my constituency at the likely pace of market testing and civilianisation. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no compulsory redundancies at RAF Sealand?
    Mr. Aitken: I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the great concern felt there, because not only are RAF workers doing maintenance jobs in his constituency but—as he often comes and tells me when he lobbies—a number of British Aerospace workers, whose skill he praises, are also employed there. We believe that there is no contradiction in the Government's policy of having some of our aircraft maintenance done by uniformed personnel and some by well-trained civilian personnel, such as the British Aerospace workers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is true that we are increasing the market testing programme, and we do not think that the isolated and regrettable episode that he described in any way suggests that the whole policy is wrong.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister ensure that, as RAF Stanmore Park is run down and closed, all the personnel on duty there will be RAF personnel until that moment comes?
    Mr. Aitken: I will look into the point that my hon. Friend raises. I think that he is correct, but I will check the facts and write to him.
    Mr. Hardy: Is not it the case that private contractors do not always provide the best buy, as was demonstrated not long ago at RAF Sealand? Will the Minister comment on the fact that some private contractors appear not to reinvest at all in training, and that they rely entirely on the recruitment of ex-service men who have skills learned in the services? As that pool dries up, will not the taxpayer find himself with a larger bill to pay for the training that some companies are failing to provide?
    Mr. Aitken: We believe that there is an ample and adequate supply of skilled civilian aerospace workers to carry an increased share of RAF maintenance. We believe that it is right in terms of quality, and that it is also in the interests of the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman has expressed concerns on behalf of RAF personnel many times, but, as "Front Line First" makes clear, we are determined to maintain an in-house capability for the maintenance and repair of RAF planes by RAF uniformed personnel.

    Armed Forces (Stability)
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that there is a period of numerical and funding stability.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of stability. Last Thursday, we showed the Government's determination to preserve the fighting strength of our armed forces and to proceed with a programme of investment to maintain and enhance their operational effectiveness.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his response. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hands out of your pockets."] That is from a party that claims to support the disabled, as I am at the moment.
    My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the very real concern in the armed forces that there should be

    167
    a period of stability henceforth. He will also know that many of his efficiency savings in the announcement last Thursday were welcomed by all who wish to see better armed forces. Does he accept that most Conservative Members will support him in any further determination to increase efficiency, but that they would also want defence expenditure to be maintained at its present level?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the continuing need to achieve greater efficiency and that we should ensure that any changes we make do not act to the detriment of the fighting strength of our armed forces.
    Mr. Salmond: On the subject of numbers, is the Secretary of State aware of the phrase, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics?" In which category would he place his Department's estimate of 1,500 job losses in Scotland as a result of his review, when that total excludes the 800 jobs that are being transferred from Rosyth to Portsmouth? Would he care to revise the figures that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland are peddling for defence job losses in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I certainly do not see any need to revise the figures, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of two things. First, several weeks ago he was pontificating about 8,000 job losses in Scotland as a result of any announcement that the Government might make—he is now looking rather foolish. Secondly, as he goes around Scotland promising that the Rosyth naval base would be safeguarded in an independent Scotland, he conveniently forgets to point out that in the same independent Scotland he would close the Faslane base, which would mean at least 4,000 job losses in the west of Scotland.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In recognising the important contribution that the Territorial Army makes to our defence capabilities, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that "Front Line First" ensures that the numbers in the TA will be maintained during the next few years? Is he aware that in October the new headquarters of the Territorial Army will be opened in my constituency? That is evidence of the sort of investment that the Government are making in that important portion of our armed forces.
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, the present formed unit strength of the Territorial Army is 59,000 and it is to remain at that strength. We plan an expanded role for the TA, as the pilot scheme that is being carried out in the Falkland islands clearly demonstrates.
    Mr. Hutton: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the important contract to design and build a replacement for the Swiftsure class—the batch 2 programme—is now subject to a delay in excess of two years from the timetable that the Government originally announced? Can he tell my constituents and me, therefore, what measures he has in mind to minimise the adverse employment consequences that that delay will mean for my constituents?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, we announced a substantial number of naval orders. The company in his constituency can tender for any of those orders to which it feels able to respond, and it will be in exactly the same position as all other yards.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests he has received to provide troops for peacekeeping purposes in Rwanda.
    Mr. Rifkind: We have received no requests to provide troops for the United Nations operation in Rwanda. In response to a UN request for vehicles, we have made 50 trucks available.
    Mr. Luff: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend understands the strength of feeling that exists among all our constituents about the appalling humanitarian crisis in Rwanda. Does he also understand that, against the background of the many demands on British forces around the world, there is general support for the view that Francophone countries should take prime responsibility for the situation in Rwanda? Can he assure the House that any requests for specialist miliary assistance that may be forthcoming will be looked on as sympathetically as possible, as was implied in his answer?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, naturally we would do so because we understand the scale of the human tragedy that is unfolding in Rwanda. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has committed more than £.11 million bilaterally to help in Rwanda since the crisis began. Relief flights are being sent, containing vehicles, personnel, blankets, plastic sheeting and water carriers. Following yesterday's mortar attack, the closure of Goma airport is delaying their arrival, but flights are being pre-positioned in the region and will fly on to Goma as soon as possible to minimise the delay in delivering those essential supplies.
    Mr. Foulkes: If we can send a task force to rescue the Falklands and mobilise huge efforts for the Gulf, surely the British Government can pull out all the stops for the dreadful tragedy that is taking place in Rwanda. Cannot the Secretary of State get together with the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers and make every possible effort to save the millions of people whose lives are threatened in that appalling tragedy?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman would be the first to appreciate that the problem is a humanitarian one requiring a humanitarian response. I have just reported to the House on the steps that are being taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and I am sure that the United Kingdom can hold its head high for the contribution that it is making in helping to minimise the dreadful suffering in Rwanda.

    Royal Yacht
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the decision on the future of the Royal Yacht Britannia.
    Mr. Hanley: We are currently considering the future of the royal yacht Britannia following her decommissioning in 1997.
    Mr. Winterton: Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, it adds little to what we know already. Does not he accept that the royal yacht Britannia is a floating trade ambassador for the United Kingdom? It brings immense status to the UK wherever it goes and it

    169
    brings great wealth to the economy of our country. Is not it important that the royal yacht Britannia is either completely refurbished and upgraded, or that a new royal yacht is produced for this country? It is worth every penny that we spend on it.
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the royal yacht, but even he must recognise that it is now a very aged craft and that it would cost about £17 million to refit, which would extend its life by about only five years. I remind my hon. Friend that the royal yacht has a crew of 220 and that the crew even of a type 23 frigate is some 40 fewer. The costs involved, therefore, must be carefully considered. The royal yacht's trade promotion activities are a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and they are without dispute. Her Majesty's foreign travel needs are a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This is an important matter and must be carefully considered in the months ahead.
    Mr. Mandelson: Does the Minister recall my letter to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence suggesting that the royal yacht Britannia should receive a comfortable and dignified retirement as befits her age in the new maritime heritage centre and marina at Hartlepool? Is he aware that I have discussed the matter personally with Her Majesty the Queen who has expressed her interest in that? Will the Minister confirm—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is proud, but he should not be divulging conversations that he has had with Her Majesty.
    Mr. Mandelson: Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's private secretary has graciously given me permission to disclose that information? Will the Government, therefore, confirm that they will consider the option most positively?
    Mr. Hanley: If such are Her Majesty's instructions, I could do no less.
    Madam Speaker: It is the Speaker of the House who rules here and not Her Majesty's private secretary.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Bearing in mind the importance of the royal yacht Britannia to our trade promotion prospects, will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts in his discussion with his hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether some private finance from firms that are likely to benefit from exports could be brought in so that a new royal yacht Britannia could be commissioned?
    Mr. Hanley: I can say to my hon. Friend only that that is one of the matters that will be considered. The trade promotion activities of the royal yacht Britannia have been second to none. She has earned billions of pounds of contracts in travelling around the world and we must not lose sight of that. Exactly what the relevance is, however, to Her Majesty's transport needs around the world is a different subject.

    United Nations (Peacekeeping)
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the peacekeeping abilities of the United Nations.
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Nations Secretary-General has identified a need to strengthen the UN's capacity to conduct peace support operations and has invited proposals from member states. We have made a number of suggestions aimed at reinforcing the UN's ability to plan and run such operations, including an enhanced peacekeeping planning staff and the establishment of a situation centre.
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Has he considered the possible establishment of a UN peacekeeping staff college and does he agree that this country is well suited to housing such an establishment?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure that the establishment of a staff college features high among the Secretary-General's priorities. Each country that sends forces to assist UN operations must ensure that it properly understands the needs of the UN, and in this way qualities similar to those that would be achieved by a staff college will be achieved.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the decision taken last week by the German constitutional court that German troops can take part in international peacekeeping operations? Does he agree that far from this causing any concern about the role of German troops, it shows their responsible return to a proper, institutionalised role in peacekeeping around the world?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend is correct. With the large increase in UN operations around the world, it is important that as many countries as possible, including Germany, contribute to United Nations operations. Against that background, the decision of the German constitutional court was very much to be welcomed.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: In the light of the welcome decision of the federal constitutional court, will the Secretary of State consider holding early discussions with the German and French Governments about humanitarian and peacekeeping operations that might involve former members of the Warsaw treaty organisation, who are keen to have operational experience with NATO, possibly under the auspices of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are seized of the desirability of involving those countries. The United Kingdom is helping to train a Baltic battalion, with contributions from each of the three Baltic republics, which is intended to be used in UN operations.

    Nuclear Testing
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the British nuclear test programme.
    Mr. Aitken: There will be no nuclear testing while the United States moratorium continues and we will continue working towards an effective comprehensive test ban treaty.
    Mr. Simpson: When the Defence Select Committee tells the House that there is no need for further nuclear testing and the United States moratorium shows that there is no chance of further testing, is the Minister not ashamed that the Government are making no commitment to the completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty

    171
    before the start of the non-proliferation treaty conference next April? Will he give the House that commitment, and is he not ashamed that Britain is the only nuclear power that is having to be dragged into a commitment to a nuclear test ban timetable before the conference starts?
    Mr. Aitken: We are not ashamed of any such thing. The United Kingdom is participating fully and positively in negotiations to secure an effective and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty. These discussions began on 26 January at the conference on disarmament in Geneva and we continue to participate fully in them.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's great skills in last week's announcement on the possible purchase of Tomahawk, but, if we buy Tomahawk, is there any possibility of its having any nuclear tipping?
    Mr. Aitken: No, we have no intention of putting nuclear warheads on Tomahawk should its acquisition proceed.
    Mr. William O'Brien: When the Minister is considering future nuclear testing, will he bear in mind the victims of past nuclear testing on Christmas island and pay them compensation?
    Mr. Aitken: As I explained to the House in a debate on Friday a week or two ago, there is no evidence to suggest that those who took part in the tests are suffering from a higher incidence of cancer or any other disease than a representative section of the population.

    Type 23 Frigates
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has plans to order a further batch of type 23 frigates later in 1994.
    Mr. Aitken: It is our intention to invite tenders for the next batch of type 23 frigates in the coming year.
    Mr. Garnier: I understand that HMS Northumberland and HMS Richmond will join the fleet in the next year. That is good news for our procurement industry, but will my hon. Friend confirm that our defence needs on the sea include the submarine fleet and the amphibious fleet and that any advances in the frigate fleet should go hand in hand with procurement across the front line in the Navy?
    Mr. Aitken: I agree with my hon. Friend. He and the naval and shipbuilding establishment will be pleased by our announcement under "Front Line First" that invitations to tender will be issued shortly for the LPD replacements, Fearless and Intrepid. We also announced an invitation to tender for batch 2 Trafalgars and an important order worth more than £250 million for seven new mine hunters. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see that, in naval matters, we are putting the front line first.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to the workers at Swan Hunter who have co-operated so fully in completing the three remaining type 23 frigates? Will he also give the House an assurance this afternoon that he will do all in his power to ensure that competitive facilities remain in Britain to build future type 23 frigates? Does he further understand that anything less than full support would be seen as a gross betrayal to the workers' loyalty on Tyneside?
    Mr. Aitken: I am very glad, once again, to pay tribute to the work force at Swan Hunter who, under difficult circumstances, have responded with work of outstanding quality and have shown outstanding loyalty, particularly in completing the type 23 frigates. I said that to Mr. Eddie Darke, the convener of the trade unions up there, and I am glad to make it known to the House. On future facilities, we can rest assured that whatever changes there may be in the shipbuilding industry, it is vital that the facilities to build large ships are retained somewhere in Britain.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the conclusion that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development drew from its perspicacious study of the British economy that the route to higher output, lower unemployment and lower inflation is through sound public finances and deregulation, not placing additional burdens and red tape on business, as advocated by the Opposition parties?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly recommend the OECD report to the House for what it says on both the economy and the health service. I hope that Opposition Members will take time to read it—I know that they have been preoccupied, but it is a good read. The point about the OECD report is that it recognises that the policies that the Government have pursued have helped to transform our economic prospects, which are better now than I can remember for many years—we intend to keep them that way.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in this country we still exempt far too many goods and services from value added tax?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady should read all that my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday before selectively misquoting what he said. I shall remind the right hon. Lady what my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who is chatting on the front Bench. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
    "It is utterly pathetic to come out with constituency letters in which I merely state my long-stated and well-known view that if we were starting again we might have a lower rate of VAT and fewer exemptions. As he knows, that is not policy now".— [Official Report, 18 July 1994; Vol.247, c.59.]
    Mrs. Beckett: But the Prime Minister is doing it again —he is running away from the question. I am asking him whether he agrees with the Chancellor that too few goods and services are subject to VAT. Surely he knows the answer to that. Most people in this country believe that too much is already subject to VAT and they want to know whether the Government are, as it now appears, looking for

    173
    an opportunity to put VAT on fares, books or children's clothes. It seems that the Government want to do that. Will the Prime Minister now admit it?
    The Prime Minister: Besides listening to what I said a moment ago, the right hon. Lady might care to look at what I said in the House on 14 June, 17 May and 25 January this year, and on 19 October, 6 May, 23 March and 18 March last year. If she is concerned about extra value added tax, perhaps she will tell me whether she agrees with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who has said in relation to VAT on private schools and private medical care:
    "That is something specifically being looked at".
    Mrs. Beckett: Surely the Prime Minister realises that the Chancellor has yet again let the cat out of the bag, by giving an indication that the Government want to put VAT on fares, children's clothes and books. The Prime Minister was willing enough to deny his intentions on VAT before the election, when he was seeking votes, so why is he not prepared to come clean now? Does not the Tory party have a party addiction to VAT; and is not that addiction damaging the budget of every British family?
    The Prime Minister: So much for a clear denial of extending VAT to private medical health care—we can draw our own conclusions from that.
    As for our policy, I refer the right hon. Lady again to what my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) knows—he is raising this scare again—this is not our policy now and we are not starting again. I see no likelihood of extending VAT. I look forward to a clear denial of what the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said the other day about his plans to put VAT on private education.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: During his very busy day, will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation from me to visit Macclesfield, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and where manufacturing industry has a very meaningful presence? Will he also accept an invitation to sample the culinary expertise of my constituent, Mrs. Annie May of Sutton, which is near Macclesfield, who won the Good Housekeeping recipe competition and gave her £10,000 first prize to Save the Children Fund? Is not that an example of the success of private enterprise and social concern and involvement?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's—[Interruption] I know it is the end of term: relax. My hon. Friend's invitation is irresistible. On a date that I cannot yet give him, I shall be happy to accept it.
    As my hon. Friend rightly says, unemployment is falling and has been falling for quite a long time—almost since the shadow Chancellor predicted that it would go up month after month.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister list what steps Britain is taking to assist in Rwanda and what further steps he proposes to relieve suffering and save lives from the terrible catastrophe taking place today on Rwanda's borders?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman may know, we have already provided air lifts to help with the food required in Rwanda. They are likely to continue. We are liaising with our partners on what may be done.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he has decided not to take the opportunity to make a formal statement on the important choice of Mr. Santer as president of the European Commission? Also, why does he not explain why he proposes the appointment of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) as a Commissioner —an appointment which will give much pleasure to all members of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: Upon the latter point, no formal decision has been made. When I have a decision to announce I will announce it.
    As for a statement, none was necessary. If any hon. Member thought that it was necessary, but not forthcoming, he would no doubt have tabled a private notice question.
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister concede that the 1988 changes in the television concessionary licence scheme have proved to be very unfair—even more than they were previously—and that now that it has been determined that the Government will continue the television licence, will he not now return to 1988 and install some fairness into the system, for all pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that returning to 1988 is an easy proposition, but I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

    Industrial Relations
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the change in industrial relations in the United Kingdom since the 1970s.
    The Prime Minister: The strike statistics speak for themselves. There were fewer strikes last year than in any year since records began. Legislation to establish a fair framework for industrial relations has been a key element in attracting inward investment and creating jobs.
    Mr. Bates: As 2 million passengers brace themselves for another day of disruption on our railways, caused by the inflation-busting pay demand of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, can my right hon. Friend confirm that some 75,000 members of the RMT pay their political levy to the Labour party and have been eligible to vote in the Labour party's leadership elections?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that, but 75,000 is an awful lot of potential votes. Perhaps we will get a clear condemnation of the strike now that the ballot has closed.

    Engagements
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: The next Prime Minister's Question Time is in exactly 13 weeks time. That is three whole months.

    175
    What does the Prime Minister think should be done to respond to the representations of Members of Parliament in the meantime? What avenues are supposed to be available to us?
    The Prime Minister: The same avenues that have been available to every Government since 1945, including those available to Members of Parliament under previous Labour Governments.
    Mr. Paice: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of pressure from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the German Government have withdrawn their totally unwarranted threat to ban British beef? Will he congratulate the European Commission on using sound scientific evidence as the basis for decision making and encourage it to do likewise with future scientific matters?
    The Prime Minister: I should certainly be happy to do that and am happy on this occasion to offer my congratulations on the way in which the matter has been handled in Europe. I think that it has been handled very well. The Chief Medical Officer has repeatedly made it clear throughout the saga that British beef can safely be eaten by anyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital. I am delighted that Germany has confirmed that unilateral measures will not now enter into force. I think that that shows that the whole of the Community, including Germany, now accepts that British beef is safe.
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Simpson: Does the Prime Minister accept that the £500,000 retirement hand-out paid by Severn Trent Water to its former chairman will go down as the most expensive disconnection in the history of the water industry? Will he explain why, at the end of the 12th wettest winter since 1727, and facing a 67 per cent. increase in their bills to pay for a 60 per cent. increase in profits and a 30 per cent. increase in the top wage increases of management, the public cannot water their own blooming gardens? Does not that amount to one privatisation cock-up too far?
    The Prime Minister: On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I have said before, I would
    176
    expect the shareholders and the regulator to question carefully any salary or payment that proved to be excessive. As for the general question of water privatisation, I think that even the hon. Gentleman will concede that, after years of under investment, there is now a substantial investment to deal with environmental matters, of precisely the sort that Opposition Members have asked for for years.
    Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Fox: How much of the fall in Britain's unemployment and the rise in Britain's competitiveness does my right hon. Friend attribute to the Government's supply side reforms, especially labour law reform? Does he think that there is any case for dismantling our labour law reforms and trade union reforms, as suggested by Labour leadership candidates?
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult to quantify precisely how much, but I have no doubt that they have had a significant effect. Equally, there is no doubt that a peaceful workplace is a prosperous one. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that, unlike Opposition Members, I have no plans to sweep the board clean and start again.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Canavan: On the question of VAT which was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), may I ask the Prime Minister to give us a straight answer to a straight question: will he name one thing, just one thing, on which he will never ever impose VAT?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at what I have said in the past when I have made it perfectly clear that I can see no circumstances ever when food would be subject to VAT, and I repeatedly set out the answers to the other points, on the many occasions that I quoted for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read them.

Forestry Review
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Forestry.
In March last year, I informed the House that, along with fellow Forestry Ministers, I had asked officials to review the effectiveness of current incentives for forestry investment and options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands; and to make proposals for changes that would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to our other economic and environment policies. My right hon. Friends and I are grateful to the members of the forestry review group for their work and to the thousands of individuals and organisations who made informed and cogent submissions to the group. I also put on record our gratitude to the commission's staff, who have been subject to a period of inevitable uncertainty during the review but who have continued to make a valuable contribution.
It is clear that the present general approach of multi-purpose forestry is widely supported. That approach, which was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the follow-up to the Earth summit in Rio, places emphasis not just on wood production but on encouraging the use of our forests for amenity and environmental benefits. The review looked closely at the way in which this policy is implemented and identified a number of modifications to the commission's woodland management which could further enhance the delivery of multiple objectives. The proposals that I am announcing today will assist in that by making clearer connections in the commission's management system between the objectives, the resources used and the output.
Our review has considered many options for the ownership and management of the Forestry Commission's woodlands. Our analysis has taken into account the many unique features of the forestry industry such as the varied commercial, recreational and environmental interests and the long lead time required before commercial timber can be harvested. Our conclusion is that, at this stage of their development, the Forestry Commission woodlands should remain in the public sector.
Nevertheless, there is considerable scope for improvement. The work of Forest Enterprise, the forest management arm of the commission, should be put on a more businesslike footing and a stronger connection should be established between the resources used and outputs achieved in all its commercial, recreational and environmental activities. We therefore propose that it should be replaced by a new trading body, established as a next steps agency. That trading body will still be part of the Forestry Commission, but it will deal at arm's length with the other parts of the commission. A chief executive will be appointed by open competition.
The remit of the new body will be clearly specified in its framework document and it will work within clear priorities agreed by the Forestry Commissioners and forestry Ministers. Demanding but deliverable performance measures will be set. There will be improved accounting and costing arrangements, helping to ensure that the costs and benefits of commission programmes are better measured. Ministers will be able to judge more
178
closely and more clearly the value of specific proposals. In this way we can ensure that the taxpayer obtains better value for money in terms of timber, amenity and environmental benefits.
The review also looked at incentives for forestry. Through grants, the Forestry Commission supports new planting by the private forestry sector, but, under the existing arrangements, new private sector planting of productive conifer forests has declined. We shall take action to increase it. We shall introduce a flat-rate grant for conifer new planting of £700 per hectare and increase the better land supplement for conifers from £400 per hectare to £600.
Those increased grant levels will give a major boost to conifer planting, which is so important for the new wood processing investors, including those who have been and will be attracted to Britain and who provide many new jobs and wider economic benefits, particularly in rural areas. This conifer planting will, of course, be subject to the environmental safeguards which now operate to protect valuable habitats.
For broadleaf new planting, there will be a grant of £1,350 per hectare for woodlands under 10 hectares and £1,050 per hectare for woodlands of 10 hectares or more. To improve, the potential timber quality of those broadleaf-planted areas, we shall require a higher stocking density in order to qualify for the full rate of grant, though there will be exceptions for small woodlands and the planting of native species.
In existing woodlands, we have decided that the level of restocking grant should be reduced to £325 per hectare for conifers and £525 per hectare for broadleaf trees, but the restocking grant will be payable on completion of planting rather than phased over three instalments. Assistance will be introduced for short rotation coppice on set-aside land, although assistance on non-set-aside land will be reduced.
Further details of the new grant arrangements will be available in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Library. I have asked the Forestry Commission to close its existing schemes to new applications at 3.30 pm this afternoon and to reopen the woodland grant scheme in September in time for the new planting season.
The new arrangements are being discussed with the European Commission and are subject to its approval, but I have no doubt that this sensible package of incentive measures will be a boost to the planting of more trees. It will bring in some £4 million of new resources—an increase of more than 10 per cent. in the incentives available to the private sector.
It will come as no surprise to the House that the review confirmed that millions of people enjoy access to our forests and that there is a widespread desire for the enjoyment of our forests to be protected, encouraged and enhanced. In response to that, the Government will take a number of measures to strengthen the arrangements which are available to protect existing public access when the commission sells forests as part of its disposal programme.
Procedures for the selection of forests for sale will be more rigorous; consultation periods will be lengthened and we shall encourage local authorities to consider carefully the need to make access agreements when offered. We shall also make it possible for the Forestry Commission to meet legal costs incurred by local authorities in making access agreements.
The Government will take measures to increase opportunities for public access to forests in those areas

179
where demand is greatest. We shall provide almost £1 million per annum to allow the Forestry Commission to offer to buy out leasehold interests in those of its leased woodlands, particularly those close to centres of population, where the present lease restricts public access. The special management grant already supports schemes to improve public access to private forests.
We shall also be introducing a new woodland improvement grant to enhance the quality of our forests, both environmentally and for the benefit of the visiting public. A similar sum will also be allocated annually towards the development of the national forest, the central Scotland woodlands and the various community forests to which we made a commitment in our manifesto.
We shall publish shortly a document outlining our proposals in more detail which will offer interested parties the opportunity to comment upon them.
Taken together, the Government's proposals are a comprehensive and imaginative package. They will assist the Forestry Commission and its staff by providing clearer objectives and new challenges and by creating a stable framework for its operations; they will assist the private forestry sector by providing better targeted grants., they will assist wood processors by encouraging increased wood production from our forests; and, finally, they will provide the public with improved opportunities to enjoy the great forests that are such an important national amenity. Together they will increase the benefit to the country of forestry, and I commend them to the House.
Mr. George Robertson: Today's statement, delayed and postponed as it has been, represents a humiliating climbdown by the Government as they retreat from their clear and clearly declared ambition to privatise the forests of Britain. In that respect, it is most welcome.
The Government deliberately set out to sell off the country's oldest publicly owned industry in the quick-fix, bargain-basement way that they have made their speciality. However, in this case they came up against a brick wall of public hostility and they have now made not so much a U-turn as an ideological Catherine wheel in policy.
The statement does not represent a conversion, still less a blinding realisation of the folly of privatising an industry taken into public ownership 75 years ago by a Conservative Government. It is simply an act of political cravenness as ideology finally hits reality.
Privatisation would have devastated the land market in Britain as the country's largest landowner divested millions of acres. It would have meant selling a priceless asset of land and trees, nurtured over generations, for a fraction of its real value. It would have undermined and destabilised the long-term supply of timber to a vital national wood processing industry and it would have placed in jeopardy a long-term investment that has increased production sixfold since 1950 and is just about to produce a profit for the taxpayer.
Privatisation would have placed in doubt the protection of the rural environment and threatened very fragile rural economies. Undoubtedly, it would have closed off public access to millions of acres of the nation's land.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order to reply to a statement that has not been given?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) does not appear to be questioning the
180
statement; he seems to be making his own as though something hypothetical might have taken place. I am not sure what he is questioning. Does he have the Secretary of State's statement?
Mr. Robertson: I welcome your curiosity, Madam Speaker, but I remind you and the House that, as the Secretary of State said in his statement, last year he asked officials to review the effectiveness of current incentives for forestry investment and options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands. The Government have spent £866,000 of your and my money, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. In that case, the hon. Gentleman might question the Secretary of State about it.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Robertson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is interesting to note the defensiveness of Conservative Back Benchers over the key option that Ministers were clearly considering from day one and, perhaps, the reason why they have found it so difficult to defend it today.
It is small wonder that, having established all these arguments—which, Madam Speaker, we pointed out right from the beginning—even this fixated Government, as they have twisted and weaved and prevaricated towards today's statement, could not find a way of peddling full privatisation. Surely the Government are aware of how sad we should all be at the damage that has been done in the industry because of the long-drawn-out uncertainty about Government plans, which has seriously and needlessly affected investment and confidence.
May I ask the Secretary of State—[Hon. Members: "Hooray."] Clearly the juvenile tendency on the Government Benches comes out even more clearly towards the end of the Session. Why is it that, as the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement today, there is still no consultative document? After more than a year of deliberation, a statement to the House and the expenditure of £866,000 of taxpayers' money, there is still no consultative document. When will it be published, and how long will the consultation period be?
Is the Secretary of State aware that he will have a hard job convincing us that today's forestry halfway house is not just a devious staging post to eventual privatisation —a next steps agency whose next step will be to establish Forestry plc? Have Ministers still not learned the lessons of meddling and tampering with an industry that was rightly and logically placed in full public ownership in the national interest? Is not this obsessive drive towards commercialism undermining the long-term nature of the planning that is so critical to the forestry and timber industries? Will Ministers continue to demand further land sales, given that any new sales will eat into the core planting land of the Forestry Commission?
What does the Secretary of State intend to do about access agreements for sold-off land, which have been such a dismal failure in all previous land sales? What does his statement mean in terms of making access agreements bite, and last beyond the first sale? Do the Government really care about the 50 million visitors who use, enjoy and value forestry land each year, or will they be merely casualties, locked out of their own countryside in the drive to make short-term profits?
Other European countries such as Germany, Norway and Sweden regard common access to the countryside as a

181
right. The only rights that the Government champion are those of the landed gentry. Cannot the Government get it into their head that forestry is not a short-term profit industry but an industry which, by its very nature, requires long-term investment and careful management of resources?
What the country needs is a multi-purpose forestry strategy—based, of course, on sound financial objectives, but also on long-term environmental protection, conservation, jobs and public access to woodlands. Above all, after 75 years of the Forestry Commission's fine work in utilising and protecting a unique national resource, Britain needs a national forestry policy that is based not on the interests of quick-buck tree choppers and land salesmen but on a genuine British national interest.
Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for the warm welcome that he has given to the Government's proposals. The kindest thing that can be said about his response is that he must have written it before he heard my statement. The difference between us is that our conclusion about the future ownership of the forestry is based on reason and common sense, whereas his attitude is clearly driven by pure, undiluted dogma.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there was no consultative document. I am publishing more details of the grant today, which will be available in the Library; the consultation document itself should be available in two or three weeks, and will allow a consultation period of about three months.
As for commercialism undermining the future of the industry, the hon. Gentleman has got it categorically wrong. He seems to forget that the Forestry Commission was not taken into public ownership—as he put it—75 years ago, but was established by a Government to create a new commercial strength for this country in the growth of trees. If we lose sight of the important commercial aspects of forestry, the whole industry will be doomed. What we propose will lead to more planting, better cash flow and management and more benefits from the forestry industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about access agreements. There will be a classification of woods before disposal; there will be a strong presumption against the sale of those with a higher level of access. Public rights of way, where they do not currently exist, will be included in access agreement arrangements, and local authorities will be encouraged to respond positively to the idea of entering into such agreements.
Their legal costs will be paid by the Forestry Commission; target times will be included for the completion of agreements; the consultation period will be extended from two to three months; and the Forestry Commission has prepared model access agreements which it will offer to local authorities. I am confident that, in those and a number of other ways, access agreements will be entered into more successfully. As for an access agreement lasting beyond the first sale, when a local authority is involved in such an agreement at the initial sale, that agreement will continue for subsequent sales.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman called for a multi-purpose forestry strategy. That is precisely what we set out in the document. The Government's multi-purpose forestry policy remains unchanged; we are simply ensuring that it
182
will be delivered more effectively and efficiently for the benefit of taxpayers while recognising the commercial, environmental and recreational interests of all those who seek to use and enjoy our forests.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the announcement of incentives to encourage tree planting will be very popular and, we hope, will increase the number of trees planted?
Although his announcement that the estate of the Forestry Commission will stay in public hands will undoubtedly be welcomed by the huge majority of people, does he accept that it is a disappointment to a small minority of us because we believe that it would have been possible to dispose of the forestry estate from public hands while maintaining existing environmental advantages and public access?
Finally, how much money does my right hon. Friend reckon could have been raised had he taken the alternative decision to privatise the Forestry Commission's estate?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome for incentives for planting and for his acknowledgement that the announcement that Forestry Commission woodlands are to stay in public ownership will be widely welcomed. However, I acknowledge that he and a number of colleagues would have preferred them to be sold. I agree that there is no intrinsic reason for it and it does on the surface seem rather odd that any Government should be involved in the extensive ownership and planting of trees, but the fact is that we have to deal with the existing situation. Having reviewed the position, the Government concluded that the present structure and characteristics of the forest estate do not lend themselves easily to the privatisation process, and that access, environmental and recreational considerations argue in favour of the conclusion that I have reached.
My right hon. Friend asked what valuation might have been placed on the woodlands had they been sold. It is a hypothetical question, but it might have been in the region of £700 million or £800 million, and that is for assets valued in the Forestry Commission's accounts at around double that figure.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Secretary of State accept that we at least welcome the Damascene conversion or U-turn by the Government? We hope only that it will be permanent and that there will be no permanent indecision about the long-term prospects for the Forestry Commission. On that score, will he tell us whether the £4 million of what we understand to be new money will include the sum allocated for the woodlands improvement grant, which we regard as extremely important in helping to ensure that woodlands are open to a wider cross-section of the public for their recreation and enjoyment?
The public will judge the proposals on their results. Madam Speaker, if you go down to the woods today, you will find a huge number of our fellow citizens enjoying the woodlands under the control of the Forestry Commission. If, in terms of the environment, the natural habitat, jobs, employment, economics and public access, there can be a permanent solution to the Forestry Commission's indecision and difficulties of the past few months, it will be to the benefit of all our fellow citizens.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about a Damascene conversion, but the truth is that there has been no such thing. The Government have worked their way towards this conclusion, reviewing the options without prior commitment and without the dogmatic prejudice found so easily in the Labour party. There has been no U-turn; nor are we entering a period of permanent indecision.
On the contrary, now that we have resolved the issues and now that a statement has been made that covers the whole range of interests in the forestry industry, we can now look forward to a period of stability and restored confidence in the planting and processing sectors, which are so vital to future employment in rural areas where we can look forward to the continuing development of employment opportunities. Indeed, only today, I was pleased to see in the Financial Times the announcement of a £40 million hardboard factory to be built in south Wales with the creation of 200 jobs. That is the kind of benefit to which we can now look forward as a result of the stability that I have highlighted.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the £4 million of additional resources coming into the system. Some of the increased grant will be derived from reductions in other grants, which I also mentioned in my statement.
However, the £4 million coming in will be directed towards the buying out of leases in those woodland areas which the Forestry Commission leases, mainly in England. Some £2.6 million will go towards increased planting in the conifer section, which is spread around the United Kingdom, although the majority is in Scotland. The remaining £500,000 of the £4 million will go to the short rotational coppice-planting scheme in set-aside land.
Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the tax changes which we introduced in 1988 and the environmental concerns, some justified, some not so justified, have in recent years robbed the forestry industry of its momentum. May I congratulate him on showing the difference between conifers and hard wood in forestry? Although we need hardwoods for timber production to some extent and for environmental purposes, conifers will drive along forestry in this country. While I welcome the measures that he has introduced, will he keep the matter continually under review to ensure that we get this vital industry on the road again?
Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend, whose interest and knowledge of these matters is extensive. I can confirm that, of course, these matters are continually kept under review. I hope that the switch of emphasis which we have announced today and the extra resources will lead to substantial increases in planting.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there has been a flatness in planting in recent years. Indeed, the target of 33,000 hectares has become increasingly meaningless unless the restocking component is taken into account. It is clearly a matter that we shall have to consider further. Our objective is to raise planting levels across the board, but especially in the conifer section.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the supposed advantages of the trading body being, to quote the statement, "at arm's length" from the commission?
Mr. Lang: The objective of setting up the trading body on a next steps agency basis is to create a commercial
184
atmosphere and the kind of commercial disciplines which will lead to greater identification of objectives, inputs and outputs achieved. That is a matter of recognising the cost and benefit of the commercial, recreational and environmental components. Those are the matters to which some of the specific grants that I have announced today —there are four new grants in the package that I have announced today—are directed.
Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that within the boundaries of my constituency lies the royal forest of Dean? I am quite confident that the majority of citizens in the forest of Dean will warmly welcome, as I do, today's statement in which the Government recognise the true value of the forestry estate, not only for producing wood, but for recreation and preserving the environment.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local people in the forest of Dean very much cherish their freedom to roam at will throughout the forest? That uniqueness was recognised in 1981, when the forest was set aside from other forest woodland from which it was able to sell off standing timber. Nevertheless, the residents around Dymock woods and Chestnut woods will also welcome the announcement today. My right hon. Friend—
Madam Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to put questions and I have other business to safeguard. This is not the time for making statements.
Mr. Marland rose—
Madam Speaker: Just a moment. If the hon. Gentleman has one direct question to put to the Secretary of State, I shall allow him to do so.
Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been some frustration over enterprises undertaken by Forest Enterprise to raise money in the forest of Dean because it was not possible for Forest Enterprise to reinvest money which was raised locally? Will he say whether, in future, money raised locally will be spent locally?
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. I acknowledge the close interest and authority that he brings to his repeated references to the matter in his discussions with me. I am happy to reassure him about the future of the forest of Dean and also of the woodlands that he mentioned. Indeed, I think that the forest of Dean was included not only in the Forestry Act 1981, but in the Forestry Act 1967 and the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act 1923.
On the question of rewarding the activities of those involved in managing the woods and forests that my hon. Friend mentioned, one of the benefits of the increased transparency and clarification of the objectives, inputs and outputs which will be derived from the establishment of a next steps agency is that it will be possible to create incentives, to reward good performance and to focus resources in a way that gets the best benefit for the type of objectives that my hon. Friend identified.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: First, will the Secretary of State give special attention to the need to restore the balance between management grants and planting grants so that existing woodlands can be enhanced and the gap between farming and forestry can be bridged? Secondly, will he give a guarantee that the disposals programme will not continue after the end of the century?
Mr. Lang: The disposals programme will continue; it is part of a rationalisation process. It is inevitable that the Forestry Commission, which has more than 1 million hectares under its ownership and control, should wish both to dispose of and to acquire small parcels of land with a view to rationalising and more efficiently managing its estate. The disposals programme will continue.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the relationship between planting grants and management grants. I hope that he welcomes the grants that I have announced today, including the woodland improvement grant, which is one of the new grants, and the livestock exclusion premium grant, and the new pilot schemes to stimulate planting in priority target areas. That and the interrelationship between farming and forestry have been carefully considered and are reflected in the decisions I have announced today.
Mr. Barry Field: The Select Committee on the Environment, when preparing its report on forestry, expressed concern about the opportunity for set-aside money to be put into forestry. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's announcement today will be widely welcomed by farmers and by the general public who see sterile land being used for growing trees. That will be very welcome. Can my right hon. Friend say a word about what he expects to happen to the widely respected Forestry Commission education unit, which does so much to spread knowledge among our schoolchildren?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. On the education unit, I am asking the director-general to look at all aspects of the work carried out by the Forestry Authority with a view to improving the performance and efficiency of the organisation. That is not a component of my statement today which is focused primarily on Forest Enterprise, on grants and on improving access. I have no doubt that the same disciplined approach will be brought to bear on the Forestry Authority.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Secretary of State represents, as I do, a constituency that is dependent on forestry as the key industry, he will appreciate that much of my concern is about employment, both direct and indirect. In that context, will he clarify what he means by the phrase "at this stage" when he refers in his statement to Forestry Commission woodland staying in the public sector? The phrase seems to suggest that there will be future reviews and that this is a two-step rather than a one-step move towards privatisation.
Will the Forestry Commission headquarters remain in Edinburgh, given that 64 per cent. of Forestry Commission land is in Scotland? Who will appoint the chief executive of the next steps agency? Will the Secretary of State accept that rights of way are not the same as access to forestry? If there are to be serious negotiations about access, our local authorities must have adequate funding to ensure that access is available to the public.
Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Lady that this is not a two-stage review; it is a one-stage review. The review has been extensive and comprehensive, and I hope that it will create an atmosphere of stability and confidence during which all aspects of the forestry industry will be able to plan for the long term.
I have no plans to contemplate the removal of the Forestry Commission headquarters from Edinburgh where they are effectively based. The chief executive of the next
186
steps agency will be recruited by open competition, and ultimately the decision will be for Ministers, after careful scrutiny and assessment of all the applicants.
I share the hon. Lady's emphasis on the importance of maintaining employment in rural areas. I believe that my statement will lead to a considerable rise of confidence in the future of employment.
Mr. David Lidington: Will there still be an important place in the new arrangements for wildlife conservation and for education, which have been great successes of Forest Enterprise in places such as Wendover woods in my constituency, which are on the edge of large centres of population?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend on that; the importance of environmental matters is central to multi-purpose forestry. We have acknowledged that carefully in the conclusions which we have reached and which we have announced today.
There are some 400 sites of special scientific interest in Forestry Commission land covering some 60,000 hectares, and I anticipate that the various heritage and countryside bodies in all of the countries in the United Kingdom will be fully involved in work with the Forestry Commission and with the private sector to ensure that their interests are protected.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: If the Government insist on a disposal programme, will the Secretary of State accept that the most effective way to ensure public access is for the local communities—where they express an interest to take over a woodland—to be given first preference or option on any sale? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to enhance the role of community woodlands? What will he do about the potential for conflict of interest for employees of the Forestry Commission, or of any other public agency, when it comes to the disposal of woodlands? I am thinking about a case in my constituency about which I have written to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Lang: I am aware of the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to which he referred, and I am happy to assure him that I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for forestry matters to furnish me with a full report on what is going on in that case.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about access and the importance of community woodlands. We have established a new pilot targeting scheme to focus resources and help on community woodlands in central Scotland and on the national forest in England. The community woodland supplement scheme will remain in force with a grant of £950 per hectare. It is a successful and popular scheme, and there have been some 500 applications, for it.
Mr. George Kynoch: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his statement today will be well received in my constituency, where there is a high level of afforestation. The reference to the 10 per cent. increase in the incentive for planning and my right hon. Friend's comments on access will be particularly welcomed. Will he confirm that future access by the local community to community woodlands such as Pannanich in Ballater and Dunnottar woods in Stonehaven will be secured?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that general assurance, and I am grateful to him for his

187
welcome for the announcement, which will benefit forest areas in his constituency and elsewhere. We have an incentives package to encourage access, and we have a number of proposals to strengthen the local authority involvement in access agreements. The community woodland supplement, the special management grants and the new woodland improvement grant will all help to improve access so that the public may enjoy our forests.
Mr. William Ross: May I be the first from this side of the House to offer the general welcome which I believe the statement richly deserves? It was absolutely necessary that the statement came at this time to give those people who wish to plant advance notice of what is available.
May I also welcome the better incentives for commercial conifer plantings, as opposed to sums which up to now had gone to what were largely amenity plantings of broadleaf woodlands? What is the right hon. Gentleman's target area for forests in the United Kingdom? Will he also give an assurance that he will take into account the environmental factors which affect the headwaters of many rivers regarding acidification, and also places such as the Flo country?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that—
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should ask one question each.
Mr. Lang: It is a pity, Madam Speaker, as I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman's welcome. I am grateful for that, and in particular for his welcome for the conifer incentive. I have forgotten the other question about which he asked me.
Acidification is an environmental consideration to which attention must be given, and not just by the Forestry Commission. Attention will continue to be given to it.
Mr. David Nicholson: My constituents and others who value the amenities of Exmoor, the Quantocks and the Blackdowns will greatly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about stability and access to forests and woodlands. They will also welcome the thrust of his statement about improving timber production and products in the United Kingdom.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who like and respect the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) feel that his response to the statement was well below par?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for what I said.
Dr. Tony Wright: I congratulate the Secretary of State on explaining to the House that there is often a conflict between privatisation and the public interest. May I invite him to explain it to some of his colleagues in other areas of the Government? May I say how welcome the statement will be to my constituents in the Cannock Chase area, which serves a large neighbouring conurbation? Beyond the need to deliver some organisational change to colleagues who wanted privatisation, why was it necessary to disturb Forest Enterprise, which is known to be working well, and turn it into a next steps agency, which will make it more commercial and less accountable?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the success of Forest Enterprise—an initiative
188
that has moved things substantially in the right direction. I pay tribute to the chairman of the Forestry Commission for initiating that development. We propose to build on that success and to create the greater transparency of cost and benefit that we would get from a next steps agency, which was being diffused under the umbrella of multi-purpose forestry. We are not abandoning that policy attitude, but within the concept of multi-purpose forestry it is important to identify and measure the relative costs and benefits of its different components.
Mr. Phil Gallie: May I add my welcome for the encouragement that my right hon. Friend is giving, in hard cash terms, to conifer planting? Does he agree that the Scottish climate is ideally suited to rapid growth? Does he acknowledge that the statement is good for the timber industry as it will secure indigenous supplies? Does he also acknowledge that, in the long term, the deal is good for the economy as it will reduce import costs?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful for his welcome. Indeed, it has come to my notice that conifer trees grow about three times faster in some parts of western Scotland than they do in Scandinavia and that they are of better quality for the purposes of our wood processors.
Mr. George Foulkes: I welcome the central point of the Secretary of State's statement about keeping the forest in public ownership, and I pay tribute to the part played by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in achieving that.
Since the Secretary of State and I share representation of the Galloway forest, which is one of the largest in Scotland, can he assure me that the jobs and conditions of service of those people who work so hard on behalf of Forest Enterprise and the commission, at Straiton in my constituency and throughout the forest, will be safeguarded when the next steps agency is set up?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and I join him in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for forestry matters for his extremely wise and sensible advice as we developed the proposal.
On the future of employment in the forestry industry, with more and more trees reaching maturity, as we are approaching harvesting time, and with the increased planting activities that I envisage as a result of the better focused and increased grants, employment is likely to rise rather than fall.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by those of us in north Worcestershire who have a close attachment to the magnificent woodlands after which my constituency is named? He mentioned increased grants for broadleaf planting in his statement, but said that the grants would be subject to certain densities. Is there a case for, and will he consider, eliminating that condition for broadleaf grants in areas of outstanding natural beauty where high densities may not be appropriate?
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. While we are seeking higher densities of about 2,250 trees per hectare for broadleaf grants, a density of 1,100 trees per hectare may be acceptable for new native

189
woodlands in appropriate sites, or for small-scale planting of broadleaf trees where there is little potential for timber production—normally, as discrete woodlands of less than three hectares, or as components of predominantly coniferous planting schemes. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Secretary of State give us a guarantee that, as a result of his announcement, the public will not lose access rights to any more forests in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lang: I have no doubt that the new access agreements that we have introduced today, and the rich diversity of measures that we are taking to encourage increased access to Forestry Commission and private sector woodland, will lead to considerably improved opportunities for access. I cannot, of course, give the hon. Gentleman any absolute and categorical guarantees, because the ultimate decisions are largely for the purchasers and for local authorities. Emphasising the role of local authorities and making their task so much easier will lead to many more productive access agreements being reached.
Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend instanced the millions of people who enjoy our woodlands. I wonder whether he has yet had time to consider how hundreds of thousands of those same people might become investors in forestry if the Treasury could be persuaded to put the rules affecting such investment on an equal footing with investment in other productive industries.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and I note his suggestion, which is essentially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, much more planting is taking place at the hands of the private sector than at the hands of the Forestry Commission, and hon. Members will recognise the good sense of that.
Mr. Eric Clarke: May I ask a question that I have asked Ministers before about research establishments, particularly the one in my constituency in the Bush estate? The Secretary of State omitted to mention research establishments in his statement, which I support, with qualification. What is the future for research establishments? Must they wait on the public efficiency drive on all establishments which has been proposed by the Government?
Mr. Lang: I did not mention research establishments in my statement because it was not concerned with that aspect of the Forestry Commission, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the Secretary of State do anything to safeguard consumers' interests in relation to two particular aspects of his statement? First, how will we know whether the freedom to roam is safeguarded and promoted? Secondly, with regard to forestry grants, the Secretary of State will know that the previous system was a disaster in terms of speculation. In the present system, planting has been flat. Is there not a case for giving power to an existing or new
190
body to speak on behalf of the people to guarantee their freedom to roam and that the investment system is working in the public interest?
Mr. Lang: If by consumers the hon. Gentleman means visitors to our forests, we keep a record of the number of visitors to commission forests. At present, there are some 50 million visits a year. It would be relatively straightforward to continue to keep tabs on the progress of numbers. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest the creation of a new body. I have not noticed any shortage of bodies willing to proclaim themselves the spokesman for environmental interests, ramblers, walkers, mountaineers and all those people who take an interest in our forests. They lack no opportunity to make their views heard.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: How incompatible are the access agreements involving private woodland owners with the deeply unpopular trespass provisions in criminal justice legislation? Where an access agreement is signed, will hikers, anglers and others be protected against the liberal employment of those deeply unpopular trespass provisions?
Mr. Lang: The provisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are in the Criminal Justice Bill, and they are not essentially a matter for me. They are aimed not at those people who seek simply to enjoy the land, but at those who invade other people's land with objectives that are damaging to the interests of owners and other users of that land. That is a different matter.
Mrs. Ray Michie: May I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the Forestry Commission and its staff on their excellent work, particularly in the past 10 to 15 years? Will he tell us, because he has not made it clear, who will give local authorities, if they are to be responsible for access and maintenance of access to forests that are sold into private ownership, the resources to carry out that task?
I am sorry to hear that the disposal programme is continuing. It seems like continuing privatisation by the back door. If it does continue, what will happen to forests such as those around Lochgoilhead in my constituency, which were gifted to the Forestry Commission by the old Glasgow corporation for the enjoyment of the people of Glasgow? I hardly think that the Government have any right to sell off those forests.
Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Lady that, even if the present disposal programme continued at its present rate, it would take another 100 years before disposal of the commission's forest woodlands would be complete. A new classification system has been introduced to ensure that forests and woods that are most in demand for access are the least likely to be sold, so I envisage that the problem will largely dissipate as an issue.
Local authorities will be responsible not for carrying out maintenance but for considering whether to ask for an access agreement to be written into a sale. The commission will make it as easy as possible for them to do so by drawing up draft agreements, by allowing longer for consultation, by paying legal fees and by involving heritage bodies, such as Scottish Natural Heritage, in the consideration of such matters.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I press the Secretary of State on that very simple point? The Welsh Select Committee prepared a report last year, from which the Minister will see that numerous local authorities throughout Wales said that they wanted to enter into access agreements but could not afford to do so. Unless this core point is addressed, we are wasting time talking about public access. Who will appoint the chief executive?
Finally, I add my voice to that of others who have welcomed the broad thrust of the statement that forestry should remain in the public sector, but I am concerned about the words in it "at this stage".
Mr. Lang: I have already answered the question about the chief executive.
The main cost that a local authority will bear is the legal cost of drawing up an access agreement. I have indicated that the Forestry Commission will pay those costs.

Points of Order
4.22 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have not successive Speakers deprecated from the Chair reference to applications for private notice questions? Is it not a little bit much to be told quite clearly by the Prime Minister at Question Time that we did not get a statement on the important issues involved in the decision to appoint the Luxembourg Prime Minister, Mr. Santer, rather than the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Dehaene, because we did not apply for private notice questions. Is this not a rather new doctrine? Supposing I were to put one in tomorrow— would I be lucky?
Madam Speaker: In answer to the last question, I think not. On the first question, it is not for me to interpret what the Prime Minister said. We all need to be clear about that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, as I will, will read the Official Report tomorrow to see whether his interpretation is correct.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am aware of your concern about access to the House for all people, including disabled people. I am also aware of your desire to inquire into any alleged abuse of the House. I just tried to book a small dining room for a party of disabled constituents at the end of November, only to find that no booking is free until next year.
I would not have been concerned about that, if I had not this morning received from a constituent a Team 1000 document, which says that, if one pays £1,000 to the Conservative party, one can dine in the House of Commons on a regular basis. This is a letter from the chairman of the Conservative party, with an accompanying note from the Prime Minister.
Last year, 1,399 bookings were made by Conservative Members and only 167 by Labour Members. During the summer recess, will you please inquire into what is happening, when people can pay £1,000 and buy access to here but my constituents cannot do so?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is telling me that he cannot book a dining room between now and next year. I think that he should refer the matter to the Catering Committee. I will do so myself, but it is also incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to do so.
Mr. Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I give you the documentation, which advertises facilities—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman began his point of order by saying that no room was available for him to entertain constituents between now and next year, but that at the same time rooms are being advertised. There is obviously something wrong. I suggest that he refers the entire matter to the Chairman of the Catering Committee, who is responsible, and I shall do so myself. Therefore, there will be a two-pronged effect, and a very effective two-pronged effect at that.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On another matter, Madam Speaker, which involves the integrity of the House of Commons. You will recall ruling

193
last week that the rules of the House would be upheld. Have you seen the list of Members to be appointed to the Privileges Committee? Have you noticed—
Madam Speaker: Order. There is nothing disorderly about that. We shall reach that subject later tonight, and the hon. Gentleman can make his views known then. It is not a matter to be dealt with now. It is on the Order Paper to be dealt with at the appropriate time.
Mr. David Winnick: With reference to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), would it be possible to consider the wider issue and the way in which the House of Commons is increasingly being used purely and simply for commercial purposes? Apart from being used by the Conservative party, the dining rooms are hired by hon. Members on behalf of various commercial organisations —in some cases hon. Members receive money, and in others they do not. Is it not undesirable for dining rooms of the House of Commons—the representative assembly of the British people—to be used sometimes for commercial purposes?
Madam Speaker: I am hoping that the reference that I promised to make to the Chairman of the Catering Committee—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will do likewise—will be looked into. That issue relates to the original point of order.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), Madam Speaker. Without going into specifics, could you give us guidance as to whether there are any circumstances in which it is in order for people to sell tickets for £1,000 or any other price to eat in the Houses of Parliament?
Madam Speaker: I want to see all the information before I am prepared to comment on that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will let my office have that information as soon as possible.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As for doing things properly, when approached by a lobby organisation to book one of the rooms downstairs that we use for afternoon teas and other things, is it in order for an hon. Member like me to do so on behalf of the trade unions and the workers at Rosyth? That is just what I have done within the past two weeks, and it seems to be a proper use of lobbying and Parliament.
194
One should be careful before one makes charges against individual Conservative Members who believe that they are carrying out their parliamentary duties.
Madam Speaker: We cannot hold an inquiry on that matter now across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to press you on the matter, but can I ask you a direct question? Do you believe that there would be a conflict of interests on the Privileges Committee in the event of the motion being carried? The hon. Member for Shipley—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not hear anything further from the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to resume his seat. We can discuss that matter later tonight as it is on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman knows precisely our procedures; he may well take action this evening, but it is not for him to take action now, as we have not reached that stage on the Order Paper.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Rev. Martin Smyth, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. James Molyneaux, Dr. Joe Hendron, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. William McCrae, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Roy Beggs, and Mr. Clifford Forsythe, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Northern Ireland, discrimination against disabled persons on the grounds of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
  CONTROL OF CAR BOOT SALES
  Mr. William Cash, supported by Sir Michael Neubert, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Richard Spring and Mr. Keith Mans, presented a Bill to regulate the holding of certain occasional sales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
  ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS
  Mr. Alan Keen, supported by Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Cynog Dafis, and Mr. Jon Owen Jones, presented a Bill to prevent the making of false or unsupported environmental claims and similar claims relating to animal welfare in relation to goods or services; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

  European Communities (Community Law)
  4.28 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to provide for the application of Community law within the United Kingdom to be supervised by Parliament.
  The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the role of Parliament in the implementation and interpretation of European Community law as it applies in the United Kingdom.
  By our accession to the treaty of Rome in 1973, we made European Community law superior to our own law. European law consists of the treaties, all the decisions, directives and regulations, and the accumulated judgments of the European Court of Justice, comprising a developed system of law on its own, distinct from the laws of the member states.
  When we first joined the EEC, it was left to the national authorities of each member state to decide how to implement a directive. That is still enshrined in article 189 of the treaty, but over the years the ECJ has developed the doctrine of direct effect, which means that a directive is now binding on the member states and on their citizens alike. At the same time, it creates rights which national courts are bound to uphold.
  Moreover, the doctrine of the occupied field means that powers once gained by the Community cannot be withdrawn. The ECJ has demonstrated itself to be an interpretative and innovative court. In the context of our system of common law and statute law, we would say that it was a political court. In one ruling, the court accepted that it
  "must not be defeated by obscurities or contradictions in the text, for the real meaning can be deduced from the context or the spirit of the text".
  The leading textbook on EC law, Lasock and Bridge, describes how the court will fill in the gaps in the system and so update the text, acting
  "not only as a Constitutional Court of the Community but also as an architect of European integration".
  In a landmark case in 1978, the court ruled that
  "a national court which is called upon … to apply provisions of Community Law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provisions of national legislation, even is adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await a prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means."
  Recently, there have been a number of judgments in which the ECJ has more confidently asserted this principle, in a way that is wholly alien to our unwritten constitution. Furthermore, the doctrine of direct effect is leading even our own courts to develop the same methods of free and political interpretation, even overturning Acts of our Parliament. Many right hon. and hon. Members will remember the Factortame case in 1990, in which the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was simply disallowed.
  Over the past two years, the Government have suffered five defeats on various reinterpretations of the 1978 acquired rights directive—the last of them on the day before the European elections. This is wreaking havoc with
  196
  the Government's competitive tendering and contracting out policies, which were previously regarded as perfectly reasonable and legal.
  How is it that, although we are told that Parliament cannot bind its successors, we find that legislation passed by a Labour Government as a result of a directive to which they agreed now binds us to a succession of new and ever wider interpretations from which we cannot escape?
  Until recently, such controversial decisions affecting policy would not have been touched by judges; the nature of these issues is clearly and obviously political. Typical of the free and loose way in which our laws are developed is what happens under article 119 of the treaty, which establishes the principle of equal pay for men and women. Pay is now widely interpreted to mean pensions, redundancy terms and other things, and goes far beyond the intention of this House when we first joined the Community.
  On 3 March this year, in the Equal Opportunities case, our Law Lords effectively struck out aspects of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, on the basis that current differences in employment conditions between part-time and full-time workers are, in their judgment, indirectly discriminatory against women, because more women work part-time. Does this further innovation reflect the fact that one of our Law Lords is a former justice of the European Court?
  There is also the continuing scandal of the huge financial settlements on pregnant former service women; it is set to cost the Government the price of a new frigate. What price "Front Line First"? Those who have fought and risked all for their country—and their widows—must wonder who decides such absurd priorities. Surely the politicians, not the judges, must decide.
  This Bill does not purport to put a stop to all this, but should not this Parliament at least have a role in the process? The Bill proposes that the obligation to implement EC law should be transferred from our courts, which are making increasingly political judgments automatically, to the High Court of Parliament. That means that, where it is found that UK law is incompatible with EC law, the matter would be referred to the appropriate Secretary of State, who would then lay an Order before us, on which we could deliberate and vote.
  That merely puts us on a par with our European Community partners. They all have written constitutions, which defend their national sovereignty. In France the Conseil d'État, and in Germany the Karlsruhe court—the supreme court of Germany—effectively set limits on the penetration of EC law into the system. Our Parliament is our supreme court. We are surely entitled to similar protection, the same as the others. After all, we want to be at the heart of Europe.
  Governments have always been ready to reassure the House that such protections are unnecessary or alarmist. In 1975, during the referendum, we were assured:
  "No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament."
  That has gone by the board. During the passage of the Maastricht Bill, the then Foreign Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), admitting that the ECJ has
  "traditionally been a centralising institution,"
  and went on to claim that he saw

  197
  "clear signs of a change of emphasis, and I believe that that trend will be reinforced by the Maastricht treaty."—[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1058–60.]
  That is what he said, but has it been borne out by events?
  Lord Denning was right when he told us what was happening to our law back in 1974, when he described EC law as
  "an incoming tide. It flows into estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back."
  As the 1996 renegotiation of Maastricht approaches, we are seeing a gradual evolution of Government policy. That needs to amount to a complete reappraisal—and, indeed, a new British consensus on Europe is forming, reflected not least in the sponsors whom I have gathered for the Bill. Only last week, the official Opposition declared themselves in favour of a Europe of nation states and against a federal Europe. Here is an opportunity to give a little legislative expression to these emerging aspirations.
  Some may feel that it is gesture politics to introduce a Bill at this stage of the Session, and, of course, the procedure is perhaps just that, but I make no apology for giving the House an opportunity to set down a marker. If we are not prepared to stand up for the supremacy of our Parliament, we can be certain that no one else will bother.
  I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House merely to declare their belief in our powers and rights by supporting the Bill, for who else will defend them?
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: May I first start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that we really should have a written constitution. I am glad that he is now on record as saying that it would make life so much easier if we had one. I welcome him and offer him free membership of the society that seeks precisely that.
  On directives—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Colchester, North has quite finished—he is prone to mumble, and I have heard him do exactly that in European Standing Committee B—perhaps he might think for one moment about the directive that he originally mentioned. He was absolutely correct. A directive was, and still remains, a directive from the centre, and is fulfilled in the way that individual Governments see fit.
  That was one reason why we made such a mess of the directive on knackers' yards, which were running perfectly well for a very long time, yet were ordered by the European Union to ensure that they were set up in a hygienic way. No sooner were Ministers and civil servants down to it than all sorts of regulations were put in place that were absolutely and totally unnecessary. The Commission confirmed that they were totally unnecessary.
  Far too often, as with the hon. Member for Colchester, North, directives are over-zealously fulfilled. Therefore, the fault Is in watching out on our own Executive. I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester, North about another genuine difficulty. It is that the Select Committee on European Legislation and Standing Committees A and B do not have the power that they should have properly to examine European legislation.
  The hon. Member mentioned the acquired rights directive. I am convinced that we were right to warn the Government about what would happen. I remind the hon.
  198
  Gentleman that article 119 is part of the treaty of Rome and was passed long before we decided to join. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), signed up to the treaty of Rome, with which I am in total agreement. The agreement does not give equal pay. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read it, he would see that it gives equal rights, which are crucial for women.
  The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that, under article 119, the Government have been interfered with more than any other European Government. We have been taken to court more often than any other member country for offending against women's rights, and we have been found guilty every time.
  I shall not divide the House. [Interruption.] I would rather see the Bill go its little zig-zag way through the differing groups in the Government. We have the means properly to scrutinise European legislation, and we should do that. I look forward to watching the peregrinations of the hon. Member for Colchester, North as he goes about his business.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. David Evans, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. John Sykes.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (COMMUNITY LAW)
  Mr. Jenkin accordingly presented a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to provide for the application of Community law within the United Kingdom to be supervised by Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you notice that, in his speech, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) did not attempt in any way to dispute the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): No, I did not notice that, but I have noticed that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the House to be informed of the exact message on the envelope that was placed before the hon. Member—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a total abuse of the procedures of the House, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He rose to put a point of order, but he knows full well that it was not a point of order.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to another hon. Member's speech and say that that hon. Member said something which he clearly did not? In opposing the Bill, the hon. Member for Hemwsworth (Mr. Enright) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) had said that he wanted a written constitution. My hon. Friend made no such statement.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak against a ten-minute Bill and then not to shout "No"? If it is not in order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was in order. If he had not been, I would have ruled him out of order. The hon. Gentleman eventually said "No".
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order. The House has important business to consider, and it is time that we got on with it.

Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2ND PART]
Opposition Day

  Water Industry
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that since water privatisation in England and Wales, there has been a 48 per cent increase in domestic water disconnections, a 67 per cent increase in consumers' bills, a 125 per cent increase in water companies' profits, and a 133 per cent increase in the average pay of water company chairmen; believes that in providing a basic necessity such as water, essential to life and health, the needs of the consumer must come first; regrets that instead of this the privatised companies have put dividend growth and directors' benefits first; expresses alarm at the rise in domestic water charges, especially in areas such as the South West; insists that high standards of drinking water quality and sewage treatment must be achieved, but believes that the cost of this investment should not be placed almost entirely as a burden on current customers; deplores the manner in which the democratically expressed wishes of the Scottish people with regard to water are being overridden by Her Majesty's Government; calls for an immediate ban on domestic water disconnections and on the compulsory introduction of domestic water meters; and insists on the introduction of a tougher regulatory regime for water that puts the public first.
  Early this morning, I went to the Library and looked up some of the debates on the Water Bill in 1988 and 1989. What a wonderful picture was painted at that time by the then Secretary of State for the Environment. On Second Reading on 7 December 1988, he said that all the Opposition scare stories about what would happen to water charges were completely unfounded and ridiculous. He said that there would be minor increases only as a result of privatisation, and that the shadow Secretary of State had been wide of the mark when he spoke about water charges doubling or trebling by the end of the century. Those who live in the area of South West Water have already seen their water and sewerage charges double, and we are not yet halfway since that time to the end of the century.
  We were told that there would be wonderful access to the world's capital markets for money for investment and to clean up the environment. The world's capital markets are not funding the investment: it is being funded by the water companies' customers. In a remarkable little passage on Third Reading on 4 April 1989, Mr. Ridley said:
  "The whole country knows that people work more effectively if there is every opportunity for them to better themselves by better performance."—[Official Report, 4 April 1989; Vol.150, c.91.]
  He was talking about the people who run the water companies. They have bettered themselves all right, but I doubt that it is better performance that has resulted in the departing chairman of Severn Trent Water getting a golden handshake of £500,000, or the former chief executive of North West Water getting £398,000 last November as a departing handshake. In the north-west region, two out of three bathing beaches are still illegally polluted with sewage. Privatisation has turned out to be a ghastly mistake.
  Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend spoke about Second and Third Readings of the Water Bill. I served on the Committee that examined the Bill. When we debated compulsory metering trials throughout the country—one was in my constituency—I said that that would be of no value to privatisation, that it would be costly and would inconvenience many constituents. That is exactly what happened: the meters are no longer in use. That is another example of incompetence, of spending taxpayers' money without thought as to the value. It shows how privatisation has failed the customers.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, who played a distinguished role in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, is absolutely correct. One of the points that he will have noticed in the motion before the House today is that we want to prohibit the introduction of compulsory metering into people's domestic water supply.
  After all, water is not just another commodity that one might buy or sell in a supermarket; water is essential to life and health. Since privatisation, water charges have gone through the roof and many of our beaches remain polluted with sewage, yet company chairmen have awarded themselves massive salary increases while 240 families a week have their water supply disconnected.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has referred on three occasions so far to what he calls dirty beaches. They obviously need to be cleared up. Where will the money come from? If it not raised through the water charges, will it come from taxes and if so, by how much?
  Mr. Smith: I shall come to precisely that point in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. It was his Secretary of State who said that the problem would be solved by access to the capital markets—that that would solve everything.
  It is small wonder in those circumstances that it was recently said:
  "Water privatisation is a rip-off, a steal, a plunder, legalised mugging, piracy, licensed theft, a diabolical liberty, a huge scam, a cheat, a snatch, a grab, a swindle".
  Those are not the modest and moderate tones of an Opposition spokesperson, but Mr. Joe Rogaly writing in the Financial Times on 12 July.
  In rather more measured tones, the National Consumer Council said:
  "The performance record of many companies and of the water industry as a whole is lamentably poor, with many consumers facing rising prices and poorer services."
  Let us look at precisely what has happened since privatisation. Water and sewerage charges have rocketed upwards, the average increase for England and Wales has been 67 per cent. since privatisation. That increase has been worse in some areas—in the north-west it was 75 per cent. and in the south-west it was 108 per cent. It cannot be right that single pensioners in the south-west of Britain are paying more than 9 per cent. of their entire income on water and sewerage charges.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I would have more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's concern for the west country if his hon. Friends had not trooped through the Lobby to vote down a Bill that I introduced to bring relief.
  The hon. Gentleman is moving inexorably towards saying that the EC directives should be implemented in full, without any negation on the time scale. Will he now
  202
  answer the question that he was asked a few moments ago and say whether that is to be funded by increased water charges, by an increase in general taxation or both?
  Mr. Smith: As I told the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I shall come to that point in just a moment, but I would take the hon. Gentleman's intervention rather more kindly if the role that he and others played during the passage of the Water Bill had recognised what the Opposition warned time and again would be the adverse consequence of privatisation.
  The water companies say that the water charges must rise because of the necessary investment in cleaning up the water supply. That might have been a believable argument had investment actually risen in line with the rise in the price increase, but it has not. Southern Water has had a 43 per cent. price increase but a zero increase in the level of capital investment.
  Mr. Arnold: From what base?
  Mr. Smith: The increases took place from 1989–90 to 1992–93, which are the latest available figures.
  Welsh Water has had a 47 per cent. increase in price and a 1.1 per cent. increase in investment. Yorkshire Water has had a 33 per cent. increase in price and a 0.5 per cent. increase in investment.
  Overall, capital expenditure in the water industry is now running at some £1.65 billion a year. That is more or less the same as the level of capital investment pre-privatisation. When the water companies tell us that those rises in charges have been due directly to improved investment, we should examine carefully what they are saying. How on earth can increased bills be justified if the investment is not being made?
  Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman; he has already had one chance to intervene.
  At the same time, profits have soared. We are talking about a captive market. Each water company has a monopoly in its own area. We all have to pay, so they have a guaranteed income. It is a very low-risk business. On average, water companies in England and Wales have shown a 125 per cent. increase in pre-tax profits from 1989–90 to 1993–94. The water companies have an answer to that. They say that two thirds of the profit goes into capital investment. That may well be the case, but what about the other third?
  When we examine the dividend growth of the water companies, the answer becomes very clear. As the National Consumer Council pointed out last week,
  "Dividend payouts attributed to 31 appointed water businesses were about £300 million in 1989–90 … and £1,365 million in 1992–93. The growth of dividend payments"—
  that is, gross dividends from core services—
  "was 63 per cent. per year on average."
  That is where the profits have gone.
  If we ask the water companies, they will tell us openly and brazenly that dividend growth is their No. 1 priority, and that it is their paramount duty because they put it in the prospectus when they floated the companies for privatisation.
  The Opposition believe that the customer, not dividend growth, should be the No. 1 priority, because all customers pay for the water and sewerage services we receive.
  Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Money that should be paying for improved water and sewerage services is going instead into dividend growth. If we want to know why, we have simply to look at the share option schemes that are available to the directors, chief executives and chairmen of the water companies.
  Then we have the point about the access to capital markets. There has been a modest increase in the borrowing levels of water companies over the past four or five years, but, as the National Consumer Council points out,
  "borrowings have been relatively modest, and no significant capital was raised through equity issues (though one of the key reasons for privatisation was that the companies would be free to raise money in the markets)."
  I have to say to both the hon. Gentlemen who have intervened so far that the answer to their question about where the funds for long-term investment—which will last for 40 or 50 years—will come from is precisely where the Government said it would when they put the Bill through the House—from a long-term borrowing strategy on part of the water companies, so that today's consumers do not have to bear the entire burden of 50 years' worth of investment all at once.
  Mr. Michael Bates: I assume that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the leader of the Labour party —the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) —who said in The Times on 21 June that she would be in favour of taking water companies back into public ownership. Clearly, that would have a cost attached to it in purchasing the equity stock. Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of what that cost would be?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting my right hon. Friend. She said that the water companies should be brought back within public control. That is something that I and the Labour party wholeheartedly endorse.
  Mr. Bates rose—
  Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, because he has in his hand what I suspect to be a Conservative party briefing note, not a copy of The Times.
  Mr. Bates: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but I seek your guidance. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) clearly said that I had misquoted the right: hon. Member for Derby, South. I would never do that. I want to put the exact quotation on the record. May I have the opportunity to do that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Smith: Even at this distance, I can tell the difference between a copy of The Times and an A4 sheet of briefing paper from Conservative central office.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) say earlier that he would not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly wasting his time trying to intervene.
  Mr. Smith: I am conscious that time is short, and I know that a number of hon. Members want to speak.
  One great claim advanced time and again during privatisation was that the great advantage would be access to borrowing, capital markets and equity funding. That has not happened. There are low levels of borrowing, there have been no requests for equity from the markets, and there have been higher and higher charges for the customer.
  We were told that the water companies would invest in non-core activities—they would roam the globe, seeking opportunities for investment, purchase and enterprise. Perhaps we could be told why no less than £727 million has had to be written off because of a variety of mishaps and losses among the non-core subsidiaries and associates of the 10 principal water companies.
  We need to examine the levels of disconnection. After privatisation, the number initially rocketed. In most areas of the country, they have since edged downwards, but in some—such as the Thames Water area—they are still rising strongly. Perhaps it was no accident that Thames Water donated £50,000 to the Conservative party in advance of the last general election.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is a curious inconsistency in the legislation governing water disconnections. There will be no disconnections in Scotland, because the Government introduced a last-minute amendment to that effect in the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Scottish Ministers said in Committee, "There will be no disconnections in Scotland; the water authorities in Scotland do not need disconnection as a power to recover debt." However, each time we press the responsible Ministers for England and Wales to adopt the same approach, they say, "The water companies must have disconnection as a power of last resort." One part of the Government says one thing and another part says the opposite.
  The Opposition believe that water disconnection has no place in a civilised society. It cannot be right to cut off the means of life and health simply to recover a debt. A Labour Government will ensure that disconnection of domestic water is prohibited.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned Scotland, I shall refer to the Strathclyde referendum. What could be clearer than the result of that? Some 97 per cent. of people said that they had no time for the Government's proposals for the semi-privatisation of Scottish Water. However, the views of those 97 per cent. were utterly ignored by the Government. Once again, they have ridden roughshod over the wishes of the Scottish people.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Strathclyde referendum. However, is there not some contradiction in the Labour party's approach? It supports publicly owned and controlled water north of the border, yet the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that he is prepared to accept privately owned water south of the border.
  Mr. Smith: I would take what the hon. Gentleman said more kindly if he had fought anywhere near so well and so

  205
  effectively on the future of water in Scotland as did my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish seats. We are committed to ensuring full and proper public control of water and sewerage services throughout Britain. In England and Wales, the quickest, most effective and most practical way to achieve that would be to improve and toughen the regulatory regime.
  Compulsory water metering has been mentioned. Anglian Water has already introduced, by compulsion, water meters in parts of its patch. By doing so, it is ignoring the severe impact of that on large families and people with disabilities. Metering takes no account of human need, it rations by price, and it produces precious little environmental benefit. A Labour Government will prohibit compulsory metering in people's homes.
  I want to concentrate for a moment on what has happened to the salaries and share options of the chairmen and chief executives of the water companies. The chairman of North West Water last year received a salary of £338,000. That is a sixfold increase since privatisation. Is the service provided by North-West Water six times better because of the chairman's remuneration? Of course it is not.
  The briefing prepared by Thames Water in advance of the debate notes that its chairman receives a salary of £250,000—modest by comparison with the chairman of North-West Water. The briefing note explains:
  "A recent Daily Telegraph survey concluded that he was in fact underpaid, considering the responsibility he holds."
  I ask the Minister to consider the responsibility held by a signalman working for Railtrack and to compare and contrast the standards applied in that situation with those that apply to the chairmen and chief executives of water companies.
  In most of the water companies, there are poor levels of general service, the handling of complaints is inadequate and it is us, the poor old consumers, who are picking up the price tag. Privatisation has been a mess. What we need is better and tougher regulation. The public interest should come first—on charges, investment, water clean-up, directors' remuneration, what happens to dividends, disconnections and metering policy. There is no sign of the Government rising to that important challenge.
  5.9 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'congratulates the water industry in England and Wales on its achievements since privatisation and commends the proposals for restructuring in Scotland which will facilitate the use of private finance; notes the improvements which have been made in environmental standards in particular with regard to the quality of rivers and bathing waters, and the consistently high quality of drinking water; notes that the industry in England and Wales is pressing ahead with a £3 billion a year investment programme which will result in further improvements to the upgrading of water and sewerage systems without placing undue burdens on consumers; and further notes that the privatised industry is successfully using its expertise to gain major contracts overseas, something which could not have been achieved under the policies of the last Labour government.'.
  I apologise for the fact that I have a stinking cold and therefore may not be so intelligible as I normally am.
  206
  My hon. Friends and I were astonished by the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I heard more ill-informed twaddle, if I am being charitable—or more misleading distortions, if I am not—than I would have believed possible. What the hon. Gentleman said flies in the face of reality, as I shall show; it was typical of a party and a spokesman who know that they can say what the devil they like because they do not expect ever to be in a position to deliver their promises—and for once, I am not talking about the Liberals.
  The motion refers first to water disconnections, which have fallen from some 18,600 in 1992–93 to 12,400 in 1993–94. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that before a disconnection can take place an exhaustive legal process involving considerable time and effort must be completed. I was fascinated to learn that he intends to do away with disconnections, as they have been legal in England and Wales since 1945 and the legislation allowing them was introduced by a Labour Government.
  There is no evidence from the Department of Health of any health problems related to disconnections. My local water company carried out a survey in connection with a Bill—a ten-minute Bill, I believe—presented by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). The vast majority of customers who were asked for their views on disconnections wanted the ability to disconnect to be retained, because they did not believe any more than we do that genuine payers should subsidise non-payers.
  Let us get the facts clear: the number of disconnections is falling; the power to disconnect has existed since 1945, when it was introduced by a Labour Government; there is no evidence of health problems resulting from disconnections; and, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury knows, a lengthy legal process is necessary before any action can be taken.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I have here an article from The Guardian of 17 June this year about a British Medical Association report on water disconnections. According to the headline, water firms are "risking health with cut-offs". That is the professional view.
  Mr. Atkins: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I must take the advice of the Department of Health, the Chief Medical Officer and others associated with them. They tell me that there is no evidence of health problems resulting from disconnections. Personally, I would rather accept their view than that of the BMA.
  The next issue raised in the motion is the increase in consumers' bills. Of course that has happened, but why? The real reason is a failure to invest over many years—typically, in the period of the last Labour Government. I remind the House that between 1976 and 1979 a Labour Government cut investment by a third and sewage treatment by 50 per cent., while overall capital expenditure was cut by nearly 50 per cent. When I stood for Parliament for the first time in 1979, the industrial towns of the north-west were experiencing problems: ancient sewers were collapsing because a Labour Government had not invested the amount necessary to ensure that they remained in good order.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Why, then, was investment lower in the five years after the Conservative Government took over than in the last year of the Labour Government?
  Mr. Atkins: We privatised the industry precisely because we recognised that the taxpayer could not go on bearing the burden imposed by a Labour Government's failure to spend money which any Government clearly found difficult to spend. That proves my point decisively; I rest my case.
  The increases in consumers' bills were generated by the need to spend substantial sums in a variety of ways relating to directives that we must—and do—observe, together with the new infrastructure that has been introduced throughout England and Wales. Notwithstanding consumers' understandable criticisms of price increases—which, as I have said, have been caused by a lack of investment and capital expenditure—our prices are still among the lowest in Europe.
  Sir Harold Walker: Will the Minister comment on the absurd inequities of basing water charges on long outdated historical rateable values? Only today, I received a letter from a Mrs. Woolford, who writes:
  "I enclose copies of the water rates for 3 first floor flats all within 50 yards of each other, all of which rightly are in band A for the council tax.
  Each flat has 1 bath, 1 toilet, 1 wash basin"—
  yet the water charges differ widely. That is daft; what does the Minister suggest should be done about it?
  Mr. Atkins: That is one reason why metering is being considered, along with other alternatives such as council tax banding. I shall deal with the point shortly.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Atkins: I am conscious of the time. An intervention by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on the ten-minute Bill has limited this Opposition day somewhat. I should like to make some progress; if I give way to everyone, I shall not have the opportunity to reply to the comments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and to allow hon. Members on both sides of the House to speak.
  Next, the motion mentions water companies' profits. Of course their profits are up, and so they should be: without those profits no investment would take place, and some two thirds are being reinvested. Last year—the most recent for which figures have been announced—my local company, North West Water, provided a dividend of £86 million, but invested £424 million in new projects. Shareholders are entitled to a return on their investment, to attract them to invest so that the necessary infrastructure improvements can be made.
  The motion refers to directors' pay. It is not for me as a Minister—or, indeed, for the Government—to intervene in private sector salaries, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear—and I agree—that company directors throughout industry should appreciate public concern about the amounts that they pay themselves. Nevertheless, whatever view we may express, shareholders—whether institutional or individual—have the power to intervene, and they should use that power if necessary.
  Let us put the matter in perspective. In most cases such as those raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the total salary package of directors is about one fifth of 1 per cent. of turnover, and sometimes much
  208
  less. Is this really all that the Labour party can talk about, in the context of the vast sums being spent on the water industry?
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Atkins: I certainly will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has already delayed our proceedings. I suspect that in this I may have the support of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, but perhaps not.
  The motion refers to the need for high standards of drinking water and sewage treatment. Of course we agree with that. Some 98.7 per cent. of our drinking water is of a very high standard. It is arguably the best in Europe, and possibly in the world.
  The other day, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) was reported in one of the more lurid tabloids as having referred to tap water that was "substandard or even dangerous", in spite of the fact that 98.7 per cent. of our water is of a very high standard. Her comments are scaremongering of the worst kind. If there are any problems of water pollution, they are referred to the drinking water inspectorate and prosecutions are brought if necessary. There is a legally binding requirement on operators to make improvements in such cases. The incidents to which the hon. Member for Bristol, South made great play did not merit such treatment.
  As for the drinking water directive—
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Atkins: No, I shall not give way.
  As for the drinking water directive, the United Kingdom has made clear to the Commission the changes that we believe should be made. We believe that a revised directive should be based on sound scientific and medical advice such as that in the World Health Organisation's recent guidelines and that standards should strike a proper balance between benefits to the consumer and the likely costs of achieving them. We also believe that the directive should accord fully with the principle of subsidiarity but, until revisions are agreed, the United Kingdom will comply fully with the provisions of the existing directive.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Under the revised guidelines, will properties such as colour, which do not matter—if one lives on peaty soil, there will be a slight coloration in the water but it makes no difference to people's health—count in any test?
  Mr. Atkins: There is clearly some concern among consumers about the colour of water and, generally speaking, water companies prefer water to be clear and bright. However, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend because peaty water in whisky adds a little flavour which might not otherwise be there.
  The motion deals next with sewage treatment, of which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made great play. Over the years, Governments of all political persuasions believed that coastal tides were sufficient to disperse sewage from outfalls without it being necessary to treat it. The advice now from health and scientific organisations is that that is no longer acceptable. We understand that—
  Mr. Enright: Some of us knew that a long time ago.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but Governments of any party believed otherwise for many decades. Labour was told that the original view was unacceptable when it was in office. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the bathing water directive was promulgated in 1976, but what did the Labour Government do about it? Absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Nicholls: They washed their hands of it.
  Mr. Atkins: Indeed, they washed their hands of it, as my hon. Friend says.
  The Opposition persists in their campaigns to knock the state of British beaches and do untold damage to our tourist industry in the process. They are only too ready to trumpet failures to meet the necessary standards—often marginal failures—but when improvements are made, we hear nothing from them.
  Last year, about 80 per cent. of our bathing waters exceeded the mandatory coliform standards set down in the bathing water directive. In 1987, only 56 per cent. did so. The water industry and the Government are firmly committed to completing our programme as quickly as possible, but the improvement schemes have to be paid for.
  The Government and the water companies have faced the difficulties and we are acting on them. As I said, vast sums of money are being spent. In the north-west—in Liverpool and Fleetwood—about £500,000-plus is being spent to ensure that pollution on the Merseyside and Fylde coasts is a thing of the past by the end of next year.
  We have also taken a great deal of trouble over river quality. About 90 per cent. of rivers in England and Wales and 95 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole are already classified as being of good or fair quality compared with an average of 75 per cent. for rivers of comparable quality in the European Community. I might add that our monitoring and record keeping is among the best and most publicly available in Europe.
  We are continuing to make significant progress in improving inland and coastal water quality. The National Rivers Authority—a much respected organisation—has recently reported a net improvement of almost 11 per cent. in river quality in England and Wales between 1990 and 1992.
  In addition to the improvements that will result from obligations under EC and domestic legislation, we announced only recently—on 6 July—that between 1995 and 2000, £522.3 million of spending is to aimed specifically at achieving further improvements in river quality. Those improvements will be the result of tighter discharge consents for sewerage works and will be incorporated in the new statutory water quality objectives as they are introduced. The most cost-effective use of expenditure will be determined by the NRA in consultation with water and sewerage companies. That will allow a number of high-priority schemes to go ahead, which would not otherwise have been the case.
  The Labour party must make up its mind—does it want bills kept down at the expense of clean beaches or rivers, or the reverse? It cannot have it both ways without even greater expense to the consumer and the taxpayer. A balance has to be struck, and we, the NRA, Ofwat and the water companies are doing just that.
  We meet, or we will meet by the end of next year, the EC directives. Other countries—notably France, Germany,
  210
  Spain and Portugal—recognise, for example, that the high cost of implementing the urban waste water directive must be spread over more years than is proposed at the moment.
  I will deal with the south-west for a moment, because I know that it is of interest to many of my colleagues who raise their concerns with me whenever they have the opportunity to do so. The Government are striving to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the desire for environmental improvements and the costs associated with them. South West Water alone—
  Mr. David Jamieson: The Minister is talking to himself.
  Mr. Atkins: That is something that I do quite often.
  In the 1990s, South West alone is investing about £900 million on improvements to the arrangements at seaside towns for the collection of sewage and the provision of sewage treatment. The programme, known as "Clean Sweep", consists of 33 individual schemes and will result in cleaner bathing and other coastal waters throughout the south-west.
  In view of price pressures, it is reasonable that any waste water improvement schemes should not be undertaken any earlier than is cost-effective, provided that they are completed by the legal deadlines. In determining future price limits, the Director-General of Water Services will be considering the most cost-effective way for South West Water to meet its legal obligations, including those set out in the urban waste water treatment directive.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the link between investment and the cost to the consumer, and although I welcome the steps being taken to restrict the rate of price increases in water and sewerage charges, will he tell us what action is currently being taken to deal with the costs that 3 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom —the people of Devon and Cornwall—are obliged to pay for about one third of the country's investment as a whole? When will the Government acknowledge that action is required to deal with the current situation even though we welcome measures to deal with a future situation?
  Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who understandably feels very strongly about this and has spoken to me about it many times, as he has to the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Prime Minister. Clearly, the problems in the south-west are endemic in the sense that the south-west has a substantial number of beaches and a smaller number of people who can afford to meet the cost of improvements required under EC directives while we endeavour to keep costs at an acceptable level.
  If my hon. Friend is fair—I know him to be so—he will accept that we have spent a great deal of time and effort on, for example, river improvements. Where the NRA advised that it was unnecessary to spend excessive amounts of money to alleviate the problems of my hon. Friend's constituents, we took that advice. I assure him that I, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will continue to look for every legitimate way in which we can assist his constituents who are paying bills which, for all sorts of reasons, they are called upon to pay.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend be saying something in his speech or will the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), say something in the winding-up speech about the considerable

  211
  efforts that the Government have made in putting our representations to the Office of Water Services to reduce water charges after they had virtually tripled? Has my hon. Friend detected the same degree of enthusiasm in the South West water authority to co-operate and to ensure that water charges are kept to an absolute minimum as he has detected among his colleagues on the Back Benches?
  Mr. Atkins: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a fair point. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has taken note of that and certainly intends to address it in his winding-up speech. There are concerns in the south-west and we understand that fact, as does the regulator, who appreciates that the matter needs addressing. It is his responsibility and task to do so. My hon. Friend knows that, at the end of next week the regulator will be announcing the new price figures. My hon. Friend will therefore have to wait until then.
  The Government and the director-general are determined to ensure that the rapid price increases which we have seen in recent years should not be repeated over the next five years. Those large increases were unavoidable, as I said earlier, but they must be a thing of past. The director-general—[Interruption.] Opposition Members keep suggesting that somehow I am not telling the truth. The fact remains that the investment that has had to be made is a direct result of the Labour party's inaction, inefficiency and incompetence. We know that. That is what people are having to bear in the south-west as much as anywhere else.
  Mr. William O'Brien: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, only a few months ago, he was in charge of water services in Northern Ireland? At that time, there was no problem of capital investment, no massive salaries were being paid to chairmen because the Minister was in charge of water services. There was no regulator, no massive increase of charges and the industry, as the Minister knows, was in public control. How does he justify the fact that, when he was in charge in Northern Ireland, there was none of what we are hearing today? I have listened carefully to the Minister. Will he explain why Northern Ireland enjoys those benefits without the regulator, without massive increases in chairmen's salaries, and without the dividends, while the rest of the United Kingdom is having problems?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that the Minister has got the question. The only problem is that it does not seem relevant to the motion, which is about England and Wales. I shall leave it to the Minister to judge.
  Mr. Atkins: I shall not be drawn into a debate about Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?] simply because this is not the place to do so. I shall not be drawn except to say that, before I left that fascinating and enjoyable part of the United Kingdom, one of the problems on my ministerial desk was that we were going to have to spend about £500,000,000 to improve water quality in Northern Ireland. That money would have to be found from the taxpayers of Northern Ireland. One of the matters that we had to consider was how that would be done. One of the options would have been privatisation, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.
  I shall conclude my remarks in relation to the director-general who, as I said to my hon. Friend the
  212
  Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), is nearing the completion of his first periodic review of water price limits. Hon. Members will want to know that the outcome will be announced on 28 July, when the director-general will tell us the new annual price limits for each company for the 10-year period beginning on 1 April 1995. He has already said that he hopes that, nationally, it may be possible to limit overall price increases on average to between 0 and 2 per cent. above the rate of inflation. That will supersede the current average ceiling of 4 per cent. above the rate of inflation.
  Before I leave the south-west, it would be invidious of me not to mention our friends the Liberal Democrats. God bless them. What would we do without them? The Liberal Democrats say one thing here and another thing there. They say one thing on one doorstep and another on the very next doorstep. I shall refer to the Liberal Democrat candidates who stood at the Euro-elections down in the south-west.
  Their manifesto, which they called "Unlocking Britain's Potential", contained a pledge to provide
  "national and European help with the unfair burden of local investment needed to clean up Britain's beaches".
  What European funding? I would like to know, as I suspect the House would, what European funding they think will be available. How much national support do they expect to be able to find? Will it come from other parts of the country? Is it something on which the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), has been consulted? Would he have any views about the cost implications of that? Who will pay? Will he be happy that his constituents in the north of England have to subsidise those in the west country?
  Where exactly do the Liberal Democrats stand on those issues? They say:
  "Liberal Democrats are determined to have clean beaches and lower bills."
  We want to hear from them how that can be done. It is no good saying all sorts of things on the doorstep which they cannot justify here, where such things ought to be justified. That is why the Liberal Democrats are all things to all men, women, children, animals and tabloids and why, when it comes to general elections, the vast majority of the public know that they count for very little.
  That is enough of the Liberal Democrats. What, then, of the future? I have said that price rises must be contained. Most of the work has been done to catch up with the investment which needed to happen as a result of the Labour Government's incompetence. The directives to which I referred, must continue to be implemented, but over a reasonable time scale and on the basis of the best contemporary and technical health advice. All methods of charging must be considered. Is metering fair, bearing in mind that electricity and gas consumers are used to metering. Perhaps that is too long-term an answer.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Is the Minister aware that, on Monday, the local residents association in Crosby in my constituency presented a 11,000-signature petition against compulsory water metering? Does not the Minister think that water metering ought to be an option for consumers rather than a compulsion in all houses? Does he not think that the whole issue of pricing centres around the high price of water since

  213
  privatisation, rather than that of metering? The option of linking price to council tax bands is a fairer way than compulsory metering.
  Mr. Atkins: The argument with which we are faced is what are the various options by which charges may be levied for water. That discussion probably crosses the House because some hon. Members believe that metering is the answer, some believe that council tax banding is an answer, some believe that ratable values extended to 2005 are the answer.
  Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) clearly does not. All those issues must be examined. Indeed, I have asked the individual authorities, the Water Services Association and others to look at the matter and to give me some advice on what they believe is best. Whatever that advice is, a balance must be struck between the cost to the consumer and the need for environmental improvement. That is just what the Government, Ofwat the National Rivers Authority, water companies and others are doing.
  I ought to draw to the attention of the House one point to which I did not notice any reference in the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—the worldwide recognition of what has been achieved in Britain by our water companies and what they have achieved abroad in export orders. For example, North West Water has obtained a contract for £1.5 billion to upgrade, extend and operate the sewerage system throughout Malaysia, a £285 million contract to operate water and waste systems in Mexico City. [Laughter.] Opposition Members are laughing about the fact that British industry has been successful in obtaining major contracts abroad and they do not consider it to be important.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Atkins: I am not giving way. I shall continue telling the House and the country what has been achieved by North West Water, for example. It has obtained another two contracts for treatment plants in Sydney and Melbourne, valued at £75 million with an estimated revenue of £400 million.
  Thames Water, the company which looks after the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, has a contract to supply Ismit in Turkey with a water supply scheme worth £450 million. It has a 45 per cent. stake in a consortium developing a £344 million waste water infrastructure in Mexico. Severn Trent, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has a £240 million contract for Mexico City and a 20-year concession to upgrade and operate sewerage facilities in New York state. So the achievements of British companies abroad, creating income for this country and protecting jobs goes on.
  Since I became the Minister at the beginning of the year, a number of politicians from all parts of the world have come here to find out what the Department and the British Government are doing in relation to water and I shall give the House an indication of who. We have had politicians, at local and national level, from Israel, the Ukraine—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not like the facts. The fact is that we have a worldwide reputation on water and
  214
  that people come here to find out what has been achieved. People have come from Israel, the Ukraine, Oman, Brazil, Australia, Greece and Portugal. They want to know what has been achieved and to learn about our successes. What about Labour?
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Atkins: I will not give way any more because I am conscious of the time.
  What about Labour? Labour cannot make up its mind what to do with this success story. Labour has produced a document called "In Trust for Tomorrow". The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury reckons that 680,000 jobs will come of that. But who will pay? The document suggests an environmental court in which losing plaintiffs will have their costs paid by the taxpayer.
  Mr. Chris Smith indicated dissent.—
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman specifies in his document that there will be free charges. The document suggests greater regulation and more controls. Who pays? Has anyone checked with the shadow Treasury team? This is not "in trust for tomorrow"—like so much of the Labour party's policy, it is in hock for tomorrow.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have looked closely at the motion and the amendment and I see that they both refer specifically to Scotland. The Minister proposes to conclude his speech without making any mention of the Scottish dimension to this issue. Is it in order for him so cavalierly to ignore the Scottish dimension to this issue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the Minister's speech. The Minister is still making his speech—
  Mr. Enright: I bet you are glad of that; yours is much better.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) is making many sedentary comments, most of which are not very helpful—although I accept the last one.
  Mr. Atkins: I have a question for the Labour party. Will it renationalise water? We have heard from the acting leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said on 21 June 1994:
  'There is one area … where we might be looking for some new form of public control, and that is water".
  The leader-elect, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said of the major utilities, such as water, on 6 July:
  "We believe that the great utilities must be treated as public services and should be owned by the public."
  Then we have the Labour party commission on the environment document which says:
  "We will ensure that the actions of all private water companies are under public control."
  Yet on the wireless this morning, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that he would not renationalise, but that he was in favour of more regulation. That is simply a cop-out under pressure. What does it mean? Do his comments mean more intervention in company operations? Do they mean more regulation than is the case now? We have the most regulated water industry in Europe. Would he direct resources to one area

  215
  at the expense of another or would he subsidise consumers' bills? Who will pay? Has the hon. Gentleman cleated his comments with the shadow Treasury team?
  The fact is, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury knows, as we know and as the House knows, more Labour regulation equals more Labour interference, and that means more cost to the company, the customer and the taxpayer. Prices are now steadying as environmental improvements continue. That is the right balance, and that is why I urge my hon. Friends to support the Government's amendment and to oppose the misleading nonsense from the Opposition.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I would not be letting out too many secrets if I said that, at the moment, the water industry in general and Severn Trent Water in particular are not the most popular institutions in the midlands. Why should they be? Last week, after careful examination of the company's accounts, we learned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, that John Bellak, the former chair of Severn Trent, got a pay-off last year of £500,000. His salary had already gone up from £51,000 a year just before privatisation to £179,000 a year in the last year in which he was there.
  Mr. Bellak has also done rather well in other ways. He, like many directors and chief executives of water companies, had been subject to share option deals. In the year ending March 1993, he exercised 107,572 share options at an option price of £2.62 per share. At the close of trading on 22 February 1994, the market price for Severn Trent shares was £5.83 per share. To work out the benefit of those share options, we would need to know whether the shares bought under the option were then sold and at what price. That is not absolutely clear at the moment because Mr. Bellak has not said anything about it. However, an article in the Observer suggested:
  "company chairman John Bellak made £226,000, pre-tax, on the sale of 100,000 shares"
  from his share option dealings. He did not do too badly, did he?
  When there was a public outcry over the £500,000 pay-off to John Bellak, the cry that came back from the water companies, which may be echoed by Ministers, was, "Well, it was in his contract." We must ask, of course, who negotiated that contract in the first place. Although Ministers may now say that it is nothing to do with them and that they rather disapprove of these big pay increases, they are not exactly neutral in terms of how people like John Bellak came to be running the water industry. They appointed those people in the first place.
  It is interesting that in 1987, when Mr. Bellak was chair of Severn Trent, the then Conservative Member of Parliament for Cannock and Burntwood said:
  "Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman, Mr. John Bellak, is both diligent and competent—indeed, one might describe him as a good bloke—and that under his leadership, the Severn-Trent water authority looks forward immensely to being in the vanguard of privatisation?"—[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 921.]
  One would look forward to privatisation if one was going
  to make so much out of it. Mr. Bellak is also a prominent Conservative party supporter, and twice stood as a Conservative candidate in general elections.
  It does not go like that for all the staff of the water companies. The staff at Severn Trent face reorganisation.
  216
  Some will do all right out of it, but the protections that they have enjoyed for many years will be swept away by the privatised water company. It seems that there are standards for the people who actually do the work which are different from the standards for those who run the privatised water companies. Yet the response of the water companies when these things are criticised is that somehow they have been misunderstood. I do not think that we misunderstand them. The people who misunderstand them are the Government.
  The Conservative party has not always taken its present view of the water industry. Back in the 19th century, it was significant that Conservatives such as Joseph Chamberlain, again from the midlands, were prominent in setting up a proper, municipally run water industry. Arguably the best contribution to public health in that century was the establishment of clean, wholesome supplies of water under municipal control. No doubt, if a Conservative suggested that today, he would be regarded as a dangerous pinko. However, that was the view taken all those years ago.
  Now, of course, we are in an era of privatisation. Now we are in an era when the salaries of the top executives shoot through the roof. We are in an era when profits have gone up by 117 per cent. since privatisation and when dividends went up by 63 per cent. on average between 1989–90 and 1992–93. For consumers, it has obviously been a very different story. Prices have gone up on average by 68 per cent. in the Severn Trent area.
  The water companies say that they are misunderstood and that they are putting all the money into investment. It is true that there has been an increase in investment in the Severn Trent area. However, I ask Ministers to consider what happened, before privatisation, when a Conservative Government were in power. Prices were ruthlessly pushed up through the roof while investment was driven down by cash limits and controls on borrowing the like of which had not been seen in the water industry. Ministers have some explaining to do on that one.
  The fact is that privatisation was sold as a way to boost investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the Government said that the water companies would have access to the money market and that they would have access to investment. They said that the companies could extend their share issue. We have not seen much of that since privatisation. Certainly there have been some increases in borrowing in the past two or three years, but in terms of the scale of their operations, water companies have a very low gearing. As for extra share issues, we have hardly seen them at all. About 69 per cent. of that investment is being financed directly by consumers through their water bills.
  The Government said that they wanted water companies to operate in the private sector. I do not know of any other private body which knows that it can jack up prices by such an amount and still be sure of a captive market. Of course, that is the case with water because it is a natural monopoly. The consumer has no choice but to use water when it is needed and if they can afford to.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burden: I will not give way, as other hon. Members want to speak.
  We have seen the growth of water poverty. Pensioners and people on low incomes now have to choose between essentials, and must decide whether they can afford to have

  217
  a bath if they have a water meter. They must choose between paying the water bill or cutting back on essentials elsewhere. There is evidence that that is going on. Ministers may close their eyes to that, but evidence has come from local authorities, the National Consumer Council and from anti-poverty organisations. If they looked, they would see that that is the truth.
  Nobody in the late 20th century should be put in the position of not being able to afford something as vital to health as a wholesome supply of water. Some water companies have a solution to the problem. Severn Trent has a great wheeze which they call a prepayment water meter. It is a bit like a coin-operated gas or electricity meter, only the water meter does not accept coins. A person buys a card which he or she charges up with a certain amount of time, and that is put into the water meter. That provides the person with a supply of water for a specific length of time.
  The problem, of course, comes if the person is not able to charge up the card. What happens then is that the person runs out of water and he or she is effectively cut off. When Ministers say that they are pleased that the disconnection rate has gone down, we must remind them that it has gone down following the period after privatisation in which the rate actually went up. Are they including the question of disconnection by prepayment water meters in their disconnection figures, and if not, why not?
  In the Birmingham area, Severn Trent has embarked on a trial with prepayment water meters. The trial has already led to a phenomenal rate of self-disconnection. It is arguable that prepayment meters are unlawful under sections 60 to 63 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Are the Government doing anything about that? Are they investigating the matter? The answer simply is no.
  We need a new deal for our water service, and we certainly need new methods of charging. I do not want to see—as apparently Ofwat does—the introduction of compulsory water metering. That would discriminate against families on low incomes, the disabled and families with children. We should be moving towards a system of payment according to the council tax which can be related to the ability to pay. We must end the scandal of water disconnections and also the scandal of prepayment meters and self-disconnection. We need a regulator which stands up for the interests of the consumer. That has not been the case with Ofwat, and it is about time that that was changed. We need changes which benefit the system and which recognise the true cost of water bills, because that has not happened in recent years. But most of all, we need a change in attitude in the water industry.
  As privatisation came along, the language of the industry changed. Suddenly, we did not have consumers —we had customers, as if there were somehow a choice about whether one paid or not. We did not have a public service—we had a business. Water is a public service. There is no more vital element than water.
  If one does not have access to a wholesome supply of water, it is obvious to everyone—apart, it seems, from the Minister—that there will be health risks. That is why we need to get back—I shall say it—to a democratic system of public control of the water industry. We need a system
  218
  where water is treated as a public service and consumers are not treated as mere commodities, because that is the situation that we have at the present time.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Opposition Members never cease to amaze me, and tonight they have amazed me more than ever before in the way that they have tried to turn the genuine success story of the British water industry into a failure. Sometimes they simply use blatantly misleading facts, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was guilty of that.
  Their other tactic is to do down the work that the men and women of the water industry have done to turn it around and to make it such a success. By unjustifiably attacking the industry, as they have in the debate, they are rubbishing the ordinary men and women who have put so much over the years into building up the business into a great success.
  The hon. Gentleman represents a London seat, and he was rude about Thames Water. The hon. Gentleman is a neighbour of his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Does the hon. Gentleman keep his eyes closed when he walks around the city? Has he not seen the big holes in the ground with Mr. Joe Murphy's name on a sign above them and people digging them? Does he not realise that the London ring main is one of the biggest capital schemes in London for many years? Speaking from my own experience of the service I get when I have to use Thames Water's customer services, it is vastly better than it was before privatisation.
  One of the remarks which the hon. Gentleman made which absolutely staggered me was that water companies are now collectively spending very much the same as they did pre-privatisation. That is clearly wrong. We know that they will be spending £30 billion before the end of the decade.
  A research paper from the Library makes it clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that expended capital by the water industry does not include operating expenditure incurred as a result of compliance costs. If one improves bathing water and river water, one must put in some capital. But the vast majority of money goes on the day-to-day costs of running a plant to a much higher standard than it was run before. Clearly if one tipped sewage out in the sea untreated, and then tipped it into the sea treated, one would spend more money on a day-to-day basis than before. That is why those annual running costs must be put on to customers' bills—that is the only way.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about a success story, I suggest that he goes to the north-east of England where the success of Northumbria Water and North East Water has been evident to everyone. My constituency has the distinction of having the largest man-made lake in Europe, the Kielder reservoir. Incidentally, that scheme was invested in before privatisation, and will prove its worth in the future.
  An interesting point which my hon. Friend the Minister made related to what would happen if a scheme of unifying water charges—as the Liberal Democrats suggest—was introduced, and a national contribution was made to the problems of the south-west. The ratepayers and water consumers of Northumberland who invested many years

  219
  ago in capacity would then find their bills going up to pay for an area which did not invest at that time. That would be highly unfair.
  The Kielder dam provides guaranteed water supplies to customers and industrial consumers in the north-east of England. One of the area's latest arrivals from abroad, the Fujitsu factory, has moved to the north-east simply because Northumbria Water could guarantee a regular supply. When the factory at Newton Aycliffe in County Durham starts to operate fully, it will use the daily equivalent of water to that used by a town of 100,000 people. The company went to the north-east because Northumbria Water could guarantee a regular supply come droughts. We never have hosepipe bans because we invested in our infrastructure. Northumbria Water is a regular spender of capital—it has spent about £35 million this year on improving drinking water. The water quality in a rural area that often has difficult supply problems is above the national average. The company spent £155 million on new sewers and £275 million on new treatment works.
  A rash of new sewage treatment works has opened up in the north-east. The local water companies seem keen to invite local Members of Parliament to open them. I cannot see the connection. We have not seen the hon. Member for Sedgefield for some time. One of the reasons might be that he opened a sewage works in his constituency recently. I had the pleasure of opening a £3 million scheme last Saturday in Haltwhistle in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who is not present at the moment, also opened a £13 million scheme. Northumbria Water is setting a standard and the pace for good service, good quality and profitable operations.
  We have another water company in the north-east—North East Water, which is another success story. Its annual meeting took place today. We learnt an interesting fact about disconnections from that meeting today. We have heard much about disconnections tonight, but disconnections in the Northumbria Water and North West Water areas have decreased since privatisation. Last year North East Water, which covers a large part of Tyneside and Wearside where there are problems with poverty, did not disconnect one household. It has reduced its disconnections to nil this year, for which its customers should be grateful.
  Even that company believes, however, that sanctions should be available against the "Can pay, won't pay" customer. Those are the people on whom disconnections are targeted, not those people who cannot pay because of difficulties. Water companies bend over backwards to help those who need help, which is why North East Water ended up with no disconnections. If the companies do not have that sanction it will be a tax on other consumers who pay their bills.
  I realise that time is short so finally, in support of all those who work in the British water industry, I say "Well done." As a Northumbria Water consumer, and as someone who enjoys clean beaches and rivers, the 50p a day that I spend is money well spent. The River Tyne in my constituency is now the best salmon river in the country. Several years ago it was dead and nothing lived in it. Investment in clean beaches, clean rivers and a proper service system have shown that privatisation is an enormous success.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: We are constantly told by the Government of the benefits of privatisation, but it is difficult to see that any benefits have arisen from the privatisation of the water industry. There is no competition in the industry, prices have risen dramatically, service is often poor, company profits have soared and, as other hon. Members have said, top salaries and share options are now at an indecent level.
  At the time of privatisation, the Government claimed that water companies needed to be set free to raise capital in the marketplace. We were told that, by privatising the water companies, they would become more efficient. As a consequence, more money would be available to revitalise our water and sewerage system and the newly privatised water industry would be able to provide good arid reasonably priced service, while dealing with the very real environmental concerns. In addition to those promises, we were told that average price increases would be no more than 5 per cent. above the inflation rate each year.
  We await with interest the results of the Office of Water Services report that is due to come out shortly. It is the first chance to consider comprehensively the consequences of the Government's policy on water. We will see the way in which the consumer has borne the brunt of the effects of those policies, while private water companies have benefited substantially.
  The public are paying for successive Governments' lack of investment in, and neglect of, the water industry. I was intrigued to hear the Minister say that the problems were all down to Labour Governments. The Conservatives have been in power for twice as long as Labour since the war. It was a wonder that he did not put it all down to the 11 months of the Lib-Lab pact. [Interruption.] I thought that the more rational Conservative Members would grab at that.
  The truth of the matter is that the policy has been a disaster. The consequences have been disastrous for the consumer, the environment and the tourist industry. Coming from a constituency where surfing and recreation in the sea waters are essential to our economic prospects, I say so with genuine concern.
  The National Consumer Council concluded in its recent report:
  "consumers have paid too much towards the cost of investment in the industry and the companies have received the lion's share of the benefits of privatisation."
  The NCC observed that domestic water bills have increased, on average, by 67 per cent. since privatisation.. Customers are paying £2 billion more than they would have been if charges had kept in line with inflation.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to an article in the Financial Times and quoted Mr. Joe Rogaly, who had been writing about the industry. Mr. Rogaly also commented:
  "Tory policies"
  on water
  "have made the poor worse off, in some cases absolutely as well as relatively. Making water high-cost for low income households is indecent."
  Low-income households now spend more than 3 per cent. of their disposable income on water bills, compared with only 2 per cent. five years ago.
  Other hon. Members have referred to the south-west, where local people are being forced to pay average water bills of more than £300—the highest in the country. Water

  221
  charges have doubled in the past five years and are set to double again. The south-west is an area with many people on low incomes and with the highest proportion of pensioners. Although the average bill is £300, many households are paying more than £600. A pensioner living alone in the South West Water area spends more than 9 per cent. of his or her income on water.
  Frankly, local people simply cannot afford to pay those bills. Members of Parliament of all parties who represent the south-west have people writing to them and coming to their surgeries to make that point time and again.
  Meanwhile, the water companies' profits have risen by more than 20 per cent. each year in the five years since privatisation and dividend payments to shareholders have increased by about 63 per cent. per year. Furthermore, the bills have often increased way beyond increases in operating costs. One can only conclude that the regulatory system has failed to safeguard the interests of consumers. The Government and the water companies seem to have forgotten their social obligation to provide a service to the British people at an affordable price.
  The regulatory system has compounded the problems that consumers face. While Ofwat has limited powers, the Government have repeatedly said that tackling rising bills and water quality is in the hands of the regulator. The Director-General of Water Services made it clear that he considers that his hands are tied and his ability to act is restricted.
  The Government need to act on water bills, but all we hear from them are short-term solutions. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) said in an earlier intervention, it is all very well coming up with a few schemes that will reduce the rate at which water bills increase during the next few years, but water bills in the south-west are already unacceptably high. We want some sign from the Government of how they are going to reduce those bills, not how bills that are already high will be increased, albeit at a slower pace.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East was right. It is ludicrous for 3 per cent. of the population to pay for the clean-up of 30 per cent. of the nation's designated beaches. Before privatisation, the cost of cleaning up would have been spread around the country. At the point of privatisation, the Government recognised the justice of that when they gave South West Water a green dowry. It was not enough, but it was an acceptance of the principle that taxpayers in other parts of the country should contribute towards the cost of the clean-up in the south-west.
  The Minister made the ridiculous claim that we were saying different things in different parts of the country and summoned as evidence, not a local leaflet issued by the candidates to whom he was referring, but the party's national manifesto. That was the very same document that had been published and distributed throughout the country so that everyone, including not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but all his constituents could decide for themselves. We have made clear how we think the costs should met. Earlier, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said how the Labour party would meet them. We need to hear from the Government how they will pay for the clean up.
  As the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has already predicted, if the Government continue with their
  222
  policy of loading costs on to the householder, they will suffer electoral annihilation. They need to grasp that point now or the same trend that we saw in local, county, general and the recent European elections will return to haunt them again and again. The south-west will not tolerate the level of bills that it already faces, let alone any increase.
  The Government's response has been to redesignate certain areas of water in the south-west, saying that they did not need the clean up that they were due to get. Some sensitive coastal waters are to be redefined as high-dispersal areas. In effect, that means that, in those areas, semi-treated sewage can be pumped out to sea. A couple of weeks ago, Ministers announced the slowdown of the clean-up of four beaches in the south-west. To my astonishment, some hon. Members greeted that information with delight. I even one heard one say on the radio that he did not know of any of his constituents who would put more than a toe in sea waters.
  I tell hon. Members who hold that view that many people who use the sea in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) are noticing the state of the water and they will not be delighted by the news that the clean up is to be slowed down; nor will tourists and surfers who come from all over the country and who are increasingly discerning about where to spend their holidays. The savings that hon. Members believe might accrue to householders will be more than offset by the damage that will be done to tourism in the south-west and the fact that people will go elsewhere because they know that bathing waters there are safer.
  The nation must pay for the clean up, which can be achieved by the means suggested by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls): getting the water companies in other parts of the country to pay some surplus of their profits. That is one way of paying for it, but it seems bizarre that the Conservatives should decide to privatise water companies, to put them into the marketplace and to allow them to try to achieve maximum profits for shareholders, and that they should then treat the industry as though it were still a nationalised industry and try to shift the profits from one area to other. It is, however, an option.
  The second, and I think far better, option is to recognise that water bills are not a fair and just way of raising the money for the clean up, but that income tax is. That is why my party said in its manifesto, which we published throughout the country, that the costs should be borne by the taxpayer. Some parts of Europe are paying for the cost of their clean up by resort to European regional funds. It is false pride on Britain's part that is preventing Britain from drawing on the same source of funding.
  I should like to raise the matter of how the unacceptably high level of bills is levied. A Labour Member said that the domestic rate valuations on which current water bills are based are ridiculously out of date. So, for the time being, it would be better to base them on council tax bands, which, although imperfect, have a benefits regime that helps people on low incomes and single-person households.
  Our specific proposals are: the national taxpayer to help contribute to the costs; council tax banding to be used for computing bill levels; and a tougher regulatory regime. Only by implementing such proposals can the problems caused by privatisation be addressed. The Government must tackle the lack of price controls, protect the consumer and deal with the environmental challenge.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The only thing that can be said in favour of the speech of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) is that he bounced himself and let the cat of the bag. He called for increased taxation. Some people may not understand how, in a country where taxation levels are already plenty high enough, an hon. Member can make a plea for his constituents to be taxed more, but the hon. Gentleman told us how he reached that position.
  The hon. Member for North Devon made a statement that was farcical, even for a member of the Liberal party. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would contain himself, he might learn something. It was obvious from his speech that he had learned nothing in the past four years, so today might be the opportunity to do so. We also learned that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the problems caused by pollution are caused by privatisation. [Interruption.] If he obtains a copy of Hansard tomorrow and looks up the quote, he will find that he said that the problems of pollution were caused by privatisation. The reason why we are in this position and why we have the problems of pollution is that Conservative and Labour Governments, over many years, have not invested in the water industry.
  It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to ask, "What have you been doing in the past 15 years?" A more honest question would be, "What has the country been doing in the past 100 years?" This country has not invested properly in cleaning up the nation's coasts. We must deal with that. The only way to do so is by spending money.
  One then enters the argument over how to raise those funds and how to spend them. To say that privatisation causes the problem, however, is nonsense. It would sound good on the doorstep. The hon. Member for North Devon gives separate arguments at separate doorsteps. He would no doubt say at one house, "We would have to increase national taxation, but it would not apply to you." All hon. Members know that the accusation to be laid at the door of Liberal Members is not that they change their attitude from constituency to constituency, but that they change their lines from doorstep to doorstep.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: As a prime example of doorstep hopping, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. To present a policy that states that the deficiencies of the past 100 years are "all down to privatisation, guy" is nonsense.
  Mr. Tyler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of his colleagues, some of whom are present, have advanced the same solution as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)? Is the hon. Gentleman saying to his hon. Friends that they are stepping out of line with party policy or that he is stepping out of line with the party, or are there different party policies for different constituencies in the south-west?
  Mr. Nicholls: It is up to hon. Members to justify their position. I said that it was fundamentally dishonest to pretend that the problems that we are having to cope with in the country, and in the west country in particular, in some way stem from privatisation. I am particularly concerned about the position in the west country, which is unique. It is not the Government's fault that Brussels has
  224
  designated that about 455 beaches in this country must be brought up to standard and that 30 per cent. of those beaches are in the west country.
  There is a water charge payer base of about 1.5 million people, who, let it be said, are predominantly elderly. That means that about 650,000 people in the west country have to be responsible for cleaning up one third of the nation's beaches. That is not the fault of the Government or of the House of Commons. The problem arises when one has a system whereby standards can be imposed which have not been debated in the House but which come from Europe.
  Mr. Hicks indicated dissent.
  Mr. Nicholls: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) has views and enthusiasms about Europe which are probably shared by most Opposition Members, but not by most Conservative Members. The standards that we are having to meet were imposed on us by Europe. Any honest and realistic assessment of how we cope with the problem on behalf of our constituents stems from how we deal with that matter.
  Mr. Hicks: Since I am invited to respond, I have to say that, speaking personally and for no one other than myself, I would have no objection if this country, as a member of the European Community, agreed collectively to enhance water quality standards and sewage disposal standards. Surely my hon. Friend would not disagree that, having taken that decision, the British Government could make whatever adjustments and modifications they desired to deal with the genuine problems that the hon. Gentleman and my constituents face in meeting the cost of essential capital investment. The funds are there.
  Mr. Nicholls: To some extent, I can agree with my hon. Friend; but if conditions are imposed on us by Europe it is the Government's responsibility to do what they can to ameliorate their effects on us. The point that I am making to my hon. Friend, which is undeniable, is that the House did not set the standards or time scales, yet the Government have to cope with them.
  Mr. Hicks: But we agreed them.
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend may say that, but I do not believe, and I doubt whether any of my hon. Friends believes, that, if the House had set its own standards and time scales, we would be in this position. That is the essence of the problem.
  We should be asking ourselves, and asking the Government, what has been done in the past four years to reduce the effect of charges. We heard something about that from the Minister of State and I suspect that we shall hear more about it from the Under-Secretary, but much effort has been made to ensure that, under doctrines such as subsidiarity, we get such decisions back within our own province and, as far as possible, try to set our own time scales.
  No hon. Member is denying that beaches must be cleaned up. Nobody, with one or two exceptions, is suggesting that that can be done painlessly without it costing somebody money, but it is not sufficient to say that because the benefits are so marvellous we must proceed at breakneck pace. Whether we are spending money on water or any other worthwhile measure, we must try to ensure that we set a rate that people can afford, whether they are paying locally or nationally. It simply does not get

  225
  someone off the hook to say, "Put it on the national Exchequer, then it does not matter." We shall make progress only by going with the grain of what people think they can afford.
  The second way to make progress is to convey to South West Water that it, too, has a social responsibility to people, not simply to say, "Look at the benefits, pay up and stop complaining," but to understand how grievously upset people feel. It is all very well to say that tourists from the north, where water charges are only 20p a day, and windsurfers benefit from such measures, but I must tell the hon. Member for North Devon that I am not particularly concerned about windsurfers from the north.
  I am desperately concerned about an elderly population who face water charges that they can cannot afford. Ultimately, those whose prime method of transport may be a Zimmer frame do not need to be told by the hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Devon obviously thinks that pensioners' problems are humorous, but it is nonsense to think that one can tell elderly or retired people in straitened circumstances that the answer to their problems is to go windsurfing.
  Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency that, like mine, is dependent on tourism. Is he seriously saying that he does not care about the water quality and conditions that surfers from the north will experience? I think that hoteliers and others in the tourism industry in his constituency will be appalled by his attitude.
  Mr. Nicholls: Of course I am not saying that, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am not doing so. I am saying that a balance must be struck between doing things that are good and desirable and doing them at a pace that can be afforded. To set out, for simple, cheap, populist reasons, one example where benefits would accrue to tourists and windsurfers and to ignore the fact that many other humble, quiet elderly people do not see the argument in quite the same way is dishonest.
  As I said before being treated to a rehash of the hon. Gentleman's speech, South West Water must realise that it is not sufficient to say that charges are going up and that that is the end of it. I know the effort that Ministers have made in the past four years to convey a proper sense of urgency to South West Water about that.
  Ultimately, what has been achieved? The hon. Member for North Devon said—I expect that he will deny it, but I wrote it down—that water charges were set to double again.
  Mr. Harvey indicated assent.
  Mr. Nicholls: He is saying it again. The hon. Gentleman knows—and, if he does not, the hon. Member for North Cornwall certainly does—that there is no question of water charges doubling again. We now know, as a result of efforts that have been made, that the increase in water charges next year should be in the band of inflation plus 2 per cent. That is not a scenario that promises the doubling of water charges in the foreseeable future. It is the efforts that Ministers and west country Members from Devon and Cornwall have made that have made the difference.
  I referred to the European dimension. I remember asking an Italian Environment Minister some years ago,
  226
  "Why are water standards imposed on Britain in a way that we know they are never imposed on the continent?" He said, "Because your political parties keep telling us in Europe how bad your beaches are, and if you keep going on about it ultimately we cannot turn a blind eye to it." I say from my experience in government and as a Back Bencher, imagine how much easier the job of Ministers would have been in trying to make progress in Europe if they had been able to say that Conservatives, Liberals, Labour and the rest—everyone in the west country across the political board—was behind Ministers' efforts to alleviate the problem.
  We did not see that. We saw—especially from the Liberals, because in the west country the Labour party is merely a tedious irrelevance—that at every opportunity when Liberal Members could have combined with Conservative Members to achieve something, they did not want to know. The ultimate condemnation for the Liberal party when the history books finally come to be written will be that, faced with a choice between doing something to help people in the west country about water charges and merely exploiting the fact that the Government could not act quickly enough, exploitation won and their constituents missed out. That is the moral of this unhappy affair. The good point is that, at long last, the end of the misery is in sight.
  6.26 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: This debate should have been called by the Government, not by the Opposition. It is scandalous that the Government thought that they could get away with announcing the five-year pricing review next week without making a statement to the House. It would have caused no problem to ask Mr. Byatt to bring the review forward a week or two so that a statement could have been made to the House and the subject discussed properly.
  Last week, fortunately, the National Consumer Council issued a report, which I commend to hon. Members, that carefully considered the financial facts and figures of the water industry in the past five years. Its conclusions are quite mild, although it says that consumers have not had a fair deal over water prices. The statistics speak for themselves.
  Two failures stand out since water was privatised in England and Wales five years ago, and both can be laid at the Government's door. First, the water companies have failed to understand their job. Their purpose is simply to offer an essential service to the public, who want plenty of clean water for daily needs and who want their waste and sewage to be disposed of safely.
  They do not want their supplies to be measured drop by drop. They do not want to worry if their children go through a patch of bedwetting or if their elderly relatives become incontinent— problems that 1.5 million households experience every year. They know that there is a cost, and always has been, but they expect water to be affordable and easy to pay for, because it is one service that no household can do without.
  The second failure is that no one— certainly not the watchdog or the regulator— looks after the consumer's interest. The companies have taken the Government at their word. The companies are now bigwigs in the market: they have capital assets of £150 billion. So what do they do?

  227
  First, they reward themselves. They are, after all, extremely big fish in the market, and they think that they deserve extremely big pay-offs and rewards—£500,000 is the going rate. Secondly, they look around—as the Minister was boasting—to see how they can become even bigger. They look at the water supply in Turkey, Israel and around the world, and become global companies. Thirdly, as the Government suggest in their deregulation legislation, the companies look to see what constraints are burdens. They look at the European regulations to see if they can appeal against them or take longer to comply with them.
  Finally, the companies run pricing tests to see how much of the burden the consumer will bear. As we have heard, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is dying to say, the tests have increased prices by more than 100 per cent. in the south-west. Price increases are running at an average of 67 per cent. To their delight, the companies find that consumers still buy their services, because they have no choice. Water is the ultimate monopoly.
  Some households always find it hard to keep up and hard to pay, but the companies can disconnect them or put them on a stringent system of rationing and pre-payments. For the water companies, the world is their oyster. Who is there to prevent them enjoying the benefits?
  People thought that, under privatisation, the person with that. job would be the regulator, Ian Byatt, but the facts have shown them to be wrong. He has worked to protect the companies in the market, but failed to exercise any control on behalf of consumers.
  Mr. Byatt advances the premise that I have heard this afternoon, that water price rises will be kept between 0 and 2 per cent. Does that mean exactly 0 and 2 per cent.? No, it means between 0 and 2 per cent. above inflation. The water regulator has never accepted that water prices should rise by a negative K value, decrease or be limited to inflation. As a result, profits and perks have soared and the regulator has done nothing.
  Indeed, he still says that surplus profits are perfectly in order, because they offer companies an incentive to make efficiency savings. The surplus profits and payouts that have been made do not represent anything in the way of an incentive to make efficiency savings. The regulator does not believe in regulation.
  He started with an open debate on the cost of quality, but as soon as criticisms were made by the National Rivers Authority about the figures given by the companies, he closed the debate. We now have a one-man show—Mr. Byatt alone will decide the price caps. There will be: no appeal except to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The price review out next week has become a farce.
  Even on consumer issues, where there is a consensus, the water regulator has failed to take action. When he has a regional chairman in Yorkshire who sticks up for consumers, Diana Scott, the water regulator sacks her. On no major issue has the water regulator backed consumer concern against the advice of water companies or the Government. That is no way to regulate our most crucial public asset.
  We must sort the matter out for the public. The Government are clearly proposing to do nothing, but defend the system that we have. We must make proposals to resolve the problem. We can sort it out through the charging system. Are we paying for a commodity, such as
  228
  jam or potatoes, where one pays for what one uses, or are we paying for an essential service, such as health or cleansing, where one pays for what one needs?
  At present, we pay through water rates, but we must have a new system, because the present one is out of date. The council tax banding system has replaced the rating system. That banding system offers a flexible, ready-made and cheap-to-run new property-based system. This afternoon is the first time that I have heard a Minister even suggest that it may be in order to use the banding system in that way.
  I am cheered by that suggestion, but I shall believe it if the Government will tomorrow back it up by saying clearly that new houses do not have to be compulsorily metered. I will believe it if the Government give housing corporations and any new householder the option of metering or negotiating the cost with the water company on the basis of the council tax band. If they do that, I shall believe that the Government are genuine in their efforts.
  I am speaking quickly without going into each subject in detail, because I am aware of the time. There is a conservation argument, but the Government, and certainly the water companies and the public, must be aware that one quarter of all water supplied through the system is lost through leakage.
  A far cheaper way of conserving water supplies than placing the burden unfairly on domestic householders through metering would be to address the problem of the 25 per cent. leakage rate and introduce a programme to install showers, sprinklers and dual-flush toilets. That would save the same amount of water at a quarter the cost of metering, and would provide the first step in bringing water under public control.
  The first thing that the public want to control is what they pay for water and how they pay it. That is what I mean by bringing the water industry back into public control, but that is only a start. We shall achieve our aim only if we have a fundamental review of the regulatory system that puts the public—the consumer—first in the policy that deals with the world's major public need.
  We need a system that delivers even-handed pricing across the country. Why should the south-west pay three times more than the rest of the country? We do not pay three times more in London for the health service if there is a flu epidemic—why should the south-west pay three times as much because the area has a longer coastline? It is nonsense.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Jackson: No, I cannot give way, because of the limited time available.
  We need a system that opens up the decisions of the water companies to public view and puts an end to the gross pay-offs, dividends and rip-offs of the present system. We do not want the Government's present approach, which is to do nothing. We need action to be taken urgently. The public are making hon. Members aware of that urgency.
  6.37 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I apologise to the Minister for not being present at the start of the debate, when I was unavoidably detained, although I did hear some of his speech.

  229
  There is genuine concern among hon. Members about the price of water. While many of us recognise the success of the water companies in winning contracts abroad, they have some responsibility to consumers at home. Of course we appreciate the improvements that have been made, many of which are visible. I always appreciate that those improvements have to be paid for, but more of the costs could come from some of the profits which could be reinvested.
  There is nothing wrong in making profits, but it depends on what ultimately happens to them. I know of no other companies involved in producing goods that can expect such a profit on their goods or such a return for their shareholders. A Treasury Minister has had something to say about large dividends. Most companies do not enjoy large dividends, but perhaps water companies do.
  Manufacturers in my part of the world cannot keep raising their prices, unlike the water companies. Sainsbury and Marks and Spencer would not pay more for their manufactured goods, because they know that they cannot pass on the price increases to their customers. Water is surely more essential than anything else.
  I do not believe that compulsory metering is a good idea. It may be ideal for those who live alone, but it entails grave disadvantages for families.
  Mr. Rupert Allason rose—
  Mrs. Peacock: No, I have only a few minutes.
  We should look carefully at linking charges for water with council tax banding. That would be much fairer for most people. I am worried about very low-income families who find that they cannot pay their water bills—it is not a matter of "won't pay"; it is a case of "can't pay". If their water is cut off, according to the rules of this country, their accommodation becomes unfit for human habitation. Conservative Governments have spent many years providing much better accommodation for families, so that they can all enjoy these facilities. I do not want to turn the clock back to the last century.
  I am sure that the Minister will point out that disconnections are falling. They have certainly fallen in Yorkshire in the past year or so, partly as a result of pressure brought to bear in Parliament, and partly as a result of people's own efforts. It is not possible, however, to disconnect water supplies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I should like the Minister to tell us why we are different. If the system works there with no ultimate sanction, why cannot it work in England too?
  It is true to say, as Yorkshire Water says, that most families pay up and have their water reconnected within 48 hours. Of course: but many people who cannot pay find the money to pay by going to loan sharks. Then their families end up in greater debt, so that they can have their water reconnected. Perhaps the Minister will say that this is someone else's responsibility, and that some other agency should help to provide the cash—but that is not what happens.
  We must be extremely cautious. Water is essential to life. No one can go anywhere else for water—there is no competition. It is not as if we can leave Sainsbury and go down the street to Marks and Spencer. Water has to be piped to people's homes; the water companies have a captive audience. We should all try to help the water
  230
  companies to provide the sort of service that we would like all the families in our areas to enjoy, and at a reasonable cost that continues to be affordable.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I welcome the opportunity to speak tonight, because, if there is one issue that is important to the south-west, it is the price of water. I am surprised to note that only one Conservative Member from the south-west has been in the Chamber for most of the debate. I should have expected the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to stand up and apologise on behalf of his colleagues who, in 1989, voted for the water privatisation legislation which has caused the high prices in the south-west—
  Mr. Allason rose—
  Mr. Jamieson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I thought that Conservative Members would come here this evening and explain why their flagship policy has caused such high prices in my region.
  It has been said tonight that water prices have risen around the country, but in the past five years they have doubled in the south-west—and for those who are least able to afford such rises.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Jamieson: The National Consumer Council has clearly stated that the very poorest people in the south-west are spending 12.9 per cent. of their total incomes—or £1 in every £8—on water. We heard not a word about that from Tory Members today.
  I can tell Conservative Members why we need clean beaches in the south-west. We need them for the people who live there; we need them for the tourist industry. We need investment in our area so that we can bring in the tourists. The hon. Member for Teignbridge totally failed to explain the fact that under the privatisation system cross-subsidies have gone. That is why he and his colleagues, by voting to privatise water, inflicted high water prices on the people in the south-west.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It had better be a point of order.
  Mr. Arnold: Is it in order for an hon. Member to impugn the motives of other hon. Members who were here during this debate—such as my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe)?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order.
  Mr. Jamieson: I am sorry that time has been wasted by a bogus point of order.
  The people of the south-west have been betrayed by the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Teignbridge talked about the tedious irrelevance of the Labour party in the south-west—
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Jamieson: Not another bogus point of order, I hope.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that, if an hon. Member refers to another by name, he gives way to him? Were the hon. Gentleman to give way to me, I would have the chance to ask him to explain why he voted against my Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The summer season seems to be well upon us.
  Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking about water at all tonight; he is usually associated with a stronger drink than that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman withdrew that remark immediately.
  Mr. Jamieson: I do withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I look forward to sharing—
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) has resumed his seat. Mr. George Howarth.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: This has been a useful debate. As the Government are not prepared to discuss their water policies in the House of Commons, the Opposition have chosen our last half Supply day—in the event, somewhat less than half a day—to debate the subject of water.
  I should like to begin by commenting on the Minister's opening speech—[Interruption.]—if he is willing to listen, that is. I do not think that he was listening even to his own speech half the time. The Minister offered robust support for privatisation and the activities of the water companies, as we might expect. Obviously, he was a member of the governing party, and probably voted for privatisation, in 1989. That being so, he would have to say what he said today.
  I have been doing a little research, however, into the other reasons why Conservative Members might support the activities of the water companies. Might it have something to do with the fact that 23 directors of water companies are also directors of companies that donate directly to the Tory party? The Minister stoutly defended Thames Water, and maligned the motives of those who attack that company. Is it possible that the £50,000 that Thames Water gave the Conservative party in 1992, just before the election, had something to do with the strength of support that Conservative Members offered the company today?
  I also wonder whether Mr. John Murray Thompson, a director of Thames Water—
  Mr. Atkins: Never heard of him.
  Mr. Howarth: Well, the hon. Gentleman ought to have. He is also a director of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, which was responsible for donating £70,000 to the Tory party in 1992. The Minister went on stoutly to defend the activities of North West Water. I agree with him that it provides a good service for our constituents—some of its activities are good—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) accuses me of being down in the gutter. Even if I got down there, that would still leave me several feet higher than him.
  232
  But let us say a word or two about North West Water and its chairman, Sir Desmond Pitcher. I wonder whether the support of the hon. Gentleman and the Tory party has something to do with the fact that, between 1979 and 1992, Sir Desmond Pitcher, when he was chairman of Littlewoods, donated £160,000 to the Tory party finances. [Interruption.] Conservative Members say, "So what?" I shall tell them. Sir Desmond Pitcher is now getting his richly deserved—from the Tory point of view—reward, with an annual salary of £263,000, bonuses of £75,000 and, no doubt, enormous benefits from his preferential share deals. The list goes on. But the facts mean that we cannot take the Minister's defence of the water companies and their privatisation terribly seriously.
  What benefits have consumers had from privatisation? Is the Minister willing, for example, to defend the fact that disconnections have increased by 48 per cent. since privatisation? The Minister defended it by saying that they came in in 1945. Let me tell him that they have increased dramatically, as has the cost to the consumer, and for the very reason that many of those people simply cannot afford to pay their water bills. Is he defending the fact that bills have gone up by 67 per cent? "Well," he says, "that is because we have had to invest all this money in all these improvements that we have been going to carry out." What happened to the promise given at privatisation that all the money for those improvements would be borrowed on the commercial markets? That has not happened at all. The consumers have had to pay for them.
  Is the Minister defending, for example, the fact that profits are up by 125 per cent.? Is he willing to defend the fact that, in the same period, the salaries of water company chairmen have gone up by 133 per cent.? No, I do not think so. The truth is that the capital projects, which are good and necessary, have been paid for not by the water companies, but by the consumers. They have not been paid for by commercial borrowing. The money has had to be raised through the consumers.
  We are given the impression by the Minister that the consumers are getting a marvellous deal. How much have they paid through charges for all those improvements? The amount was £2.7 billion. Yet, during the same period, dividends, or payments for shareholders, increased by 63 per cent.—a cumulative payment of £2.9 billion. That is more than even the consumers have been expected to pay to fund the improvements. Share values have increased by 99 per cent. since 1990. During the same period, in general, share values on the FT index have gone up by only 39 per cent.
  The people who have been hit worst by privatisation are those in our community with the least income. Before privatisation, the average person living on benefit was expected to pay 2.5 per cent. of his or her income on water charges. Since privatisation, that has risen to 3.2 per cent. South West Water has been referred to extensively. Since privatisation, its bills have increased dramatically to £304 a year. Pensioners are being asked to pay 9 per cent. of their income on water charges alone. That is absolutely scandalous. In 1993–94, 12,452 people had their water cut off.
  Privatisation has been a rip-off, and it will be a rip-off that will come to haunt the Government. I recommend the motion, which stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the House.
  6.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Labour bangs on about privatisation generally—so perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of a few facts. It is worth recalling that, under the previous Labour Government, nationalised industries, including the nationalised water industry, made losses—large losses. In 1979, when Labour left office, the losses of the nationalised industries cost taxpayers £35 million each and every week in today's money. That was some £35 million of taxpayers' money being spent on meeting losses, which was therefore not available to invest in the national health service, in schools or for the benefit of pensioners.
  By contrast, today, the privatised companies, including the privatised water companies, are paying about £50 million per week into the Exchequer. That is money that can be used in the NHS, for schools and for the benefit of pensioners.
  It is worth recalling that in 1976 the previous Labour Government—supported at the time by the Liberals—overnight announced a moratorium on all new construction work by water companies. The previous Labour Government cut their spending on the water industry generally by 30 per cent. and, specifically, cut their capital investment on sewerage by 50 per cent. Labour policies resulted in economic mismanagement and environmental neglect. It is, in part, the Labour party's dereliction of duty that we have had to tackle—and we have done so to the benefit of consumers and the environment.
  However, the truth is that the Labour party is in a mess on its policy for water. It cannot bring itself to admit and acknowledge the success of privatisation, yet cannot bring itself to say what it would do differently.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who, at the moment, seems to be acting leader of the Labour party, was quoted last month, in "Water Bulletin", as saying:
  "There is one area where we might be looking for some new form of public control and that is water … I am neither ruling in nor ruling out a 100 per cent. ownership".
  Heavens above, one would have thought that the Labour party should either have the guts to say that it will renationalise the water industry, or not. But, clearly, it is too much to expect the Labour party of designer suits and blow-dry hairstyles to make it clear whether it would be prepared for an incoming Labour Government to spend several billions of pounds of public money buying back shares in the water companies rather than investing in improving environmental protection.
  Indeed, only this month out comes yet another Labour party policy document on the environment, produced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is giggling at the moment, with no fewer than seven members of the shadow Cabinet involved. But what is interesting about the document—entitled "Report of the Labour Party Policy Commission on the Environment" —is that at no time did either Opposition Front-Bench spokesman make any reference to it. I am not surprised, because it has 218 paragraphs, and, pathetically, just five of them deal with water.
  Does that document make Labour policy on water any clearer? The House must judge, for in a gem of blur-like opaqueness, which now characterises Labour policy, it states:
  "We will ensure that the actions of all private water companies are under public control."
  234
  We look forward in the coming months to hearing from Labour Members just what is meant by that, or, as one Labour Member said, "Democratic public control, comrades." But the truth, I suspect, is that they do not really know themselves.
  Labour bangs on about profits. It is a sobering thought that the new model Labour party still finds "profits" a dirty word. But the reality is that water companies need to be profitable to fund capital investment programmes. Indeed, water companies are reinvesting up to two thirds of profits, and all companies are spending more on investment than they are earning in profits. Some, such as Northumbrian and Anglian, are spending up to twice as much. The water companies have been investing £3 billion a year since privatisation to make up for the earlier chronic under-investment when the water industry—
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that the motion and amendments before us specifically mention Scottish issues. Neither the Minister for the Environment and Countryside nor the Under-Secretary of State have chosen to mention Scotland in their speeches. Is it in order for those on the Government Front Bench to ignore the motion that we are debating?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The Chair is not responsible for the content of a speech, save whether it is relevant or not.
  Mr. Baldry: I have not heard very much from anyone in the House about Scotland today. But what I did hear was the Labour party banging on about prices and choosing to ignore the fact that investment by the water companies in improving water quality and standards is massive. It works out at about £8 million a day—£5,000 every minute, and, on average, some £960 per household in the five years to 1995. All water services for the average householder in England cost about 55p a day, which is less than the cost of a bottle of fizzy water. That is a reasonable sum to ensure high standards by the water companies.
  What is more, customers have more than got their money back through new investment in water services, which over five years averages £960 per household. That is £192 a year, 52p a day, in new investment for every household in the country. Against that background the average charge of 55p a day cannot be said by any fair-minded person to be unreasonable.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jonesrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 291.

  Division No. 298]

  [7.02 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Alton, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bell, Stuart

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Austin-Walker, John

  Benton, Joe

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  235

  Betts, Clive

  Hardy, Peter

  Blair, Tony

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Blunkett, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Boyes, Roland

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bradley, Keith

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Heppell, John

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

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Burden, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hodge, Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoey, Kate

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Chidgey, David

  Hutton, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Illsley, Eric

  Church, Judith

  Ingram, Adam

  Clapham, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jamieson, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Keen, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cox, Tom

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davidson, Ian

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Liddell, Helen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Denham,John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dewar, Donald

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dixon, Don

  McAllion, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McCartney, Ian

  Dowd, Jim

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McKelvey, William

  Enright, Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Faulds, Andrew

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Madden, Max

  Flynn, Paul

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Fraser, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gunnell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hain, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  236

  O'Hara, Edward

  Snape, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Patchett, Terry

  Spellar, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Purchase, Ken

  Timms, Stephen

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tipping, Paddy

  Radice, Giles

  Trimble, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Turner, Dennis

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Redmond, Martin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wallace, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Walley, Joan

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Warded, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooker, Jeff

  Watson, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wilson, Brian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wray, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Simpson, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Churchill, Mr

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clappison, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Ashby, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Congdon, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Conway, Derek

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bates, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Bellingnam, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowis, John

  Dicks, Terry

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Dover, Den

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Dunn, Bob

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Burns, Simon

  Dykes, Hugh

  Burt, Alistair

  Elletson, Harold

  Butcher, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  237

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evennett, David

  Key, Robert

  Faber, David

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Fabricant, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knapman, Roger

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Forman, Nigel

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

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knox, Sir David

  Forth, Eric

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  French, Douglas

  Legg, Barry

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Gale, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Gallie, Phil

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lidington, David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Lightbown, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lord, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Luff, Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maclean, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Madel, Sir David

  Hague, William

  Malone, Gerald

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Mans, Keith

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marland, Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Marlow, Tony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Harris, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mates, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Merchant, Piers

  Heald, Oliver

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hendry, Charles

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Horam, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Norris, Steve

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Paice, James

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Pawsey, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pickles, Eric

  238

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Sykes, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Richards, Rod

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Riddick, Graham

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

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

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trend, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walden, George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Michael

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitney, Ray

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sproat, Iain

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stephen, Michael

  Stem, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Allan

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Streeter, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the water industry in England and Wales on its achievements since privatisation and commends the proposals for restructuring in Scotland which will facilitate the use of private finance; notes the improvements which have been made in environmental standards in particular with regard to the quality of rivers and bathing waters, and the consistently high quality of drinking water; notes that the industry in England and Wales is pressing ahead with a £3 billion a year investment programme which will result in further improvements to the upgrading of water and sewerage systems without placing undue burdens on consumers; and further notes that the privatised industry is successfully using its expertise to gain major contracts overseas, something which could not have been achieved under the policies of the last Labour government.

  Wildlife (Conservation)
  7.17 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move,
  That the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
  The draft Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations were first laid before the House on 4 July. Hon. Members will realise that the draft order that we are considering today was laid on 13 July and that the original draft was withdrawn because two minor corrections were necessary so that two of the regulations should read as intended. I apologise to hon. Members that an earlier oversight made those small drafting adjustments necessary. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The House owes the Minister an apology for being so noisy when he is seeking to speak. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber go quietly and quickly?
  Mr. Atkins: I am suitably impressed that the House should apologise to me. That has never happened before and doubtless will never happen again.
  The draft regulations to be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 transpose into national law for Great Britain the provisions of the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in May 1992.
  The House will know that we are fortunate in having a substantial body of existing national legislation for nature conservation. The challenge has been to integrate the new requirements of the directive into what we already have.
  The directive was a significant milestone for the conservation of the most endangered habitat types and species in the European Union. The draft regulations demonstrate the Government's determination to give proper effect to its requirements.
  As my right hon. Friend told the House in his written answer on 4 July, the regulations consolidate the Government's provision and practices in respect of those sites and species of international importance covered by the directive.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Schedule 2 —"European protected species of animals"—specifies that all species of whales are protected. Can the Minister answer a simple question? Under schedule 2, is Norway entitled to apply for a derogation for the killing of whales? Secondly, has it applied for a derogation? If it has or does, do the British Government have the ability to veto it? And will the Government oppose such a derogation and use their veto?
  Mr. Atkins: What a good question—I shall endeavour to discover the answer to it and tell the hon. Gentleman when I reply to the debate. It is an important question. The hon. Gentleman has a recognised and considerable interest in these matters and he deserves a proper answer. If I cannot give him one this evening, I shall certainly write to him with the details.
  The draft regulations follow the public consultation that took place last autumn. All those who responded have received a letter explaining the contents of the regulations.
  240
  A copy has been placed in the Library, together with letters from respondents plus a summary analysis of their contents. A summary of responses to the public consultation on the amendments to the general development order effected by the regulations has also been placed in the Library.
  The regulations tell a clear story. In essence, they build on our existing legislative base, which provides the framework for successful nature conservation in this country. Much of the text of the regulations restates the provisions of existing law, modified as appropriate, to ensure that the terms of the directive are transposed. The regulations provide for the selection and designation of sites that will become special areas of conservation—SACs—as required by the directive. They also give effect to the requirement that by June 1995 the Government must submit a proposed site list to the European Commission.
  The Government are receiving advice from the nature conservation agencies, through the joint nature conservation committee, on their site proposals based on the directive's scientific criteria. We shall consider that advice and publish a list of sites for consultation before the end of the year. The Government are committed to preliminary consultation with all owners and occupiers and other affected interests on the sites before submission to the Commission takes place. Further full and detailed discussions about the management and definition of sites will also take place before the Community list is agreed.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I appreciate that the Minister is going through matters logically. What, in his and the Department's view, is likely to be the major effect of this legislation as opposed to pre-existing legislation, and specifically is not the weakness of it the fact that the limitation to owners and occupiers' liability will remain a limitation under the new proposals, despite the fact that it is one of the great loopholes of the present legislation?
  Mr. Atkins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Having taken advice, we very much believe that voluntary management and involvement with owners and occupiers of sites is a better way of doing things than legislating fiercely. As the hon. Gentleman might be aware, we have the reserve right to impose a compulsory purchase order where necessary, but that is the nuclear option and not something that we want to use. However, we are required to do that under the directive and that is what we will do if necessary. Experience suggests that voluntary arrangements and agreements are a much better way of doing things.
  Mr. Tom King: I very much endorse what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, I have a number of sites of special scientific interest in my constituency. A letter that I received today from the National Farmers Union expresses concern that the consultation procedures will not be as good under the European proposals as they have been under the previous arrangements. I urge the fullest consultation with owners and farmers to make a success of the proposals, which can happen if there is genuine co-operation.
  Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am aware of his constituency interest in these matters. We have only belatedly heard from the NFU and the Country Landowners Association, but I assure my right hon. Friend

  241
  that we will ensure that consultation is proper and thorough. Quite frankly, that is the only way that the procedure will work. He was right to say that, if we make it work properly, the benefits will be substantial.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) took the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 through the House. They will recall that during its Committee stage they said, understandably, that consultation was highly desirable. The Minister now says that it must be thorough. That involves staff. Quite often, the reason given for delay was that there was not sufficient staff either in the Department or in the Scottish Office. Are the Government sure that they now have sufficient staff to carry out a thorough consultation, about which I am sure the Minister is sincere, because that takes a very long time and many, many staff hours?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. I cannot give him a direct answer but I am satisfied that, as matters stand, we have the necessary staff. We are not lagging behind on this matter, despite the little hiccup in tabling the regulations. That was because we wanted to get them right. We are doing well in comparison with other members of the European Union and it is our intention that that remains so. If the concern the hon. Gentleman raises turns out to be the case, I shall be as worried as he is and I will have to take the necessary action.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Regulation 49 refers to a project continuing if there is an overriding public interest and states that that interest
  "may be of a social or economic nature."
  My constituency has the chance of an industrial development involving the creation of 1,500 new jobs on an enterprise zone site which, unfortunately, impinges marginally on a site of special scientific interest. Can the Minister provide me with a definition—if not this evening, at some future date—of "economic nature"?
  Mr. Atkins: I hear sotto voce from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who speaks on these matters for the Scottish Office, that he is aware of the case. If the hon. Gentleman would care to approach him, he will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details and perhaps they can then be discussed in the usual way.
  The regulations provide for the establishment of a register of European sites, which will be open to public inspection. The entry of a site on the register will be notified to owners, occupiers, local authorities and any other interested bodies which the Secretary of State may direct. The register will be the formal means to record the sites that will be subject to the protection provisions in the regulations.
  A cornerstone provision of the regulations is the introduction of new duties on Ministers and the nature conservation agencies to exercise their functions in order to secure compliance with the requirements of the directive. All Ministers and the nature conservation agencies must use such of the provisions in existing nature conservation
  242
  legislation and in these regulations as may be necessary to secure the protection of sites and species as required by the directive.
  All Government and public bodies are given a new duty to have regard to the directive's requirements in the exercise of their functions. The Government remain committed to the voluntary principle of land management and it is expected that where management is necessary most of the conservation needs of designated sites will be delivered through voluntary management arrangements negotiated between owners and occupiers and the nature conservation agencies.
  The regulations also allow for the making of byelaws to control third-party activities and will enable the existing powers of compulsory purchase in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to be used if necessary, as I said earlier, as the only means of safeguarding the conservation value of the land.
  The regulations introduce a highly significant new framework for the conservation of European sites in the marine environment. All statutory bodies with functions relevant to marine conservation must, under a new duty, exercise their functions to secure compliance with the requirements of the directive. Identified relevant authorities such as sea fisheries committees, harbour authorities and local authorities are further empowered to join with one another in drawing up schemes of management for those sites.
  Consistent with the Government's declared approach to the inter-agency management of the coastal zone, the Government expect that, for the most part, those authorities will work together voluntarily to establish such schemes founded on the advice that the nature conservation agencies are under a duty to provide. However, under the regulations Ministers may give directions to those bodies in respect of the establishment of a scheme of management, and will do so at any time if it seems necessary to secure the conservation of a site.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already announced, we wish to bring a number of additional controls relating to consents and permissions within the specific scope of the directive. They will be contained in further draft regulations to be laid before the House in due course. I believe that the regulations represent a thorough implementation package to comply with the requirements of the habitats directive, and I commend them to the House.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: Although the directive may be a little overdue—for technical reasons which have been explained—we give it what must, sadly, be a qualified welcome. We believe that an opportunity has been missed: primary legislation would have been preferable to secondary legislation, especially in overcoming the difficulties of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  I am very concerned about the lack of information in the public domain about sites of special scientific interest. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that, some months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) tried to obtain detailed information about the damage being done to such sites by tabling written questions. I shall not bore the House with the arcane procedures that proved necessary; suffice it to say

  243
  that it eventually proved impossible to table questions that could be answered. Either blocking answers were in place, or no Minister appeared competent to reply.
  We then consulted English Nature, which refused to give us a list of damaged sites on the ground that the National Audit Office had all the information. The NAO said that it could not provide the information. Eventually it published a report, which gave no specific details; it provided only statistics, with one or two examples thrown in. I hope that at some point the Minister will consider the great black hole that needs to be filled: I know that a vast amount of data is involved, but it should be brought into the public domain so that Members of Parliament can gain access to detailed information about not only the incidence of damage but what it adds up to, and the difficulties that have been encountered.
  Mr. Atkins: Neither my Department nor I intend to hide such information, which is generally available. It might be useful for us to discuss the matter after the debate, through the usual channels, to establish whether there are ways of providing the information the hon. Gentleman wants. It may be a simple process of bringing all the information together, rather than avoiding disclosure. That should not be particularly difficult. I will check, if it will help.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister. I should be even more grateful if he would go a step further, and give me a guarantee that he will find some way of bringing the information into the public domain.
  Mr. Atkins: I never give absolute guarantees, but I will do my best.
  Mr. Howarth: That is fair enough, although none of our best is ever good enough.
  The NAO report, published earlier this year, stated that, since 1987, 800 reports of damage to sites of special scientific interest had been made. None of us can be complacent about such a serious matter, and I hope that the Government are not complacent. Other statistics from the 1990 countryside survey commissioned by the Department of the Environment itself revealed that there had been a decrease in the bio-diversity of many sites over the preceding 10 years. Again, there is no room for complacency.
  The most notorious examples are the St. Catherine hill SSSI, north of Twyford down, and the Itchen valley/Winchester meadows SSSI, south of Twyford down. Tragically, roads have been driven through both. Sir William Wilkinson, the former chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, has said:
  "Good landowners protect SSSIs but bad boys get away with murder. The most recent example that springs to mind was Twyford Down where the agent of destruction was the Government."
  I note that the Government are not currently represented by the Minister responsible.
  Many of the sites involved provide habitats for various flora and fauna—birds, for instance. Over the past 20 years, the population of seven species of common farmland bird has declined by more than 50 per cent. According to a study conducted by the British Trust for Ornithology—
  Mr. Elliot Morley: A fine organisation.
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed it is. According to that study, between 1969 and 1991 the tree sparrow population fell by 80 per cent., the corn bunting population by 76 per cent., the grey partridge population by 73 per cent., the turtle dove population by 72 per cent., the reed bunting population by 50 per cent., the linnet population by 56 per cent. and the skylark population by 54 per cent. That is very worrying.
  There is also legitimate concern about peatlands. Perhaps the Minister can give us an idea of whether he intends such sites to be included among the proposed special areas of conservation. There is already ample evidence to suggest that natural peat bogs—there is one in my constituency—are being routinely and systematically damaged or threatened by developments of one kind or another. It is instructive to note that the threat is not posed only by housing developments and the like; in my constituency, an unusual combination—the manager of Liverpool football club, a nightclub owner and a solicitor—
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman had better wait until the end of the sentence before saying "Hear, hear".
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Liverpool football club is already an endangered species.
  Mr. Howarth: I presume that my hon. Friend does not go to Cardiff City matches too often.
  Those three people propose not to build a housing development, but to convert the peat bog in my constituency to a landfill site. Hon. Members may ask what a nightclub owner, the manager of Liverpool football club and a solicitor are doing in such a business; I have asked that question myself, and I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. It clearly does not bode well for the future of the peat bog.
  Other important habitats—such as dry heathlands, which are a natural habitat for rare and threatened species of plant life, birds and butterflies—are equally threatened, and in some instances are already being undermined by inappropriate use. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will take into account the importance of such sites—both existing SSSIs and other important habitats—undertake a review and, where necessary, revoke planning consents that threaten their survival? If we are serious, we must consider not only sites that have not yet been damaged but sites that might be damaged, or might be subject to planning consents that would threaten the survival of wildlife.
  The Minister might also tell us how he proposes to achieve favourable conservation status for annexe 2 species such as the shoredock plant and the marsh fritillary butterfly. He may not lie awake thinking about such matters, but they are important to many people who are concerned about the survival of those species. It is clear that unless such habitats are managed by specialists and with proper sensitivity, there is a real danger that they could disappear altogether.
  I will deal now with management agreements and nature conservation orders. They are, after all, the most significant cause of long-term damage to SSSIs and, as the NAO report made clear, they often result in neglect and mismanagement. The Government are proposing a revised

  245
  form of management agreements to encourage landowners to manage their land. However, that is effective only when the land owner is willing to enter into an agreement. If he will not accept responsibility, which has happened in many cases, the relevant statutory agency can apply to the Secretary of State for a special nature conservation order.
  However, there are serious problems when a dispute arises. The Government have the option of acquiring the land by a compulsory purchase order. Clearly, that is something that we support as far as it goes, but the evidence pertaining to CPOs in this respect does not give me any reason—and should not give the House any reason —necessarily to believe that that is the right answer unless it is differently in future.
  The CPO scheme already exists in legislation and is carried out by statutory agencies, but the bureaucracy and the limited resources available for their administration often make it unworkable. I am aware of only one site on which a CPO has been served, and that is Westhay moor in Somerset. There were serious problems, but it still took three years for the dispute to be settled and for the CPO to go through. Clearly, that is unsatisfactory, and we need assurances that the CPO system as it is to apply will be an improvement. The regulations offer little reassurance that SACs will be protected when disputes occur. In the past, the Government have often failed to introduce immediate and effective measures.
  Problems are anticipated in Scotland where the use of a CPO as a fallback measure could be costly and the purchase of a large estate such as Mar lodge would require several times more than the annual budget for Scottish Natural Heritage. I should be grateful if the Minister will say something about available resources because it is clear that often they do not match the job that needs to be done.
  I should also like some information about how the Government intend to deal with trouble spots. I have in mind, for example, the case of an SSSI and a proposed motorway scheme. How does the Minister see disputes being resolved in such trouble spots within the new SAC framework? There is surely a strong case for undertaking a thorough review of all such sites, including and perhaps especially those subject to unsuitable developments. The whole question needs to be examined closely through the planning system, and I should welcome more information on it in the wind-up speech.
  Although I welcome the fact that the Government are to consult on such sites, it is very important that the consultation exercise should go as wide as possible and include not only the owners of sites but non-governmental organisations which have a legitimate interest in them. I hope that the exercise will not be confined to the specific selection of sites but will cover the criteria to be used at the stage prior to their selection because it is important that such issues are considered in advance of selection.
  I shall deal next with marine and coastal issues. In a parliamentary answer on 11 November 1992, the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside said that his Department would ensure that
  "the proposals for implementation of the marine conservation aspects of the habitat directives fully meet the directive's requirements."—[Official Report, 11 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 791.]
  Measures for marine conservation lag behind those for
  246
  conservation on land. The legislation gives specific powers through byelaws to maintain principle of special areas of conservation. The nature conservation agencies can use those powers inside and outside SACs but not in the case of marine sites. The regulations state that the competent authorities will have
  "regard to the requirements of the Directive".
  However, it is not clear whether that is limited to SACs. It is essential to promote good practice inside and outside protected areas given the highly mobile nature of the marine environment.
  The regulations do not give the Secretary of State for the Environment a lead role in directions concerning SACs. That could lead to conflict, confusion and delay in the management of SACs. Priorities for fisheries, transport, mineral extraction and other activities can be in serious conflict with nature conservation objectives. The Secretary of State for the Environment already has a lead role in the case terrestrial protected areas under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to assist in the conservation of SSSIs. The same should be true for marine SACs. Will the Minister give us an assurance that that issue will be considered seriously?
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Has my hon. Friend considered what amounts to deregulation in the dredging of aggregates, which has altered the foreshore line of rivers at the expense of the environment and bird life? Does he agree that it should be properly controlled and regulated?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend probably has a greater knowledge than any other hon. Member of the River Mersey, on which he worked for many years. I believe that there is also a problem with the River Severn, but his point was well made and I sympathise strongly. That leads me neatly to my final point, which relates to barrages—especially those proposed in south Wales—and their possible effect on the migratory runs of salmon and sea trout.
  Apparently, there are seven species of migratory fish in the rivers of south Wales, all of which are subject to barrage developments or proposals. The nature of their life cycle, which involves between two and 12 passages through the estuaries, makes them extremely vulnerable to such developments. Barrage developments create obstructions to the passage of migratory fish, as is well known, and an effective fish passage is crucial to the future of fish stocks.
  The River Usk, which is the subject of one such proposal, contains the rare and high conservation status twaite shad, lamprey and allis shad. These species are considered to be in general decline. The National Rivers Authority for Wales estimates that the cost of monitoring and mitigating the adverse impact of developments on the River Usk would be considerable. The development on the River Taff would require the purchase and release of hatchery-reared salmon smolt and it is estimated that 60,000 smolts a year would be required at a cost of more than £1 a smolt. There are clearly a number of issues to be dealt with.
  Mr. Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so fascinating about the conflict between barrage developments and the migratory fish species in south Wales which he has listed is that it is only at the end of south Wales's heavy industrialisation phase that the sea

  247
  trout, or the sewin as we call them, and salmon have returned to our rivers? At the very time when salmon and sea trout are returning to the Tawe, the Taff and other rivers, people for some reason decide to erect barrages, thereby preventing with physical concrete obstacles what pollution and the coalfields have prevented for the past 200 years.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. His knowledge of south Wales is almost unparalleled, and few if any of the things in the rivers or on the ground escape his eagle-eyed attention. However, to deal with his comments from a conservation point of view, I was lucky enough once to catch a sewin. It is quite a considerable fish to catch. So, it is important not only in conservation terms for its own sake, but because there are sporting problems.
  Mr. Morgan: They taste very nice, as well.
  Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend said, they taste nice as well.
  To return to the point at which I started, while we feel that this is a missed opportunity and that there is a case, which we regret has not been taken up by the Government, for primary legislation, we nevertheless welcome the directive, partial though it is, and we shall not be dividing the House on it.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome the measure as a flexible and sensible approach to conservation in this country. I have 10 points which I would like to put briefly to the Minister on these highly complicated regulations. I regret to say to the Minister that my points are inevitably technical and, therefore, I do not necessarily expect him be able to respond to them fully this evening. Perhaps, he may be able to respond to me in due course. I also apologise for putting the points to him rather late in the day. I appreciate that he would have preferred more notice.
  First, regulation 2 defines the occupier for purposes of part III—protection of species—but not for the purposes of part II; the section on conservation of natural habitat. Especially in the context of regulation 13—notice to landowners, relevant authorities et cetera—and regulation 16, it is not clear whether "occupier" includes those having rights of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking of the game or fish. That is, of course, important because those with sporting interests have an interest in preserving the species, as defined in part III.
  Indeed, it is significant that the European Commission and the European Parliament have confirmed the part played by country sports in conservation. A resolution specifically dealing with the protection of wild birds, initiated by Mr. Jean Baffin, a French Green party Member of the European Parliament, which was adopted at the beginning of February, acknowledged that, if sporting activities are
  "practised sustainably in accordance with the principle of wise use of renewable natural resources",
  sportsmen
  "can make a valuable contribution to habitat conservation, which is a key feature of many species conservation strategies."
  Commissioner Padraig Flynn, no less, said:
  "the deterioration and destruction of habitats pose more serious threats to the survival of wild birds in Europe than 'hunting' as such."
  248
  It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could confirm that, for the purposes of part II of the regulation, the occupier also includes those having sporting rights. It may be necessary to ask the owner or occupier who else has sporting rights over his lands and, perhaps, those with that interest could be subsequently notified.
  Secondly, regulation 7 provides for the Secretary of State to draw up a list of sites eligible for identification of sites of community importance—so-called SCIs. There is no indication that there will be any consultation with the owners and occupiers of such sites before the list is sent to the European Commission on or before 5 June 1995. The Commission and the Government will adopt a final list by, at the latest, June 1988. Finally, the designated special areas of conservation, the so-called SACs, have to be designated by June 2004.
  If the Minister and his Department are to supply that list to the European Commission by June 1995, time is ticking on if they are to have the full consultation for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) called in his intervention. It would be necessary to begin that consultation process pretty well straight away. So, can the Minister explain the Government's intention on the nature, extent and timing of the consultation with owners and occupiers over the preparation of the list of potential SCIs? It would also be helpful if a list of SCIs were not published until full consultation had been carried out. Once such things go on a list, they have a habit of staying on that list, even if turns out that, as a result of the consultation process, they should be not be on the list at all.
  Thirdly, article 4(2) of the directive provides that SCIs shall be adopted not only on the basis of the criteria set out in annex III, but on the framework of five biogeographical regions referred to in article 1(c)(iii). SCIs in the UK will need to be selected in the framework of the Atlantic biogeographical region. That is also important because it would be folly if we were to designate far more sites which have a Atlantic ecosystem, only to find that the French and the Irish were designating very few sites and, indeed, on those sites which were designated, there was not the same compliance ratio as there would undoubtedly be in this country under my hon. Friend's Department.
  Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what steps are to be taken to ensure that the Government will include on the list of potential SCIs only so many sites as are appropriate, and no more, in the context of the Atlantic region and in the light of the performance of other member states. That would also give us the opportunity to ascertain how closely our compliance was compared with that of other EC countries.
  Fourthly, in paragraph 2.2.4 of their earlier consultation paper, the Government stated that special areas of conservation, so-called SACs, will have already been notified as SSSIs, to which the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) referred. The regulations make no mention of that commitment. Should the Government consider in any circumstances the designation of a land-based SAC, or include land outside an existing SSSI within a SAC, without first giving the owners and occupiers involved an opportunity to make representations to the appropriate nature conservation agency through the SSSI notification process? It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm their intention regarding the relationship between SSSIs and land-based SACs.
  Fifthly, management agreements offer an important mechanism for developing an effective partnership

  249
  between landowners and nature conservation agencies to manage, conserve, restore and protect European sites and land adjacent to them. That voluntary nature of conforming with the regulations has already been mentioned in the debate by a number of hon. Members. Indeed, in his opening remarks, the Minister indicated its importance by saying that the compulsory purchase procedure would be used only in "nuclear deterrent circumstances" or some words similar to that. He has acknowledged the voluntary nature, which is absolutely essential if all those involved, particularly those who have to manage the sites, are to do that effectively.
  The Government should recognise that a major increase in the real level of resources available to the major nature conservation agencies will be essential if our international, national, regional and local conservation objectives are to be achieved. For example, many of the land management systems which have produced internationally important wildlife habitats such as lowland heath are no longer economical. Substantial financial support may be needed if landowners are to continue to operate uneconomic farming systems or to restore such systems where they have been lost for nature conservation purposes.
  I very much welcome the schemes which the Government have already introduced, such as the environmentally sensitive areas—I have two such areas in my constituency, the upper Thames tributaries and the Cotswold hills—the countryside stewardship scheme, which is operated so successfully by my hon. Friend's Department and, the Tir Cymen scheme which operates in Wales. I am sorry that my Welsh is not as good as it should be and I apologise to all Welshmen present if my pronunciation is not correct.
  Mr. Morgan: Nought out of 10.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will intervene and tell me how it should be pronounced.
  Mr. Morgan: It should be Tir Cymen. With a little bit of effort, the hon. Gentleman could do a little better.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I will try again. Is it Tir Cymen? No doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. No doubt all in Wales will be cheering at the success of this scheme and of the habitat scheme.
  All these schemes have an important role to play in European sites, as elsewhere. I mention here the Land Drainage Bill which I promoted and which went through all its stages two Fridays ago. It will give local authorities and internal land drainage boards an obligation to consider environmental aspects before major drainage schemes are carried out. That is a major step forward, because we have lost 50 per cent. of all our wetland areas since the war. I drained 25 acres of my own wetland under a very high grant regime in the 1970s. Having found that the land has never been economic, I rather wish that I had never done it. If my Bill had been in place then, I would not have been allowed to drain that land and we should all have been the richer culturally and environmentally as a result.
  It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister could give a high priority to management agreements at European sites while accepting that the resources required for that purpose should not be made available at the expense of
  250
  other SSSIs or of other schemes that secure conservation benefits in the wider countryside. Having set up the SSSI regime, it would be a tragedy if we found that the European sites competed for the existing resources and that compliance with the existing SSSIs was weakened as a result. I hope that my hon. Friend can give us some assurance in that respect.
  It would also be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could confirm that no SAC will be designated until the resources required to sustain the necessary positive management of the SAC have been secured. What would be the point in us designating an area and then finding that we did not have the resources necessary to ensure that the area was managed according to the regulations?
  Sixthly, regulation 18 provides for any existing notification of operations likely to damage an SSSI to be amended, for the purposes of the directive, at any time. The regulation provides for owners and occupiers to be notified of such amendments, but not for consultation with them. Surely owners and occupiers should have an opportunity to make representations to the nature conservation agencies regarding any amendments that the Minister may make as they already have under the existing SSSI regime. That surely complies with the rules of natural justice. Surely anyone should be able to make representations regarding a change in designation before that designation is made.
  I am also concerned that regulation 18(3) leaves nature conservation agencies to decide which owners or occupiers should be notified of amendments. In view of the penalties likely to face owners and occupiers who damage protected sites without reasonable excuse, surely it is unreasonable for the agencies to have that discretion. It would be helpful for the Minister to outline what opportunities, if any, will be available to the owners and occupiers to question the decision to amend the list of potentially damaging operations in respect of the European site. It would also be helpful if the Minister could explain why it has been decided to give the nature conservation agencies the discretion to decide which owners and occupiers they should notify of the amendments in any one case.
  It would be helpful if the Minister could lay out the parameters for how far outside the designated site—[Interruption.] I can see my hon. Friend looking at his watch. I am a long way through the points that I must make to him. It would be helpful if we could have some idea of how far outside the designated site owners and occupiers will be notified.
  Seventhly, regulations 50 to 59, to which the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has already referred, provide for extant planning permissions that may affect European sites to be reviewed. It is important that compensation is payable to anybody holding such permission which is subsequently modified, discontinued or revoked. I believe that such a provision is contained in regulations 50 to 59, but I know from reading the regulations that they are extremely complicated. It would be helpful to have the Minister's clarification on this point.
  I have in mind the following example. Let us suppose that a quarry was operating and that it was then decided to designate it as a SAC. The quarry might have an existing planning permission. As a result of the designation, its operations might be curtailed or modified in some way. Would the quarry owner receive compensation? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.

  251
  Eighthly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am at the eighth out of 10 points, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be glad to know. I am particularly concerned—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no power to curtail anybody's speech tonight, beyond the final one. I remind the hon. Gentleman and all others that the whole debate has to be contained within an hour and a half.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have come to my eighth point out of 10 so I shall be fairly brief in concluding my speech.
  Eighthly, I am particularly concerned that it appears that some permitted development works by farmers and others could now be disallowed without compensation. That could happen if it were decided under the regulations that planning permission was needed for such works and it was then refused. As the Minister is aware, there are certain permitted development rights under existing planning legislation which can be carried out without planning permission, such as the erection of certain farm buildings, although they have to be notified to the local authority. Under the current system, where permitted development rights may be withdrawn under an article 4 direction, compensation is payable. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why compensation is not to be offered where permitted development rights are withdrawn under the regulations.
  Ninthly, I understand that the provisions relating to planning permission and permitted development in part IV of the regulations apply to any development affecting European sites, whether or not the development lies within their boundaries. I am concerned that that could lead to quite innocuous developments being subject to further consultation and control when they are likely neither significantly nor adversely to affect the European site. One can envisage an immediately adjoining or a not-so- immediately adjoining landowner wishing to carry out a development. He carries it out in all innocence under the existing planning regulations only to be told at some time in the future that he comes within the scope of the regulations. We owe it to all those who may be affected by the regulations to ensure that they are widely publicised in a form that everyone can understand. I am sure that no one will thereby fall foul of them.
  It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how local planning authorities will distinguish between innocuous proposals and those likely to have significantly adverse effects. It would also be helpful if the Minister would agree to review his advice to local authorities on this matter and the regulations themselves if local authorities appear in practice to take an unnecessarily interfering approach to development proposals outside European sites. It is only a matter of human justice that those who live some distance from the site should be well appraised of any possible effects that it might have on their activities.
  Tenthly—and finally, the Minister will be glad to know—article 2(3) of the directive requires that
  "Measures taken pursuant to this directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics."
  That is fundamental to a rural area such as mine. The requirement does not appear in the regulations although —the Minister may be able to give me clarification on this —it may be that regulation 3(2), which gives the Secretary of State powers, but not the ability to issue directions,
  252
  covers the point. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the Government, nature conservation agencies and local authorities will heed that fundamental requirement in all their actions relating to the directive.
  I apologise to the House for that rather long, technical tirade. The regulations are highly technical. They will have a fundamental and long-lasting effect in the conservation of flora and fauna. I welcome that most wholeheartedly. Equally, I ask the Minister to give clarification on the 10 points that I have raised this evening.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Can the Minister tell us exactly how the exclusions will work? We all welcome the codification of the regulations in so far as they bring up to date the European habitats directive, although they are a month late and there are errors in their production, and so on. However, in at least one respect, they weaken the existing nature conservation provisions because of the ease of exclusion. I do not wish to appear to be spoiling the party tonight, but these are important issues as regards exactly how the exclusions will work.
  I am extremely puzzled as to how the regulations are meant to apply and whether one can wriggle out of the protection measures through what one might call Henry VIII powers. In other words, if the Secretary of Slate decides that, in spite of the protection that has been conferred, he wants a development to take place—such as Twyford down or the Cardiff bay barrage—he can then just say that he has decided that there are reasons of an overriding public interest nature for developing. He can thereby reduce or eliminate altogether the nature conservation interest in a marsh, fen or hill, or in a wetland as was the case in the barrage that I mentioned.
  The problem is that we always imagine, when we pass legislation of this type, that it confers real protection. It looks like a bulky document of 70 or 80 pages, it seems to repeat the words "nature conservation interest" and it appears to legislate to protect that interest. However, when one looks at the details, one sees that it is remarkably easy to wriggle out of the obligations if the Secretary of State feels like it. At other times, it seems easy when the European Commission feels like it.
  It is difficult for us to accept that this is a wonderful piece of legislation when there are overriding Henry VIII powers to say that the nature conservation interest is secondary in a particular site to the socio-economic or other interests. Who decides whether it is really an overriding interest? Is it the Secretary of State or the European Commission? It is not clear at all.
  Regulation 24(6) shows the major weakness of the habitats directive compared with the wild birds directive. It states:
  "Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type or a priority species the reasons referred to in paragraph (5) must be either … reasons relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment".
  That was the element that was there before, via the wild birds directive. However, the new element is introduced in the statement that other reasons may be considered
  "which in the opinion of the European Commission are imperative reasons of overriding public interest."
  How do we know what the European Commission will judge as being imperative reasons of overriding public interest? What are the criteria that it will use? Will it be jobs, or simply an opinion, which will have to be

  253
  considered before it is decided that a project is overriding? Must it be a direct employer, such as a new steelworks or a chemical plant where so many thousands will be employed? Will it be a piece of infrastructure such as a road, or a cosmetic piece of infrastructure such as the barrage on the Usk or at Cardiff bay, although they are not direct employers?
  How do we decide what is really an overriding interest? What is to guide the European Commission? We do not know. In certain cases, it appears to be the European Commission that decides—other areas of exclusion are mentioned in regulation 48—while in regulation 49, it appears to be the Secretary of State.
  The document states that the Commission will have the last word in deciding whether to override the provisions of the legislation, so the protection will, all of a sudden, disappear. It says:
  "the competent authority may agree to the plan or project notwithstanding a negative assessment of the implications for the site"
  That is negative in nature conservation terms. It continues that that may take place if there are
  "other reasons which in the opinion of the European Commission are imperative reasons of overriding public interest".
  However, the document continues:
  "The Secretary of State may thereupon, if he thinks fit, seek the opinion of the Commission; and if he does so, he shall upon receiving the Commission's opinion transmit it to the authority."
  Who has the last word? Is it the Secretary of State or the European Commission, and on what do they base it? They must receive advice from the local authority nature conservation body. How do they weigh it? Do they simply say that they like a particular economic or social project and decide that it overrides the nature conservation interest? That is a key area where the legislation weakens the nature conservation protection that is available today.
  We should not delude ourselves and say that this is a great piece of legislation that in all cases strengthens the nature conservation interest. In certain areas, it puts Henry VIII powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and the collective college of cardinals of the European Commission. Those powers are not necessarily in the hands of the Environment Commissioners, because they are a mixed bag and the present one is certainly not interested in the environment at all. They appear to have the last word and they can say that a project of a socio-economic character that they judge to be of overriding public interest is more important than the inherent nature conservation interest in the site. The site will then go for economic development. Perhaps there are good reasons for doing that, but we must know in the legislation how they are to judge it.
  In areas such as south Wales, that is of enormous controversy at the moment. That is because of the way in which the Cardiff bay barrage was handled, the way the Usk barrage proposal is supposed to be handled and the disaster that has already occurred at Tawe barrage. The last has been in place for only two years, but the National Rivers Authority has found serious de-oxygenation and a loss of the ability of migratory fish—the great glory of the Welsh river environment—to find gaps in the fish pass.
  Very rare migratory species such as the allis shad and the twaite shad, which were mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), have a serious difficulty for fish in not being good swimmers. A
  254
  couple of lengths of the baths and they are knackered, one might say. That is a considerable problem for a fish, particularly when it is having to surmount a fish pass. That also applies to salmon, which are extremely strong swimmers. However, there has been a drop in the ability of salmon to move up the estuary to their spawning grounds at the Tawe barrage.
  There are also problems for sea trout which, although they are not a protected species, have to surpass a barrage such as Tawe and the proposed barrages on the Taff Ely and the Usk. They might have to surmount such a barrage up to 12 times in their life cycle, while a salmon may have to do so only two or three times. That is a serious problem, and the conservation interest in such an area can be overridden on the say-so of the Secretary of State without his having to publish the correspondence.
  I have been pressing the Secretary of State for a long time to publish his correspondence with the Environment Commissioners on how Ministers came to their decisions on the Cardiff bay barrage and how those decisions fitted in with the wild birds directive or the habitats directive. However, I cannot get it. Ministers say that the correspondence is confidential. If so, that is a Henry VIII power. The Secretary of State just decides that he feels like it, and does not have to prove that there is an overriding or socio-economic case for doing so. That may then eliminate the nature conservation interest.
  The Secretary of State may just say that he wants to override the nature conservation interests, and he has the power to do it. He does not have to come to the House to explain and he does not have to publish his correspondence with the European Commissioner. I ask the Minister seriously to consider how to expose to public view the reasoning behind the overrides or exclusions in areas where the decision weakens the nature conservation protection. Will he at least place in the Library the exchanges of correspondence which he has with the Environment Commissioner? We would then know why he was doing something, and whether there was or was not an objection from the European Commission and from nature conservation bodies.
  It would be of enormous benefit to the House if the Minister promised to publish any correspondence of the type that he has not been willing to publish on the Cardiff bay barrage. We would know whether there was any reasoning behind a decision, or whether it was a brutal use of Henry VIII powers of the kind which the spirit of the regulations is completely against.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to make a brief contribution to this important debate. As one would expect of someone who was raised on a dairy farm in Devon and who now represents a seat that is flanked to the west by Cornwall, to the north by the delights of Dartmoor, to the south by Plymouth Sound and to the east by the rolling pastures of the South Hams, I have a deep and abiding love of the countryside. I recognise that there are real threats to the wild fauna and flora which must to be protected.
  I welcome the important measure which we are debating this evening as an important further plank in the Government's attempts to introduce that protection. I also welcome the fact that the measure is balanced. Surely balance must be the watchword in all environmental issues

  255
  —the balance between competing interests and between the need to develop economically, to farm and to enjoy the countryside and the vital need to preserve our natural heritage, because once it is gone, it is gone for ever.
  I welcome the Government's proposals for consulting widely on the regulations. Surely it is important to take into account the views of farmers, landowners and groups that regularly use our countryside, on such an important measure.
  The regulations give effect, in United Kingdom law, to the European Union natural habitats directive of 1992. As one who feels that many issues are best dealt with by national Governments and not at a European level, and that subsidiarity is such an important notion, I should be the first to admit that measures to protect the environment from destruction and waste, and anti-pollution measures, are the exceptions. They are best dealt with at European level.
  It is important that the measure is being introduced on a Europe-wide basis, not merely to protect the countryside and fauna and flora throughout Europe, but to ensure that there is, as far as possible, that famous level playing field for industry and taxpayers in each European country.
  One of the many matters on which I join forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who spoke so creditably, is the need for an assurance from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside that similar measures will be enforced effectively throughout Europe. We know that our civil servants will vigorously enforce these protective measures. Can we have an assurance that the measures will be enforced adequately in Greece, Portugal and other European countries, so that a level playing field is introduced?
  Mr. Michael Bates: My hon. Friend has a reputation for a strong interest in this issue. On applying the rules throughout the Community, clearly Britain has a more concentrated industrial area and less land mass is available for conservation areas than in France or Spain, for example. Is it not important that EC directives are applied fairly according to the geographical circumstances of member states?
  Mr. Streeter: That is a valid point and my hon. Friend is right. The regulations have that measure of balance and take into account the geography of the United Kingdom.
  I congratulate the Government on their record on environmental issues. Our Prime Minister took such a strong lead at the Rio conference two years ago. The truth is that many people talk about the environment, but we are the party that introduces environment protection measures. We understand that, to be successful, environment protection must be balanced and must take into account the interests of land users and other groups.
  The measure aims to promote biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna, and it is very welcome. I have some specific questions, however, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with, either in his reply or at some other stage. Schedule 2 of the regulations contains a list of protected species of animal, for example, the bat and the dormouse. That is extremely sensible. I anticipate pressure, however, in years to come to increase the list of protected species, for example, to include foxes and deer.
  I want my hon. Friend's assurance that those who want to ban hunting in this country will not be able to use the
  256
  measure to introduce, through the back door, legislation op which the people have firmly closed the front door. 'The best guardians of the countryside are people who enjoy the countryside and country and field sports. People who participate in hunting are a fine example. So often those who purport to care about animals forget to take nature as it really is. Nature is cruel.
  The wildcat is one of the species protected in schedule 2. My family lives just outside Plympton in Devon and we are the proud owners of two cats, one of which might be described as a wildcat. Since we moved house recently, the cat regularly brings into the house mice, voles and rabbits and eats them before our very eyes. Nature is cruel and people who want to ban hunting should recognise that fact. I want an assurance that schedule 2 of the regulations cannot be used to ban hunting through the back door.
  What will happen if protected species become pests to landowners, farmers and householders? Bats are in the list of protected species. We have bats in the roof of our house and we are stuck with them. Should those bats become a nuisance to us and to our neighbours, what advice can my hon. Friend the Minister give? I hope that the Government have thought the matter through. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may have differing views from the hon. Member who has the Floor, but it is a part of the tradition of the House that those who are expressing their views are given a fair hearing, however unpopular those views might be with others.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you have the power that is given to Madam Speaker under the Mental Health Acts to section a Member, as it is quite clear that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has gone completely loopy?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I should not want such a power—it would be a great temptation.
  Mr. Streeter: As one who has listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in the past two years, I must point out that people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.
  I have another question for my hon. Friend the Minister. What will happen if protected species of flora become a pest to landowners? The species of ragwort that is fatal to horses is greatly threatened in some areas. What will happen if it becomes protected, yet its existence is a real nuisance to wildlife?
  On compliance costs, I mentioned the importance of balance. The regulations take into account the fact that they will have an impact on businesses. For environment protection to be sustainable, it must be affordable. On regulations 11 and 12, what proposals do the Government have for compensating businesses, should the regulations have an unfavourable impact on them?
  Finally, I remember a picture from my childhood—my school playground, where a thistle had grown through the tarmac. Perhaps it was a symbolic representation of how, ultimately, nature cannot be suppressed. It is better to conserve and preserve before nature is under threat; it is better to get the balance between economic development and the protection of natural habitats right in the first place. The regulations are an important step along that road, and I support them.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter). If his speech was an argument for balance, I am against it. The debate tonight is much more urgent and necessary than he suggests. He implied that we are having the debate thanks to the wonderful British Government. That is not so. We are having it thanks to the European Union. Its directive requires us to have a debate to introduce regulations to implement it.
  The key question underlying the debate and the regulations is whether they will make any difference. Some of us are extremely sceptical about that.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman always is.
  Mr. Hughes: I am always sceptical about the Government's determination to deliver such a policy. The evidence commissioned by the Government and produced by officials leads us to believe that habitats, species and biodiversity are under extreme risk and in danger.
  Throughout most of the earth's history, the rate of extinction has been in the order of one to 10 species per year. In the next 30 years, we risk losing between 150,000 and 300,000 species per year. The debate is about what part Britain should play in looking after our bit of the environment. People could produce litanies about the amount of woodland, marshland, wetland and heathland that has been lost.
  Clear statistics exist on how some of the most common species of familiar birds like the robin are much more at risk than they used to be. Last year, the mouse-eared bat became extinct in the United Kingdom—the first mammal to be declared extinct since the wolf in the 1740s. I spent a night in wonderment in Pembrokeshire looking at horseshoe bats, the population of which is down to probably 1 per cent. of its population at the beginning of the century.
  Most significantly, the Government should follow their own evidence on this matter. Let us consider the countryside and habitats as opposed to species. At the end of last year, the Government-commissioned countryside survey of 1990 was published. The broadsheet newspapers carried the following headlines:
  "Decade of decline for wildlife".
  "£m survey reveals decline of this green and pleasant land".
  "Hedgerows in steep decline, department's survey shows".
  In The Daily Telegraph the headline read:
  "Landscape census reveals depth of rural destruction".
  Whether considering hedges, arable fields, weeds, pastures, meadowland, moorland or plant life, the survey showed that there had been significant reductions almost entirely across the board.
  The important point is that the countryside survey covered the period since the implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That, therefore, suggests that the legislation, which the regulations are meant to replicate, has done little to protect the habitats of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman note schedule 4 on page 58 of the order which contains a list of nine plants? The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in 1974–75, I took through the House the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, a private member's Bill. Schedule 2 of that measure listed 21
  258
  species and it was consolidated into the 1991 Act. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in inviting the Minister to tell us what has happened to the 19 species that were listed in the 1975 Act and to establish how many of those species have become extinct in the British Isles?
  Mr. Hughes: I am happy to endorse that request. It would be helpful if the Minister could answer it in his winding-up speech or later on advice.
  The warning note is being sounded not only by Opposition Members and people with a particular interest in species. The last paragraph of the editorial in The Times last autumn following the countryside survey puts the argument as well as anyone:
  "This big island is still too small to have room for savannahs or Saharas, or any more concrete or docklands jungles, or much more motorway. In its pointilliste variety, the countryside survey is a reminder of diversity, the natural British virtue. And a useful warning of the pressures that threaten it. The natives will not forgive their master if they ignore the Domesday warning."
  If the Government are true to the convention which they signed at Rio de Janeiro and which, on environment day this year, they ratified—which we welcomed—if they are true to the goal of that convention, if their policy, as published in their documents, is to conserve and enhance biological diversity in the United Kingdom, they should seek to protect all species. They should not, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton argued, go for a balance whereby it is all right to lose some of them. We must keep the bio-diversity of Britain.
  I should like to ask some questions and to request some answers. First, what additional protection do the regulations give to protected species that wildlife and countryside legislation does not already give? Secondly, in relation to both land-based habitats and marine habitats, is not it right that, because of the huge amount of consultation —to which I do not object—a huge compromise will be built in as a result of the regulations?
  The Government still intend to rely on voluntary arrangements. Although there will be more marine protection under the regulations, all sorts of organisations with separate interests will temper the potential benefit of the regulations. The sea fisheries committee, National Rivers Authority, harbour authorities, local authorities and nature conservation agencies may conspire to mitigate and to reduce the effect of the regulations.
  Thirdly, is it not the case that, after all the consultation, and although I accept the Government's undertaking that they will produce the list, as they are meant to, by 1995, they will produce a minimalist rather than a maximalist set of regulations, which do the minimum that is necessary to comply with the European directive? That has never reflected the urgency of the matter.
  Fourthly, the present law is toothless and flawed. It was not I who used those words, but the Law Lords in the High Court in a major case last year. One said that, because the Wildlife and Countryside Act applied only to owners and occupiers,
  "a stranger who enters the land for a few weeks solely to do some work on it does not fall into that category."
  Therefore, the legislation is insufficient to penalise the fly tipper. Why will not the Minister come to the House with specific proposals that will allow him to say that, as a result, sites will be much more adequately protected?
  Lastly, is it not the case that the only way to make sure that the regulations are effective is to ensure that all countryside and conservation schemes have one simple

  259
  objective: protection and enhancement of current habitats. We are sceptical and we are right to be so. We do not believe that, by the time the Government get around to doing things, many of the remaining habitats will be left to be protected.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: We give the regulations, which are important to nature conservation, a guarded welcome.
  I am sorry that some hon. Members took up much time without raising serious issues, despite the fact that many Labour Members wished to speak. I say to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) that those of us who object to people inflicting pain on animals for fun accept that there is cruelty in the wild, but when the hon. Member for Sutton thinks that it is normal behaviour to come into the House with a live vole and devour it in front of us, we shall accept that it is normal for people to inflict pain on animals.
  The Minister will not be able to reply in detail to all the points that have been made in the debate, but I hope that he will take my points on board along with the other relevant points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  We want to see more monitoring, and my hon. Friend mentioned the need to ensure adequate funds for monitoring. We are concerned that monitoring is being cut. I wrote to the Department about cuts in the contract of the British Trust for Ornithology with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Those cuts will mean that work on integrated population management monitoring will be deferred for 12 months, that work on woodland and farmland habitats will be cut to six months and that: posts designated for recovery processing will be reduced by 20 per cent. These cuts will affect next year's wetland bird survey.
  The British Trust for Ornithology is an extremely cost-effective organisation that provides much reliable scientific data by amateur input, and I am surprised that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has made the cuts. I cannot blame the Minister, as it is a cut within the total budget, not a budget cut, but I hope that he will look at this matter carefully because proper monitoring will not be possible without proper scientific research.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that SSSIs are not necessarily offering protection? My hon. Friend knows well the Thorne and Hatfield moors in my constituency, which have not been protected despite their SSSI status. If the Government make Thorne moors a special area of conservation, will he join me in hoping that it will offer more protection than it has had previously?
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is well known for his campaigning for Thorne moors, which are a fine example of raised peat bog. I hope that the Minister takes that into account.
  We are a bit sceptical about the Government's record on hedgerow protection. Linear habitat has been mentioned, and the Government made the introduction of a hedgerows Bill a manifesto commitment. We do not think that leaving
  260
  it to a private Member's Bill, with all the difficulties associated with it, meets their manifesto commitment or shows proper concern and priority for habitat protection.
  We must draw attention to resources. About £3 billion goes into agriculture, about 4 per cent. of which is committed to the habitat directive and 1 per cent. to the agri-environment package. We have no idea how species such as otters, dormice, native pinewoods, orchids and rich grasslands will be protected—an issue of concern to the wildlife trusts.
  The concern about monitoring is shared by organisations such as the National Farmers Union, which made points about consultation and made further sensible points about the need for proper resources to conduct monitoring.
  We should have liked pond protection to be included in the regulations, as the excellent document of the Council for the Protection of Rural England outlined. But, above all, we believe that the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not adequate. There are problems with protecting SSSIs and with compensation agreements. We would rather see the voluntary principle apply. We recognise that many landowners have an excellent record on habitat protection.
  One of my local farmers, Ted Harland, has done tremendous work on his farm to help the environment, and that needs to be recognised, but others have abused the compensation system and obtained millions from the taxpayer without doing much in terms of conservation or habitat protection. Some management agreements are worth more than if the Government had bought the land.
  Those are the issues that need to be looked at. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to them.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Atkins: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) spoke of problems with SSSIs. More than 6,000 SSSIs cover 8 per cent. of Great Britain. Some damage is sometimes inevitable, but in the vast majority of examples the damage is short term and such that the site can recover from it. In 1992–93, for example, there were only 153 cases of recorded damage, and all but a few are expected to recover completely. That represents a loss of 0.001 per cent.—11 hectares out of 858,000 hectares, whatever they are. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, as I said, I shall do what I can to ensure that we get the information, although I understand that there are some difficulties about that.
  I recently paid a visit to the Game Conservancy and was fascinated to learn about the work that it has been doing recently on the effects of set aside- and how it can encourage farmers and landowners to reattract birds like the corn bunting, the grey partridge and others. If the hon. Member for Knowsley, North gets an opportunity to go to the Game Conservancy, I recommend that he does so. He will find that it exists not only for those who enjoy hunting but that it conducts much worthwhile work; it is worth a visit.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned peat bogs—a subject dear to my heart. I have some in my constituency, but as a Minister in Northern Ireland I was instrumental in drawing up a document that went a long way to trying to save the remaining few peat bogs in Northern Ireland. As he will know, in the north-west and Lancashire there is a

  261
  substantial number of bogs and we are pleased that Fisons and English Nature have reached an agreement that will ensure their future.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and other hon. Members mentioned resources. We are as concerned as they are to ensure that resources are made available, although this must be considered in the context of the public expenditure round. We are proud of the fact that last year resources for agencies increased by 7.6 per cent. I cannot, with my Secretary of State sitting alongside me, guarantee that we shall be able to do the same again, but we intend to do so if we can.
  A number of other important issues were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who I now forgive because I understand the reasons for his raising them, and I promise faithfully that I shall deal with them by writing to all hon. Members because time will not permit me to deal with them at length. My hon. Friend emphasised the importance of the owners and users of some of the areas concerned. I met wildfowlers on the Ribble marshes and know how much they have done to ensure growth of wildfowl in the area. That was admitted by English Nature.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) was entirely right about consultation. There are problems with bats in churches and they should not be underestimated. He will not find me in favour of the anti-hunting stance—
  It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER —put the Question, pursuant to Order [15 July].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

  Assisted Places
  8.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
  That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
  As the House will know from debates in previous years, the draft regulations have a specific, straightforward purpose. They simply update the principal regulations, the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989. Essentially, they implement the annual uprating of the parental contribution tables, and thus set out the amounts parents must pay towards their child's assisted place at a participating independent school in the coming year. If approved, the amended regulations will come into force on 26 August 1994.
  I shall confine my remarks to the effect of this annual uprating. First, regulation 2 increases the allowance made for each dependent child, other than the assisted place holder, against parents' total relevant income when calculating their contribution to school fees. The allowance is raised from £1,125 to £1,140, in line with inflation, and will maintain the help for families with more than one child.
  Regulation 3 sets out the income bands used for assessing parents' contributions to fees. Like the dependant's allowance, the bands have been uprated in line with the 1.4 per cent. movement in the retail prices index to October last year.
  The income threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is correspondingly raised from £9,225 to £9,352 a year. There are corresponding increases in the thresholds for the higher income bands. The effect is that parents whose relevant income has risen in line with inflation will continue to contribute the same proportion of that income and, indeed, the same amount in real terms.
  I commend the regulations to the House.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Minister for managing to give us that speech, despite the great efforts that he was having to make with his breathing. Obviously, it would not be appropriate to go into that subject now.
  I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in his seat. A Liberal Democrat press release issued this evening seems to show that the hon. Member for Bath is, for departmental purposes, a non-person. He is described in the press release as a declared presidential candidate.
  But there is a total blank as regards the education brief of the Liberal Democrats. There is mention of a home affairs team leader, community and urban affairs, foreign affairs and defence, Europe, Treasury, environment, health and welfare, but nothing about education. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bath is at least present in person, even if his brief has disappeared off the end of the Liberal Democrat press release.
  I shall return to the substantive issue of the assisted places scheme. Tonight's debate gives the Labour party the opportunity once again to make it clear that we believe that the scheme is an ineffective use of taxpayers' money in the education world. While we would not want to disturb the

  263
  education of any child currently holding an assisted place, we would phase out the scheme and use the money for better purposes.
  At present, it appears that few people know about the existence of the assisted places scheme. An opinion poll that took a sample of more than 2,000 people last autumn showed that only about 40 per cent. knew of the scheme's existence, and even fewer knew exactly how to go about finding out about it.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bearing with me during my breathless introduction. Is he going to argue that uprating should not be made? He will be aware that the measure is purely and simply to uprate the existing provision, and has nothing to do with the principle. Is he about to argue that he is against the uprating even though the order cannot do away with the regulations and the scheme itself, as he has said he would like to do?
  Mr. Griffiths: In his introduction, the Minister mentioned the modest increases this year. We believe that, given the levels of inflation and the unsatisfactory nature of the scheme, it would be as well to leave the scheme as it is, rather than do anything more with it. We will phase out the scheme when given the opportunity.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Many poor children benefit from the scheme. There are many children in my constituency whose families have a low income and who have benefited from and enjoyed the scheme. Some children are well on their way through the scheme and are making good progress in life. Will the Labour party take away that opportunity from poor children? It would be a very spiteful thing to do.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should realise how few people benefit, in his terms, from the assisted places scheme. There are more than 3 million—almost 3.25 million—pupils in secondary education in this country at present, of which fewer than 30,000 participate in the assisted places scheme. We are talking about less than 1 per cent. of the secondary school population. More than half the parents of those pupils who participate in the scheme went to private schools. The only survey that I know that has been done about the social background of children on the assisted places scheme showed that only 7 per cent. came from families with a manual background.
  A large number of families participating in the scheme have below-average incomes—I am not disputing that. But the fact that more than half the pupils who have assisted places have families with professional and managerial backgrounds is more a comment on the very poor rewards given to such people under a Conservative Government. The sum of more than £90 million spent on the assisted places scheme could be better used on improving the educational opportunities of poor children.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is generous to give way for the second time. I shall not be boring and constantly intervene, but I should remind the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. David Jamieson: That will make a change.
  Mr. Greenway: I shall certainly remind that boring hon. Gentleman, who is making absurd remarks from a sedentary position and who knows nothing about education
  264
  —other hon. Members should pay no attention to him—that education is about principles. If we forget that, and argue in awful pragmatic terms, we make no progress in education, and forget children.
  Has the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) forgotten the example of Parmiters grammar school in east London—a two-stream grammar school which took 60 children a year? The Labour Government of the day said that the school was wrecking the surrounding 18 comprehensive schools by creaming off 60 children a year, so they closed Parmiters school, which moved to Hertfordshire.
  The 60 children a year were distributed among the 18 comprehensives and sank without trace. The opportunity that those children lost has never been regained. If the Labour party is to talk about principles, it should mean what it says.
  Mr. Griffiths: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was Lady Thatcher who closed more grammar schools than any other Secretary of State for Education in history. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman ever allowed such things to happen. What influence did he have at the time all this was happening?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have let the hon. Gentleman respond, just as I allowed the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to intervene, but this debate is about the uprating of the assisted places scheme. As we have now let off some steam, from now on we must get back to what the order is about.
  Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The order is about increasing the money available for the assisted places scheme, as you rightly say. The Opposition believe that that is not the most effective way of using the money in the education budget; it should be used to give all the children who need help the right start in education.
  In 1992–93, the latest date for which we have definitive Department figures, £92.8 million was spent on the scheme. Confirming the increases in the course of his breathless introduction, the Minister did not tell us what the overall cost would be—but I guess that it will amount to many millions of pounds.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I believe I am right in saying that the uprating will not cost anything, because the parents will pay more. The hon. Gentleman is therefore tilting at windmills. He has agreed that the scheme costs £90 million; I understand that the uprating will be borne by the parents.
  Mr. Griffiths: No, the uprating means that more money will also be paid out. The figures for the Department for Education are to be found on page 3 of the 1994–95 to 1996–97 Government expenditure plans. The estimated outturn for 1993–94 is £95 million, rising the following year to £102 million, then to £106 million and on to £110 million in 1996–97. Thus, more money is indeed to be spent on the scheme.
  The money is being spent in schools where the fees range from, on 1992–93 figures, £2,790 to £9,210. Fifty schools are receiving more than £500,000 apiece each year. About 70 schools rely on this income to cover the education of about 20 per cent. of their pupils.
  It is interesting to note that, although the Government are spending all this money, there would appear to be either

  265
  some mismanagement in the scheme or an underestimate of expenditure on it—or perhaps the schools in question are charging fees that go well beyond inflation. In April this year, we were told that 28,764 pupils participated in the scheme—0.89 per cent. of all secondary school pupils. Yet the departmental report published a month earlier pointed out that the maximum number of places available under the scheme was 33,593. That means that roughly 5,000 available places were not taken up, partly because the funding was apparently exhausted.
  Incidentally, these places cost an average £3,236 each. In Wales, that figure is even higher: 691 pupils receive an average of £3,556, from a total of almost £2.5 million. If one compares those figures with the average weighting for school pupils aged between 11 and 16, one will see that it is just £1,554 in state schools. The standard spending assessment, used to calculate education expenditure, is £2,741—considerably less than the amounts made available through the assisted places scheme.
  The point about our objection to the continuing increase and the uprating of all aspects of the assisted places scheme is that money is being spent in a way that does not fairly give opportunities to everybody.
  Both Her Majesty's inspectorate, when it was monitoring standards in schools, and the Audit Commission, looked exhaustively at the results of the schools that participate in the scheme, as compared with those in the state sector, and found no significant difference. The Minister has come to tell us today that all that uprating is taking place, yet the money is being spent on schools that are no better than those in the state sector, and are costing the taxpayer much more.
  Mr. George Kynoch: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is proposing to oppose an uplift. Does he accept that he is imposing significant hardship on those already participating in the assisted places scheme, and that that is inconsistent with his view—that he wishes to phase it out rather than stop it instantly, because he does not wish to cause hardship to those people? Is there not a distinct inconsistency in his argument?
  Mr. Griffiths: No. If the rate of inflation were much higher, there could be arguments about that, but we are talking about what, in essence, is a modest change overall to the scheme. I accept, therefore, that we are not going to cause any significant hardship to the people involved in taking the privilege granted to them by the Government. In the main, it does not go to children from families with a manual background, which was the declared purpose of the scheme when it was first established.
  If the Government want to spend money in a more effective fashion, the Department for Education should consult the Home Office and divert enough money into section 11 funding, where it would be of significant use in helping children who have difficulties with the English language to have a good start in life and the education they require.
  Mr. Forth: I want to help the hon. Gentleman and the House by putting something into context. The hon. Gentleman used the quaint term "manual occupations" a number of times. Given his background and conditions, I
  266
  can understand that he might be rather hung up on that, but I offer the House something that is more relevant to the broader view.
  Some 60 per cent. of assisted places scheme parents have relevant incomes of less than £13,500 per annum. Some 40 per cent. of parents have incomes below the current threshold of £9,225 per annum, and their children qualify for free assisted places. Therefore, if we can get away from the obsession with manual occupations and just look at income levels, the scheme, I submit, is very successful in helping those with low incomes to get access to an area of education that would otherwise be denied to them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I must point out to the Minister that I have already referred to that information—perhaps while he was searching for it. I pointed out that, although only 7 per cent. of the children participating were from families of a manual background, more than 50 per cent. were from families with professional and managerial backgrounds, and more than half the parents had had a private education themselves. Perhaps it was a reflection of the Government's mismanagement of the economy, but they still did not have particularly high wages.
  The argument is not about the less than 1 per cent. of secondary schoolchildren who could benefit from the scheme but about whether the money could be better used to help the children of low-income parents. That could be done, but this is not the appropriate debate to deal with that in detail. However, it is about time that the Public Accounts Committee looked to see whether there is any value for money in the scheme and whether the money could be better spent in other areas to help the children of low-income families.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I know from my long experience in education that diversity of provision is the fundamental principle by which our children are educated. That must mean schools of every kind—mixed, single-sex, voluntary, grant-maintained, grammar and independent. That is necessary because children are so different, and the measure takes account of those fundamental differences. A child must be suited to an institution. The only logical outcome of the response by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) to the proposals is uniformity of school provision.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The immediate removal of the scheme would have virtually no impact on the vast majority of private schools. Secondly, not all comprehensive schools are the same, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that. There is a huge diversity in comprehensives.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate should address the desirability or otherwise of amending the criteria for eligibility for the assisted places scheme. It is not a general debate on education policy. I shall be pretty strict about that.
  Mr. Greenway: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The principle behind the measure is the preservation of a scheme that will be seriously impaired and will perhaps fall if the measure is not passed. If it falls, an important leg of the diverse provision that is required for our children

  267
  will be removed. That is the basis of my argument and of my challenge to the hon. Member for Bridgend, who challenged me in an extraordinary way.
  Mr. Don Foster: So that the House may understand where the hon. Gentleman's argument is taking us, may I ask whether it is his premise that, if the assisted places scheme were to be scrapped, the independent schoolS sector would also disappear?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is not suggesting that.
  Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend. She is right: of course I suggested no such thing. I spoke of the assisted places scheme being removed as a result of the challenge mounted by the Labour and Liberal parties, whose spokesmen have given their word that, if either party were elected to government—in my opinion, they never will be again—their policy would be to remove the assisted places scheme.
  That would not mean the end of those schools, but poor children would no longer be able to go to them. Thai is the crucial matter, and it is the business that is before the House.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The mix would go. There would be a much narrower range of children able to go to those schools.
  Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said in an intervention when the hon. Member for Bridgend so generously gave way to me, if we cease to argue principles in terms of education, even if a provision is made available only to a small number of children, we are not arguing education at all.
  Let me draw a parallel with the regulations. A small number of children qualify under special needs legislation —I am not digressing, I simply draw a parallel—but if we removed that provision, what damage would be caused to those children?
  Mr. Win Griffiths indicated dissent.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Bridgend shakes his head, but fewer children require special needs provision than ultimately take advantage of education under the assisted places scheme. Definition is very important:.
  Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall give way just once more.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman continues down this road, the Chair will not accept it.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way. May I point out that about 2 per cent. of children have statements, which is more than double the number in the assisted places scheme? If we went beyond statemented pupils, we would be talking about a far greater number, and there is no way in which the two should be equated.
  Mr. Greenway: I am not going beyond statemented pupils; I am talking about a certain level of statemented pupils. My cut-off point was lower than the number of children on the assisted places scheme.
  If we took the 2 per cent. of children in maintained schools who are or who ought to be statemented, we would still be arguing the principle, and if we took away the
  268
  provision that is required to be made for them, we would damage their education enormously. The same would be true if we took away the special provision for gifted children and very poor children which the assisted places scheme represents.
  In education, it is no good speaking simply in pragmatic terms or—I do not say this meanly or rudely—deteriorating to the level of argument that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House this evening. It is thoroughly unworthy, but it is typical of how the Labour party is arguing about education at present. It is limiting on many levels, and that is why the Labour party is losing, and will continue to lose, the argument on education in Britain at every level.
  Who in the end is damaged by the attitude to education of the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party but the poor of the nation? What does the hon. Gentleman stand up and say? He says, "I am here championing the children of blue collar workers.". He is doing the opposite and damaging the children of blue collar workers, and the tragedy is that he does not realise it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "He does realise it.] If he does, it is unforgivable, but if he does not, it is his loss and his own ignorance. I put that to him, and I ask him to wake up.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to begin by making an apology. During Education questions last week, I inadvertently and incorrectly attributed to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), a quotation which appears in column 817 of the Official Report. Although I rapidly discovered my error before it was pointed out to me by anybody else, and contacted the Minister's office to apologise, I wish to place on record my apology to the Minister and to withdraw my allegation that he had made such a statement.
  I cannot, however, withdraw my opposition to the regulations before us, but I was grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for attempting to create a level playing field between myself and the Minister.
  We all noticed how breathless the Minister was when he delivered his speech, but the hon. Gentleman's reference to a Liberal Democrat press release took my breath away, so the Minister and I are in somewhat similar circumstances this evening.
  This is my third opportunity to contribute to debates on these regulations. Both last year and the year before I made it absolutely clear that I did not believe it helpful to view the independent sector as the perpetrator of all that is wrong in our still, sadly, class-ridden society. However, I do not accept that the taxpayers' money that the Government are spending on the independent sector is money well spent. It cannot be right to spend money to ensure that pupils benefit from the supposedly superior education in independent schools when there is no real evidence that that is providing value for money. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) would be especially concerned about that.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that an impressive 90 per cent. of assisted places scheme pupils go on to university or other forms of higher education and that a high success rate—98 per cent.—is achieved at A-level? Does not that represent

  269
  value for money, bearing in mind the fact that the cost for each pupil is £3,405, whereas the cost for a pupil in Tower Hamlets is £4,177? Surely it represents excellent value for money.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because his comments lead me to the next point that I had intended to make.
  In our previous two debates, I raised with the Minister my concern about value for money and I asked him to provide evidence that that was being achieved. On both occasions, he provided the very evidence that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has cited as evidence of value for money. However, as all hon. Members know, with the assisted places scheme comes a selection procedure that ensures that the pupils who benefit from the scheme are those who, in any case, are the most likely to achieve the sort of results referred to by the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for Bridgend pointed out, there is no evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate or from Ofsted that the scheme provides value for money in terms of increased educational benefits for those pupils who participate in it.
  It cannot be right for money—we will return to the question of specific amounts when the Minister replies—to be used primarily to prop up a number of independent schools that find themselves in increasing difficulties. I am sure that a number of hon. Members will have seen last weekend's article in The Sunday Times. It pointed out that a number of independent schools were pegging their fees because they were finding significant difficulty in attracting pupils. They are holding down the fee levels in an attempt to reverse the drift away by parents struggling to pay their bills.
  As evidence of that possible connection, it is worth noting that one of the schools mentioned in the article is Dulwich college. That school happened to receive the largest amount of money—£1.3 million—from the assisted places scheme last year. As the hon. Member for Bridgend said, a number of other independent schools also receive a significant proportion of their income from the scheme. For example, at Wisbech grammar school more than 50 per cent. of its pupils are covered by the scheme and at four other schools more than 40 per cent. are covered.
  There is some concern about the way the money is being spent and about accountability. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who has left the Chamber, said that she believed that the regulations do not involve any additional money being spent on the scheme. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will confirm how much money is intended to be spent on the scheme in the forthcoming financial year. Indeed, the Minister told us earlier—from a sedentary position—that he was more than happy to confirm that it would be many millions of pounds. How many millions are we talking about? In 1991–92, the scheme was overspent by £10 million.
  Answers given by the Minister to parliamentary questions over the past two or three months are very revealing. They demonstrate that the annual cost of the assisted places scheme has doubled over the past six years, to reach the amount—nearly £93 million—referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Bridgend. During that time, the number of pupils benefiting from the scheme has risen by only 6 per cent. I do not think that even the hon.
  270
  Member for Ealing, North would consider that to be evidence of value for money. Moreover, the cost to the public purse of each assisted place has risen by 40 per cent. in the past five years.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Foster: Does the Minister wish to correct my figures?
  Mr. Forth: No. I was merely wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had to hand the comparable figures for the maintained sector. I would not mind betting that, if he examined the number of pupils in that sector and the real cost of educating them, he would find a similar escalation. Although he has made an interesting observation, I do not think that the figures that he has cited are grossly out of line with the maintained sector as a whole.
  Mr. Foster: That, too, is an interesting point. I shall make the comparison after the debate. The Minister should bear in mind, however, the fact that, if the rate of increase continues—and if he is correct in his prediction that, by 1995, 35,000 assisted places will be available—the total cost to the Exchequer in that financial year will be some £140 million. That will be many millions of pounds indeed, which some would argue could be better spent on other aspects of education.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments. In the light of what he has said so far, would he care to tell us whether his party's policy would be to close down the assisted places scheme?
  Mr. Foster: My party has made it clear that we do not feel able to support the scheme as it is currently organised, and that we would remove it. Like the hon. Member for Bridgend, we have also said that we would remove it in such a way that pupils currently benefiting would not be disadvantaged.
  I suspect that the difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for Bridgend is this. My party has no antipathy to the independent schools sector, and has made clear its wish to explore ways in which a far better relationship could be built between it and the state sector. We have mentioned a number of ways in which that is already being done. There are a number of ways in which staff in independent and state schools work, train and develop together, and such action could replace the assisted places scheme.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, I must finish. Other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Because of our concern about the lack of evidence of value for money, and about the escalating cost of the scheme—there is no evidence that it is providing real benefit, and it does not help the wider community—we shall not be able to support the regulations.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I shall be brief. The debate so far has been shot through with inconsistencies. For example, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that his party would not destroy the scheme in a way that would upset the children currently benefiting from it so, clearly, he believes that it does benefit children, or he

  271
  would not have used those words. Members of Labour's Front Bench have made it perfectly clear that by opposing the regulations they want to send a clear signal that they intend to destroy first, the assisted places scheme and, secondly, I have no doubt, the independent sector as a whole.
  We need to take into account the fact that the cost of the assisted places scheme is very small as a proportion of the total cost of education and that it is trivial compared to the amount of money that the independent sector saves the taxpayer by educating large numbers of children entirely at their parents' expense. In Kent, we believe that we need to do all that we can to preserve variety in education. Kent has fought a long and valiant battle to retain a variety of different kinds of education and schools. It is entirely proper that families of limited income should have made available to them the opportunity, if they so choose, to send their children to a school which they could otherwise not afford.
  Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, although there may be differences or nuances between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in this debate, there is no difference between their offensive behaviour towards freedom of choice and parental choice in Kent?
  Mr. Rowe: Sadly, I must confirm that that is so. Whatever the Liberal Democrats may say nationally, what they say in Kent is extremely hostile to that county's choice.
  There are many reasons why parents choose to send their children to be educated in the independent sector. It is by no means common for them to believe mindlessly that an independent school is inevitably better than a state school. They might choose to send their children to an independent school because they like its Christian ethos or the fact that it places an emphasis on music, science or has some other distinctive element of its own. If they choose to send their children to such a school, and if there is a limited scheme available to make it possible even though their own means do not extend to it, that is part of the rich diversity of education. It allows for comparisons to be made.
  I suggest that the one thing that the Minister should take away from the debate is the clear message that we should think not only about inputs but outputs. We should be sure not only that the children who attend independent schools benefit therefrom—my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) made it clear that a substantial number do —but that the schools which participate in the scheme are the best for the purpose. That cannot necessarily be judged on results alone; it may have to do with the culture at the school and whether it welcomes and sustains children from families of limited means.
  I know from personal experience as a schoolmaster and as a pupil at an expensive school that it can be extremely worrying for children to be in a school where virtually every other child comes from a family with an income far greater than his family's. Unless a school takes that on board, welcomes a child and makes the differences in family income unobvious, it can be a damaging rather than a sustaining experience.
  Having said that, I believe that the assisted places scheme is valuable. The extraordinarily modest uprating, which is a clear indication of the control which the Government have exercised over inflation, is worth while, and I commend the regulations to the House.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I was pleased to be flattered by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) who called me a boy earlier in the debate. It was clearly my youthful good looks and my boyish disposition which made him make such a comment.
  Before the House divides on the matter of increasing the amount which we spend on the assisted places scheme, I hope that both of the points that I shall make, if not one of them only, will be widely supported. First, almost £100 million was being spent on the assisted places scheme, sending 28,674 children to independent schools last year. That, by definition, must have created empty spaces in state schools. I put to the House the simple point that it is not only the cost of the assisted place that we shall have to bear, but the cost of the place left behind, empty in a local state school, that the taxpayer will have to underwrite. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.
  Mr. Hawkins: How does that square with the Labour party's complaints about overcrowding in classrooms? Surely, if a child benefiting from an assisted place leaves a space behind, that has the benefit of creating a lower class size, of which the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesmen repeatedly say that they are in favour.
  Mr. Jamieson: That is rather a banal point. I am sony to have to explain to the hon. Gentleman that there is a difference between class size and empty places in schools. Many classes are of well over 30 children and some are of above 40, but other places in classrooms may be available. To save the time of the House, if the hon. Gentleman wants to see me some time later, I could explain it to him in a little more detail.
  I hope that the other point that I wish to make receives wide support in the House. The Government have set store by the accountability of schools and that there should be proper accountability of public money—whether a relatively small amount of £100,000 or a substantial amount. Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who spoke of small amounts of money, I do not consider £100 million of public money a small amount. I consider that to be a substantial amount of public money. The spending of such money should be properly accountable through the House because the money is directed through the Department of Education and through the Minister.
  Mr. Forth indicated assent.
  Mr. Jamieson: I note that the Minister nods in approval to that.
  I shall not rehearse all the arguments for and against the assisted places scheme, as that has been ably done by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). However, I should like to argue for accountability for the amounts of money being spent on the assisted places scheme. If parents choose to send their children to a private or independent school and pay the whole fee themselves, it is their responsibility to undertake to ensure that that money is well spent and that their children are receiving the type of education for which the parents are paying.
  I shall not argue with that. It is right and correct. However, if the taxpayer is having to pay a substantial amount of the cost of that education, the taxpayer, or at least the guardians of the taxpayers' money, have a role to

  273
  play in ensuring that the way in which that money is expended is accountable through the proper channels of the Government.
  The Government have placed great stress on having a four-year cycle of Office for Standards in Education reports for schools, that those reports should be made public and that they should receive public discussion. I have no argument with that. Ofsted reports—Her Majesty's inspectors' reports, as they used to be—should be the subject of proper public debate and should certainly be available to parents. Indeed, they should be available to those who are underwriting and paying for those schools.
  There is no obligation for independent schools to have any form of inspection. The Minister will know that, as earlier this year he gave me an answer in which he told me that very few private independent schools had had any form of inspection. For the schools that have had inspections, there is no obligation to make the report public and there is no obligation to send it to parents, as there is in the case of a local education authority or maintained school.
  Earlier this year, I brought to the Minister's attention the cases of private independent schools—very few—that had had Ofsted reports. Some of the reports were very good and some were mediocre. I came across some that were exceedingly poor. A constituent who had a child at one of the schools asked the school whether he could have a copy of the Ofsted report that had been made last May. He was told by the school that it was not sending out copies of the Ofsted report.
  If that had been a state or local education authority school, the head teacher would be breaking the law if he declined to send out a report. Because this school was a private school which received most of its money from the taxpayer, not through the assisted places scheme, but through a different scheme—the service boarding school allowance—for which the same principle applies, the parent asked for the report and the request was denied. He was told that he could not see the report. My view is that the same rules should apply to private independent schools that benefit from money under the assisted places scheme as apply to state and maintained schools.
  Before the Minister considers increasing the amount that will be spent under the scheme—I am not arguing tonight about the rights or wrongs of the scheme—given, as all hon. Members would agree, that substantial amounts of taxpayers' money are being spent on it, will he agree to the following? If a private or independent school receives money from the taxpayer, it should be subject to the same four-year cycle of Ofsted reports as maintained or local education authority schools. Such a report should then be made public so that parents can see it and so that the local public can have an open debate on it. If the Minister agreed to that, he would considerably assist some of the private independent schools and he would certainly help the whole sector. I look forward to his comments on the matter tonight.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I must disappoint the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and tell him that I cannot follow him in his doctrine of the empty place. I found his arguments on that point
  274
  unpersuasive and almost identical to the arguments that Labour Members advanced in the past against open enrolment and in favour of imposing artificial admission limits on popular schools, thus limiting parental choice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) drew our attention earlier in the debate to the immediate consequence of the House failing to approve the regulations. The consequence would be that parents on modest incomes would find themselves less able to afford the cost of their children's education at schools running the assisted places scheme. It is not difficult, either, to envisage the longer-term consequences of a future Government choosing to abolish the assisted places scheme.
  We have, after all, a pretty exact historical precedent. During the 1970s, the blessed Mrs. Shirley Williams abolished the direct grant scheme, the ancestor of the scheme that we are debating today. In practical terms, that meant that, whereas people such as myself had been able to benefit from the educational opportunities offered by council scholarships and the direct grant, other generations of children were not able to benefit in the same way. The schools concerned went down the route of full independence and I believe that that is the route which the schools participating in the assisted places scheme would take were this scheme also to be withdrawn.
  The abolition of the assisted places scheme would increase social segregation, not diminish it. I frankly found it astounding to hear yet again the canard from Opposition spokesmen that some independent schools are being propped up by the assisted places scheme. When the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) cited Dulwich college as an example of an ailing school, I began to understand why he had been airbrushed out of his party's press release.
  The truth is that the head teachers of the schools taking part in the assisted places scheme are themselves committed to providing an education which rests both on academic excellence and on the enlargement of opportunity for the greatest number of pupils from all backgrounds, regardless of social pedigree, race or religion.
  What dismays and genuinely saddens me about the debates that we have each year about the assisted places scheme is that Opposition Members betray what seem to me to be the proudest elements of their own history. There was once a time when the Labour movement was in favour of enlarging opportunities for good education for children from poor areas.
  We now see Opposition Members who took advantage of the opportunities of scholarships to public schools, direct grant schools and grammar schools and who, having seized the opportunities for themselves, now want to kick away the ladders so that none of the plebs can climb up behind them. I believe that the scheme is in the interests of education and of equality of opportunity and social diversity in this country.
  I shall be glad to support my hon. Friend the Minister this evening.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Win GriffithsWe have had a very interesting debate about the uprating provided for under the order. I shall repeat one or two of the points which are relevant,

  275
  particularly to the remarks of the previous speaker, but also to the difference in approach to the provision of education taken by Members on either side of the House.
  On the whole, the Government seem to put forward exclusive schemes in which only a very small minority can participate. I would remind hon. Members once again that fewer than 1 per cent. of children participate in the assisted places scheme. Of that 1 per cent., fewer than 2,500 are from the sort of background to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was pleased to refer in terms of Labour party history.
  The Labour party wants to make sure that the opportunities which were previously available to only a few are available to all. After all, the proportion of people who passed the 11-plus depended on the local authority area in which they lived. The proportion might vary tremendously across the country. I was fortunate in being brought up in an area where about half the primary school pupils went on to grammar school. Frankly, the education provided in secondary moderns was nowhere near the same, and the amount of money spent on pupils in either sector was quite different as well.
  We want to ensure that money spent on education enlarges the opportunities of 100 per cent. of children and not a mere I per cent. That is the difference between the two parties. From the Government, we have scheme after scheme to provide additional funding for small groups—1 per cent. here, 4 per cent. there and 2 per cent. somewhere else. All in all, the schemes encompass fewer than 10 per cent. of all pupils in secondary schools. We want to ensure that all children receive a good-quality education in their local school or, if parents' circumstances decree that they want to look at another school, that they should have that choice.
  Let us make no bones about it: as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pointed out, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in expenditure on the assisted places scheme in six years, with only a 6 per cent. increase in the number of pupils participating.
  One cannot make similar comparisons from the latest Department for Education expenditure plan report. On the figures with which one can make a comparison, however, between 1988–89 and 1992–93 there was a 6 per cent. increase in participation in the assisted places scheme, but its costs increased by about 80 per cent. For voluntary schools in the same period, expenditure increased by 16 per cent and local education authority expenditure on secondary schools increased by 28 per cent. I admit that I have worked that out without a calculator and in rather a hurry. If I were given different figures—
  Mr. Don Foster: I gave the calculations.
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I must not forget the contribution of the hon. Member for Bath. We have clearly shown that expenditure on the assisted places scheme goes far beyond that on other sectors of state education.
  Once again, we oppose the uprating as a point of principle. We should be giving opportunities not to the few, but to everyone.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Forth: You would not want me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be tempted into a debate on the broad principles of the assisted places scheme. This is neither the time nor the occasion to do so. However much I enjoyed
  276
  my hon. Friends' contributions, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who dwelt on the theme of diversity of education and reminded the House of the extent to which Conservative Members want to give increasing choice to parents—covering grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, technical colleges, grammar schools, voluntary-controlled schools and the independent sector—I am sure that you would not want me to dwell on any of that. Nor would you want me to point out that virtually all those schools are under direct threat from the Opposition parties. It would be wrong for me to take up the time of the House in that way.
  Equally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would probably look askance if I dwelt excessively on the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). He pointed out so ably the opportunities that the scheme gives the less privileged, partly as a direct contrast to the perceptions of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who was obsessed by manual workers. That seems a quaint way of looking at the subject, but it is his way and I respect him for that, of course.
  I would not necessarily even want to dwell on the value-for-money argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) outlined. He pointed out, rather succinctly, that it costs much more to educate a pupil in Tower Hamlets than to educate a pupil through the assisted places scheme. None of that is directly relevant to the debate, and I am sure that my hon. Friends would not want me to waste their time by going through those points at length.
  What is relevant to the debate is that we are talking about £100 million. Yes, it is a lot of money, but it has to be put in context, as it is £100 million out of a total of £17 billion spent on education. We are introducing a very modest increase, which is tied to the retail price index, as is right at this stage. It allows us to balance the real benefits brought to many pupils and parents, by giving them access to an area of education to which they would not otherwise have access. We have proposed a modest increase to allow that to continue, which will be of great value not only to parents and pupils, but to society because it will provide diversity in education, in which Conservative Members passionately believe.
  It is right to say that we should consider outputs and not inputs. That is the theme for the Department for Education and the Secretary of State for Education, and in the maintained sector and beyond. We must ask ourselves how much young people benefit from the assisted places scheme and we are doing so.
  Mr. Jamieson: Before the Minister concludes his speech, will he deal with the points that I made to him? If independent schools are so good, what have they to fear from having a four-year Ofsted report that will be made public to parents in particular?
  Mr. Forth: At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall say that independent schools have nothing to fear from that. These are matters for Ofsted, an independent department of Government. I am sure that Ofsted will want to move in the direction that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It has nothing to fear and nor have we. In the first place, he should take the matter up directly with Ofsted. We can return to the issues as appropriate, but not in this debate.
  Dr. Spink: Bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) took advantage of the independent sector, does not my hon. Friend believe that it is singularly hypocritical of the Opposition to oppose the uprating? Such opposition could deny able children of poor families the opportunity to take advantage of the independent sector.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that before deciding how to vote on this matter hon. Members on both sides of the House will give serious thought to what would happen if we were to deny parents and pupils the modest uprating. They should think of the children who would be denied access to the excellence of the independent sector. That is what is at stake; that is the issue. I hope that hon. Members will whole-heartedly support the regulations.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 160.

  Division No. 299]

  [9.57 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Alton, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Amess, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ashby, David

  Forth, Eric

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gallie, Phil

  Beggs, Roy

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kiifedder, Sir James

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bifm E'st'n)

  278

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Watts, John

  Paice, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Patnick, Irvine

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wilshire, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Mr. Sidney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dafis, Cynog

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Harry

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

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Benton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Enright, Derek

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Boyes, Roland

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gapes, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chidgey, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gunnell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hall, Mike

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hanson, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hardy, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cummings, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  279

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hutton, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Ingram, Adam

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rendel, David

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Keen, Alan

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Simpson, Alan

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAllion, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McCartney, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Macdonald, Calum

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McFall, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Timms, Stephen

  McNamara, Kevin

  Turner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Wallace, James

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Walley, Joan

  Mahon, Alice

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Maxton, John

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Michael, Alun

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wise, Audrey

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Worthington, Tony

  Milburn, Alan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Miller, Andrew

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Morley, Elliot

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Mr. John Spelter and Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day

  LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees),
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  SUMMER TIME
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments),
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 27th June.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  Church of England (Legal Aid)
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move,
  That the Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  As its name suggests, this Measure is concerned with the Church of England's legal aid system. That system is completely separate from the state legal aid system, and its primary purpose is to provide financial assistance, in suitable cases, for the legal costs of clergy and some other ministers in proceedings before Church courts and tribunals that may involve the loss of their office and their ability to exercise their ministry.
  This legal aid is funded partly by the central board of finance of the Church of England and partly by the Church Commissioners; but ultimately it is borne by the parishes throughout the country. Although the Church of England's legal aid arrangements are obviously on a fairly small scale, they have not been immune from the serious problem of rising costs which has beset the state legal aid system. At a time when the Church is under particular financial pressure, that has obviously given rise to some concern in C of E circles.
  The Measure implements a number of recommendations by the General Synod's legal aid commission, which administers the system, for keeping the costs involved to the minimum consistent with the purpose of the scheme. It seeks to allow the legal aid commission to function as effectively and economically as possible, and to provide the Church of England with the best possible value for the money spent.
  At the same time, the Measure has consolidated previous legislation on the subject, so that a great deal of what is before the House tonight is consolidation—it merely repeats the provisions which the House approved as recently as 1988.
  One of the legal aid commission's recommendations was that, in future, the Church's system should be confined to its primary purpose, which, as I have already mentioned, involves the possible loss of office. It is obviously important that a member of the clergy facing, say, disciplinary proceedings or major difficulties with his or her parishioners, should be able to come to an independent central body which operates in complete confidence for help with the legal costs involved.
  There are, however, some other cases when the commission recommended that any requests for help of this kind should be dealt with locally—for example, by the diocese—in the light of local needs, conditions and circumstances, instead of involving other parishes throughout the country in contributing to the cost.
  The Measure therefore removes cases in these limited categories from the centrally funded legal aid system. I hope that it will reassure colleagues to know that the General Synod unanimously accepted this as a fair and reasonable system. Moreover, after detailed scrutiny, our own Ecclesiastical Committee also found it expedient.
  Some of the other new provisions in the Measure increase the legal aid commission's administrative powers so that it can function as efficiently as possible. More importantly, it adds to the criteria that previously governed
  282
  the grant in ecclesiastical legal aid by giving the commission an express power and duty to take all the circumstances of each case into account.
  As the point was raised by an hon. Member in a debate here in 1988, I should mention the provision under which, when the commission is considering the financial resources of an applicant for legal aid, it must have regard to the resources of the applicant's spouse. That does not, and never did, require it to aggregate the spouse's capital and income automatically with the applicant's, as happens in some cases under the state legal aid system.
  In contrast to the rigid secular provision, by requiring the commission to take all the circumstances into account, the new Measure gives it an increased discretion and greater flexibility, both in that and other cases, to do what is fair and proper in a particular case. Again, the Ecclesiastical Committee, after detailed examination of what was proposed, was satisfied that it was expedient.
  The changes embodied in the Measure are limited in scope and, as I have already said, the General Synod gave final approval to them without a single dissenting vote. They will help to rationalise the Church of England's legal aid system, and to use the limited resources that the church has available for that system to best advantage.
  I urge hon. Members to support the Measure.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall resist the temptation to make a very long speech, and merely offer the House one of moderate length.
  The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) explained the provisions of the Measure perfectly clearly. He pointed out that it is largely a consolidation Measure, but that it points the way to improvements in the arrangements. I hope that the House will agree with his assessment that it is a modest but desirable Measure.
  One must understand that, in the latter years of the 20th centure, the clergy are not well paid. Indeed, some right hon. or hon. Members, particularly those with substantial outside interests, would find it unimaginable that people should exist on the pay that our clergy receive. At the same time, the clergy are at the focal point in the exercise of their pastoral responsibilities, with much of the anguish and ordeals to which many ordinary people are subjected.
  The pressure on them in many parishes may be such as to test their faith, and some, whose faith may be less strong or over-tested, may be in difficulty. It is only right that they should be regarded as the casualties of the sort of society that we in Britain face today.
  I hope that the House will understand that those who are in that position deserve justice. They certainly should not be in a position in which great difficulty can be placed on them simply because they lack the resources to secure professional representation. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will view the Measure with much sympathy.
  The right hon. Gentleman explained that the matter was considered quite exhaustively in the Ecclesiastical Committee. I do not belive it appropriate to labour the point any further, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in commending the Measure to the House.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Bates: I shall make a few brief comments on the Measure, because some quite serious questions still need to be answered. They particularly surround the financing of the additional fund. Clause 1 of the Measure says:
  "The General Synod shall continue to maintain the Legal Aid Fund to which the General Synod and the Church Commissioners may contribute sums as each shall from time to time may decide."
  That is an important point, because, as many hon. Members know, there are currently considerable difficulties over the financing of the Church Commissioners. It is widely reported that they have suffered considerable losses in the property market. That is regrettable, but it makes one wonder about their ability to make such a contribution when they are in such dire straits over funds.
  I accept the point about the ability and wealth of the clergy, and I certainly accept that stipends are not generous. According to my most recent calculations, stipends are in the region of £12,000 to £12,500 a year. That is not generous, but one must consider the other so-called perks of the job, which may often include property. For most people, mortgage payments are a significant part of their outgoings, and to have £12,000 or £12,500 left over after a property is paid for is a considerable achievement.
  In the context of legal aid, many clergy may also have funds made available for vehicles. Motor vehicles are often provided by the parish and form another important contribution to the overall income of many households. How would the rules apply to households containing two members of the clergy? In such cases, there are obviously two incomes, and the house is provided at some expense to the local diocese.
  Another aspect of legal aid funding relates to the notion that the Church Commissioners should contribute. I accept that the clergy are as eligible for legal aid and advice as anybody else—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members should listen in silence to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), or hold conversations outside. [Hon. Members: "It is boring."] Order. Those who find it boring can go outside.
  Mr. Bates: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware of my long interest in this issue, and my detailed concern about the Measure, which I have often expressed privately and now have the opportunity to express publicly. I have a right to do that.
  The legal aid system has increased tenfold since 1979, and is available to the clergy. I accept that there are income constraints on the fund, but why should the clergy be exempt from the rules that apply to their parishioners? Surely the clergy provide a service for their parishioners and should not enjoy a better set of rules than they do.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify for my benefit, and right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) could intervene to define, the categories for legal aid among the clergy, because they form a diverse group and many have their own resources. That was always part of the calling of the Church. To what part of the Measure is my hon. Friend referring?
  Mr. Bates: With respect, I do not wish to stray from the narrow point I was discussing, and I shall leave that question to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby.
  We are talking about using funds for legal aid purposes. The Church Commissioners' report drew attention to the total assets of the Church Commissioners. It is relevant to the debate, because it will support the legal aid fund that we are debating. That fund was estimated to be about £2.2 billion. About half that money was in equities.
  According to the Church Commissioners' report, which I read with considerable interest, the income derived from that was about £167 million. We need to put down a marker. Will a maximum apply to claims from the legal aid fund? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby will refer to that in winding up.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as stipends are falling under the current adverse circumstances of the Church Commissioners, a greater burden will fall on the congregations to make them up? As congregations are also falling, stipends will fall and a greater burden will fall on the legal aid fund. How does my hon. Friend propose to deal with that?
  Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The financing is all tied up with the legal aid Measure; we cannot divorce the two. We cannot talk about provision for a legal aid fund, but not the fund which will provide for it.
  My hon. Friend rightly refers to the stipend. My local Church of England church was advised that a new measure was to be introduced to tackle the underfunding and shortfall in the Commissioners' coffers. It was to require all members of the Church of England—of whom I proudly declare myself one—to double their contributions. Given the evangelical nature of the Church, perhaps the best incentive for the clergy would be for the contributions to remain the same, but for the clergy to try to double their congregations. Perhaps that would have been a better way of approaching that financial problem.
  I return to the Church Commissioners' fund. The fund has an income about of about £167 million. I was surprised to read about the amount of money that was contributed to the Church of England urban fund, which does a great deal of valuable work in our inner cities. In past years, it has been £25,000. That is not a staggering sum when one considers it alongside £2.2 billion in assets and £167 million in income.
  Following adverse investment performance, the Church Commissioners decided not to cut the stipends of the clergy, but rather to cut the contributions to the urban fund. It was quite an abhorrent decision to cut help to those who are most needy, and certainly in far greater need than one would suggest of the clergy. We ought to examine the amount contributed to that fund.
  If the Church Commissioners are providing legal aid protection in addition to the generous scheme which already applies, people will want to know what contribution will be made this year to the urban fund.
  Just as the Church rightly chides the Government and urges them to reconsider their contribution to the inner cities, so from time to time this House may deem it right to examine the way in which the Church Commissioners handle their finances. I know that that point will be accepted in the spirit in which it was made.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable in these matters, so I am happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Taylor: I am not sure that I am knowledgeable, which is why I seek guidance from my hon. Friend. Is he saying that the Church of England urban fund has some bearing on the qualification for legal aid? I should have thought it to be an extraneous fund and therefore not linked, but perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify the matter in greater detail.
  Mr. Bates: I shall explain the position as concisely as I can. The urban fund is relevant. I am making the point that the budget from the Church of England general fund —the Church Commissioners' budget—to help inner cities and the poorest in our community has been cut.
  Where will the money come from to fund an extra level of legal aid when apparently money was not available to help the inner cities? Is there any limit on the areas under which people can apply for legal aid funding? What are the restrictions? Those are a few genuine points that need to be considered.
  Dr. Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again—it is extremely good of him. Will he consider a hypothetical situation? Father Michael is the parish priest of St. Mary the Virgin in my constituency. That church is celebrating its 1,100th anniversary. Were Father Michael to have an accident in the street outside his church and need to make use of the legal aid fund, would the measure before us place him at any disadvantage?
  Mr. Bates: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that that case would apply, because most churches have, or should have, public and employer liability insurances. In the unfortunate circumstances that my hon. Friend described, the right action would be to claim against the church's insurance.
  Dr. Spink: I am sure that Father Michael will be delighted to hear that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend takes these matters very seriously, as I do. I am sure that my advice was genuinely sought and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accept that it was genuinely offered.
  My points focus directly on the amount of the legal aid fund and the circumstances in which aid will be given. I have questioned whether the priority for the Church of England—this is all about setting priorities for the finite amount of cash available—should be to provide additional legal aid protection for the clergy. Many people may feel that, although their salaries are not huge, they are adequate, and there are additional benefits. Therefore, would not the money be better spent on the inner cities, through the Church urban fund, or even on missionary work overseas?
  Those are genuine questions. We must get this matter right, because people look at the palaces in which many of our archbishops live in some comfort and with very adequate accommodation. I think especially of the Bishop of Durham's palace at Auckland castle, which is quite a generous provision. I think also of Bishopsthorpe in York.
  I have asked genuine questions, and I hope that I will receive answers to them.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I welcome the helpful and positive response to the Measure that we heard from the official Opposition spokesman on Church of England affairs, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I know that he is as gratified as I am to note the interest and support indicated by tonight's substantial turnout. I hope that if, by some infernal machination, a Division is called—heaven forbid —the hon. Gentleman will act as both shepherd and Whip, and will guide his flock unfailingly into the Aye Lobby to support the Measure that he has so eloquently endorsed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) hit on an important point when he mentioned clause I of the Measure, which refers to the contribution that the General Synod and the Church Commissioners—he made particular mention of the latter—may make to our legal aid fund. I am grateful for his sensitive and responsible concern about the Church of England's finances.
  As he said, the Church is not as flush as it might be; he will understand, however, that the long stop is the ordinary man and woman in the parish—the regular churchgoer—who currently puts about £2.50 a week into the collection plate, but could easily contribute a bit more if he or she thought that it was needed.
  As soon as we present such people with that need, they will divert some of their giving from good charities such as Oxfam and Christian Aid in favour of the Church. Potentially, we have a considerable resource. I should add that the Church Commissioners have no legal duty to contribute to the Church's legal aid fund; they do so purely in a spirit of co-operation, helpfulness and constructive support for its needs.
  The purpose of the Measure—in so far as it goes beyond being a consolidation measure—is pinpointed in the Legislative Committee's report, which can be found on page 4 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report. My hon. Friend will note that the changes that we are making were prompted by
  "a particular case, involving a clergyman against whom disciplinary proceedings were taken under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, which resulted in heavy expenditure, both from the Fund and from other sources".
  A single item of expenditure involved a six-figure cost. I think that that will demonstrate to my hon. Friend how concerned we were, and are, about the potential liabilities of the legal aid fund.
  It is for precisely that reason that the Measure seeks to introduce refinements and improvements. Paragraph 7(c) of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report gives details of the proposed retrenchment, and explains that certain categories who have been able to draw support from the fund will henceforth be disqualified. We need to save money because of rising costs. We are trying hard to husband money, which is clearly what my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh wants us to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) asked whether we were refining the scope of the Measure, and looking seriously at the costs involved. Who would be eligible for help?
  Let me repeat the summary that I gave in my introductory speech. Essentially, the aim of the legal aid fund is to provide financial assistance in cases of proceedings before Church courts and tribunals that may involve defendants' loss of office and ability to exercise

  287
  their ministry—that is, they may be chucked out of their parishes. If my hon. Friend wants the full technical scope, the list of applicants who may or may not be eligible for assistance is set out in schedule 4 to the Measure.
  With those summary comments and the support of my hon. Friends, in great appreciation of the support of the hon. Member for Wentworth and in confident expectation that, in view of the many hon. Members who have stayed behind tonight, there will be a substantial vote in favour of the Measure if, which I hope is not the case, it is pressed to a Division.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

  PRIVILEGES
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Bill Michie, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Moths, Mr. Tony Newton, Sir Cranley Onslow, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir James Spicer, Mr. John Ward and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Hon Members: Object.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Page 18 of "Erskine May" refers to the salary paid to the Leader of the Opposition, being the sum of £49,207. From what date will that payment come into force, and will the Opposition make a statement about the date on which the Leader of the Opposition will be appointed?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman seems to have been raising bogus points of order most of the day. That is not a matter for the Chair.

PETITIONS

  Orsett Hospital
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is my privilege to present a petition signed by the mayor of Thurrock, Councillor Barry Palmer, by the leader of Thurrock council, Councillor Jimmy Aberdein, by Councillor Beverly Barton, the vice-chairman of Essex county council and more than 40,000 residents of the borough of Thurrock. It reads:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom sheweth
  That the people of Thurrock have already been substantially disadvantaged by the closure of the accident and emergency department at Orsett hospital and that this was carried out despite the views of the overwhelming majority of the borough's citizens.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House request the Secretary of State for Health to reassure the citizens of Thurrock by interceding with the regional and local health authorities and the Basildon and Thurrock hospital trust to ensure
  288
  that they continue to maintain and improve the facilities at Orsett hospital by reaffirming their commitment to this much valued health facility.
  The petition has been signed by some 40,000 residents.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) presents her petition, may I say that it is not necessary to go to the Bar of the House; hon. Members can go directly behind the Chair.

  Hospitals (Sheffield)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: That saves me a little walk, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I have the privilege to present a petition signed by 24,000 residents of my and other Sheffield constituencies to protest against the threatened closure of children's wards at the Northern General hospital.
  It reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of the users and potential users of the existing paediatric provisions in Sheffield and its environs showeth the continuing need for the retention of existing children's wards at the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield.
  That the consultation proposals for the closure of those wards by the Sheffield Health Authority and the Sheffield Family Health Services Authority are not in accord with the wishes and the needs of the specific area.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Health to maintain the current children's wards at this hospital. And your petitioners, as in duty, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: It gives me great pleasure, and anger at the same time, to present a petition, containing 4,773 signatures. That may not sound many, but it is in addition to the 40,000 signatures already presented to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. Those signatures were sent to every Sheffield Member of Parliament; the hon. Members for Hallam (Mr. Patnick), for Central (Mr. Caborn), for Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), for Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and for Heeley (Mr. Michie).
  Therefore, I shall present the petition, which says:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petitioners of the users and the potential users of the existing accident and emergency provisions in Sheffield and its environs showeth that the continuing need for the retention of the existing accident and emergency provision in full at the Royal Hallamshire and the Northern General hospitals in Sheffield.
  That the consultation proposals for the closure of one of the units by the Sheffield Health Authority and the Sheffield Family Health Services Authority are not in accord with the wishes and the needs of the specified area;
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Health to maintain the current accident and emergency services in Sheffield and its environs. And your petitioners, as in duty, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Prostitution
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.47 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I have sought this debate on behalf of my constituents who live in what should be a pleasant residential area, but which for decades has been blighted and unjustifiably stigmatised as a result of the nuisance and disturbance associated with street prostitution and, latterly, window prostitution. The area is on the edge of my constituency and also includes part of the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who have been notified about the debate.
  My concerns are not specifically directed against the concept of sex for sale, however distasteful that concept may appear. It could be argued that prostitutes provide a valuable service. Over the past couple of years, I have taken every opportunity to talk with my constituents, with residents in so-called red light districts in other parts of the country, with prostitutes working on the streets from windows and massage parlours, as well as with the police and other agencies—health workers, academics and so on.
  I have come to the conclusion that we must accept that prostitution is, unfortunately, here to stay. Perhaps we would therefore do best to accept that the law should have no role to play in what is, in effect, a commercial transaction between service provider and customer. The law does, however, have a role to play in controlling the harmful social and environmental consequences of prostitution, which is what I want to discuss today.
  Last summer, a resident wrote an open letter to me, which was published in the local community magazine. He said:
  "I know that I'm living in what others call a Red Light district. I have no moral problems with this having spent 3 years in Amsterdam, but it's the disturbances it brings to my children's way of life and my own which concern me.
  Until two weeks ago when police launched a special initiative to control the volume of traffic in the area I was forced to sleep downstairs to protect my children from men knocking on my front door and shouting abuse at the windows. And that's sometimes as early as 7 o'clock on Sunday mornings. You see we are forced to keep the same hours as the prostitutes. Rest comes at about 3 am.
  Living on this road, its assumed we're another 'working house' and we're on view to the sightseers and kerb crawlers as much as the 'women in the windows'. My kids have been forced to get used to people prying into our windows, looking through the gaps in the curtains, or putting faces and hands through the letterbox. Mistaken identities are an everyday hazard if you live here. People in the streets think I'm a pimp and my daughter has been propositioned—and she's only 10.
  My kids are streetwise—they have to be to survive in this area. They pass drug dealers, prostitutes, and pimps every day they walk to school. Kids can't play normally here …I'm not against the individual women—it's their choice of living, but as a resident I'm fed up with the disturbance it causes. You're denied a social life. If I bring a girlfriend to my house, people assume she's a prostitute or she feels uncomfortable with a vice patrol van outside."
  Another resident, Mr. Khan, wrote to me:
  "They have spoiled our livelihood. We have worked hard to buy our houses. At that time, the situation was not as bad as it is now. Residents are being intimidated, harassed and abused. The police have done what they can, but their hands are tied."
  Significantly, he adds:
  "We do not just want to clean up our streets but also ask politicians to find a permanent solution for the prostitutes."
  290
  An officer of one of the local residents associations has told me thzit people are desperate to find a solution. Police powers and effectiveness are limited by the terms of current legislation. He asks us to explore ways in which to provide more effective legislation to rid not only that area but all residential areas of the problems of street prostitution.
  There is no doubt that from a resident's perspective prostitution creates a poor environmental image and attracts a high volume of traffic, not just from kerb-crawling clients, but from sightseers. There is often noise into the early hours of the morning and litter of the ordinary type plus used condoms and tissues. An atmosphere of fear is created for female residents and children. There is also no doubt that the current legal framework is ineffective in dealing with residents' concerns. My constituents recognise that, but the Government do not.
  In January 1993, I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Home Secretary what plans he had to review the laws on prostitution. The then Home Office Minister responded in the following terms:
  "We consider that the criminal law is well placed to deal with the nuisance caused by prostitution and have no present plans to review the law in this area."—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 597.]
  And they have not.
  Given the continuing nuisance to residents that I have just described, does not that response show how out of touch the Government are with the realities of life? Yes, there are laws against prostitutes soliciting and against kerb crawling, but those are effective only when the police mount high-profile clamp-downs which they cannot keep up for long because of the high cost in police resources. I am advised that the West Midlands police spend about £500,000 policing this area in Balsall Heath. In 1993, 724 women were arrested for prostitution, 147 were cautioned, there were 127 summonses for kerb crawling and 528 letters were sent to men cruising in their cars. Still the nuisance remains.
  The only aspect of the law that the Government show any inclination to reform is the persistence requirement in section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1985. That might make it slightly easier to nail a kerb crawler but, as the figures show, that is being done anyway with little impact on the problem. In fact, the need to show persistence can be avoided by the use of the nuisance provision in section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act, following from the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Paul in 1989. Section 115 of the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1980 can be used against cruising kerb crawling, and there are also provisions in section 5 of the Criminal. Justice and Public Order Act which can be used against nuisance.
  A review by Inspector Robert Golding of Hampshire constabulary—which covers Southampton—shows that an array of laws can be used against kerb crawlers and prostitution, but only if the police are present on a more or less permanent basis.
  Residents know that the current laws of themselves do not work. That is why, in Balsall Heath, they have taken their own action to highlight the problems. For the past four weeks, groups of residents have positioned themselves on every street corner where prostitutes used to ply their trade. This involved hundreds of local people who were there from mid-morning until the early hours. They are still

  291
  there when I pass through on my way home from this place in the early hours of Friday morning and I have stopped to talk to them on those and other occasions.
  They say to me, "Why should we have to do this to make our streets pleasant to live in? What are the politicians and the Government going to do to find a permanent solution?" They are realistic enough to realise that, just like the police, they cannot keep that level of activity up for ever—and even if they could, the problem would only move to other areas.
  While they would like to believe that arrests and prosecutions will solve the problem, they know from experience that the current system of arresting prostitutes, fining them and turning them back on to the streets to pay off their fines only perpetuates the problem. There is even a recognition that current policing practices exacerbates potential sexually transmitted diseases and health risks.
  The Balsall Heath residents' action group says that prostitution cannot be eradicated, but that it can be controlled and managed so as to reduce medical problems and impose as little strain as possible on local people. 'They understand that there is a strong economic base to prostitution. Few women choose it as a profession but, having entered, the incentive is strong to remain in it. 'They have called for the establishment of "zones of tolerance" where prostitution is legal. Their call was echoed by the whole community and by politicians of all political parties at a public meeting tonight.
  I do not say that that is necessarily the whole answer, but it is one idea which should perhaps be tried. One thing is for sure—it would require a change in the law. Is it not now time for a radical review of the legislation to provide a legal framework which will allow prostitutes to advertise their services and meet clients in a manner which does not cause nuisance or offence, reduces the exploitation of women by those who wish to live off their earnings and encourages responsible behaviour in the prevention of sexually transmitted disease?
  Time and again it has been shown that attempts to bring criminal law enforcement into sexual disease control has not been at all effective. An editorial in an issue of the British Medical Journal last November said that the decriminalisation of prostitution would enable prostitutes to organise and exercise more control over clients, and would promote the provision of health care. That is the view of health workers operating in Balsall Heath and other areas.
  I therefore return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech. We should perhaps view prostitution merely as a service which should be tolerated, provided that it does not cause nuisance. The logical action would then be to remove the laws which prevent prostitutes from advertising their services and which make it illegal for them to work discreetly in small groups for their own safety and security. That is what prostitutes themselves want, and that is what a growing number, people—including many police officers, and even a representative from the Mothers' Union who participated in a radio debate with me this morning—see as a solution. Is it not time the Government caught up with public opinion and really got to grips with tackling the problem?
  10.59 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Daviid Maclean): I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), because she has raised an interesting subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) has followed the debate closely. He informed me of the difficulties and concerns that he has in his constituency, especially in the Chapeltown district of Leeds.
  I shall begin by explaining the function and powers of the criminal law, in relation to prostitution. Then I shall talk a little of the role of the police, both generally and in the hon. Member's constituency.
  Under our law, prostitution is not an illegal activity. A woman—or even a man—may sell sexual services, as long as the activities are not unlawful. The Government nevertheless recognise that prostitution can be the origin of a very serious nuisance to members of the public. It also often involves the exploitation of vulnerable members of the community, so a wide range of sanctions are available to deal with the criminal activities that tend to accompany prostitution. The Government believe that the law is already adequate to deal with the vast majority of criminal activity.
  The criminal law has two main aims: first, to prevent the serious nuisance to the public caused when prostitutes ply their trade in the streets; and, secondly, to prevent and to penalise those who encourage, control or exploit the prostitution of others.
  So far as nuisance in the street is concerned, the Street Offences Act 1959 makes it an offence for a woman to loiter or solicit in a street, or other public place, for the purposes of prostitution. That is punishable by a maximum fine of £500 for a first offence, and of £1,000 for subsequent offences. The 1959 Act also confers on a constable the power to arrest, without warrant, anyone he finds in a street or public place and suspects, with reasonable cause, of committing such an offence.
  The Sexual Offences Act 1985 provides other important: provisions to tackle street prostitution. The Act made it an offence persistently to solicit a woman for prostitution in a public place, and it made kerb crawling an offence. Offences under the Act are punishable by a maximum fine of £1,000. That was an example of the Government keeping in touch with public opinion and concern, and moving to change the law in 1985 to deal with that new manifestation of a public nuisance.
  Although the hon. Member is especially concerned with the nuisance caused by prostitution, the criminal law has another aim in that area—to deal with those who seek to encourage or exploit prostitution. That is the heart of the matter and where the real wickedness lies, so under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, it is an offence punishable by a maximum of seven years' imprisonment to live off the earnings of another person's prostitution, or to control a prostitute. It is also an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment to procure a woman with threats, or to encourage or cause a girl under 16 to be a prostitute. A number of offences relating to brothel keeping carry a maximum of six months' imprisonment.
  I have set out the powers available under the criminal law. It is the Government's job to ensure that those powers are sufficient to enable the prosecuting authorities to deal effectively with the problem.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Is it not a fact that, in 1991, 79 convictions were brought against people living on the earnings of prostitution? There were similarly very few prosecutions for the other offences that the Minister mentioned, when compared with the number of prosecutions of prostitutes. The laws clearly exist, but they are not having an effect and dealing with the problem.
  Mr. Maclean: I disagree. The hon. Lady cites the number of prosecutions, but she did not cite the penalties applicable in each case. It stands to reason that there are fewer prosecutions against those controlling prostitutes, as there are fewer people at that end of the trade than there are plying the streets. One pimp could control quite a few prostitutes. It is inevitable that there will be more prosecutions against those who are out creating the nuisance on the streets.
  Nevertheless, I support police action against those people who are living off immoral earnings, or are controlling and keeping prostitutes, because that is often where the real evil lies, and where one sees appalling violence and exploitation. If those people are legitimately harassed by the police and rounded up and prosecuted, we are getting a good service that serves, in any case, to diminish the amount of prostitution.
  The police resources dedicated to preventing and prosecuting those people involved in prostitution are a matter for each individual chief constable. It is not a matter of the Government dictating priorities to chief constables around the country on the level of resources that they should allocate to deal with prostitution in their area. Each chief constable must decide on his force's operational priorities and objectives and, of course, he needs to take local needs into account.
  The commitment of the West Midlands police to enforcing the law against prostitution cannot be doubted, and it can be seen clearly from the number of persons arrested and charged with offences. In 1993, about 1,900 people were prosecuted for prostitution and a further 193 people were prosecuted for kerb crawling.
  Police action is directed towards reducing the number of prostitutes and kerb crawlers by increasing police patrols in the worst affected areas. That tactic is having some success in Balsall Heath, where previously a survey had revealed that on average 2,000 vehicles a day were being driven by kerb crawlers into a small cul de sac. Another campaign of the same sort has been launched in the Edgbaston area following consultation between the police and local residents.
  Elsewhere in the country, the police are having most success where they work in close partnership with local authorities and other agencies to "design out" crime. In the King's Cross area of London, for example, local authorities follow up police action with environmental changes, such as improvements in street lighting and traffic management, to make the area unattractive to prostitutes and their clients. One-way streets and road closures have made it difficult for prospective kerb crawlers to operate. That has created an increased sense of safety and pride in the community.
  It is, of course, not unusual in a case where the police, for whatever reason, have not dealt with a matter to the satisfaction of the parties concerned, to hear calls for changes in the law. We have had calls to toughen up the laws on prostitution and to increase the powers of courts and police; however, we have also had calls to liberalise
  294
  the law and to allow licensed brothels or toleration zones where prostitutes can operate away from residential areas without interference from the law. The police, however, have shown that it is possible to tackle the problems caused by prostitution in residential areas. It must be a determined, collaborative effort with the local community, but it can be done.
  Toleration zones would mean that the criminal law would be disapplied in a particular area. We would pretend that the criminal law did not exist. We have no intention of legalising activities surrounding prostitution, either as a matter of general application or in specific geographical areas. The concept of toleration zones, where one turns a blind eye to breaches of the law, sets a dangerous precedent for the criminal law. Although it could possibly and theoretically deal with the nuisance problem, it would not deal with the evil aspect of prostitution: vicious pimps controlling prostitutes; in fact, it would make that aspect of the problem much worse.
  If we accepted toleration zones, we would give a free licence to all those people who live off immoral earnings and control and abuse prostitutes to continue their evil work not only unabated but with Government encouragement. That is not right.
  As for kerb crawling, the Government have made it clear that we consider that the need to prove persistence, nuisance or annoyance on the part of a kerb crawler is a difficult and unnecessary barrier to the effective operation of the powers. That requirement was originally incorporated into the legislation because Parliament was concerned that innocent people would otherwise be prosecuted. We now consider that those fears were excessive, and that it would be worth while tightening up the law by removing the need to prove persistence.
  A private Member's Bill to achieve just that was introduced, with full Government support, in 1990. Unfortunately, a small group of Members of Parliament —notably the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—deliberately prolonged the debate beyond the point where the measure could reach the statute book. We have since made a commitment to reintroduce the measure as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle can be found. If the hon. Lady is successful in the next ballot for private Members' Bills, I hope that she will introduce the measure, and that she will prevail on the hon. Member for Brent, East not to block it.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the Minister really think that that is an answer to the problem? Police officers to whom I have spoken have told me that they are perfectly able to use the present array of laws to deal with kerb crawling, but that they have to be present all the time to implement them.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady called for new Government action, but there is already adequate criminal law to deal with the problems of prostitution and we have proposed a small change that we believe would help to tackle kerb crawling. There is no magic panacea that the Government can adopt, thereby introducing new powers, making changes or turning a blind eye to the evils of controlling prostitutes as an experiment with toleration zones. I suggest that that would be a damaging experiment to try. Many vulnerable women would suffer abominably if the Government and police decided to turn a blind eye and to permit toleration zones.

  295
  I suggest that the existing laws to deal with the problem are adequate, and it is for local police forces to enforce them according to priorities in local areas. The law works best where legal action is coupled with action by local authorities to design out aspects of the local environment that might encourage prostitution. We have seen some notable successes in the country; there are some good
  296
  examples that other local authorities should emulate. I commend chat action to the hon. Lady, rather than dangerous experiments that have a simplistic appeal but have not been fully thought through.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Eleven o ' clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Official Files
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department by what authority Her Majesty's Government can change the, status of an official file once it has been opened for inspection at the Public Record Office, subsequently withdraw it and seek its retention.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Public Records Act 1958, as amended in 1967, makes no provision for any change in the acess status of a public record which has become legally available for public inspection in the Public Record Office under the provisions of that Act.

TRANSPORT

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the results of the survey that he commissioned into the extent to which heavy vehicles are diverting through Gloucester to avoid paying tolls to cross the Severn bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I have now received the report and am publishing a summary of the findings today. It shows that although on average some 2,700 more vehicles than might be expected—allowing for traffic growth—travel west through Gloucestershire each day, only 1,500 of these can be positively identified as avoiding the bridge tolls. As the extra traffic is fairly evenly spread over the M50 and the three other main diversion routes and also evenly spread over 24 hours, it amounts to no more than one extra vehicle every seven or eight minutes on each route.

  Nevertheless, I shall now be inviting representatives of Gloucester and Gwent county councils to meet me to discuss the findings.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to encourage the fitting of seat belts on minibuses and coaches.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government have now com-pleted their analysis of the case for compulsory fitment of seat belts on minibuses and coaches and are today publishing the report of their review. A copy is being placed in the Library of the House. This demonstrates the strength of the case for compulsory fitment as a standard for all European manufacturers.

  I am formally requesting the European Commission to set the shortest possible timetable to require seat belts on all new minibuses and coaches. This reinforces my call for action at the Transport Council in Luxembourg in June.
  82
  I have also decided to seek the Commission's agreement for the United Kingdom Government to act ahead of the European Union to ensure that all minibuses and coaches are fitted with belts when specifically used for the transport of children. We will consult widely on how best to implement such a provision in practice; once we have the Commission's agreement.

  I shall also be amending the Public Service Vehicle (Carrying Capacity) Regulations to ensure that, where belts are fitted, three children can no longer share a double seat.

  Meanwhile, we will be encouraging manufacturers and operators to fit belts in response to customer demand. Virtually all new minibuses now coming off the production lines have seat belts fitted.

  For existing vehicles, the Department of Transport has set standards on the retro-fitting of belts and has urged operators to take action wherever possible, and this they are now doing. There has been support from the insurance industry for the Department's action.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet received proposals for organisational change from the Highways Agency.

  Mr. Key
  I am pleased to announce that wide-ranging proposals for restructuring the agency to achieve greater efficiency have been published today by Lawrie Haynes, the chief executive. I have arranged for copies of a leaflet explaining the proposals to be placed in the Library of the House.

  London Transport
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to appoint a successor to Sir Wilfrid Newton as chairman of London Transport.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have today appointed Mr. Peter Ford as chairman of London Transport for a five-year period from 15 September 1994, following the retirement of Sir Wilfrid Newton.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from members of the public about the impact of the channel tunnel rail link on the people of Barking.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since the January announcement of the final route of the rail link, my right hon. Friend and I have received some nine letters from members of the public affected by the surface route through Barking.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received on(a) the feasibility and (b) the additional cost of routeing the channel tunnel rail link under Barking reach.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I have not received detailed advice on the feasibility or additional cost of routeing the rail link under Barking reach. Union Railways's general view is that such a tunnel would affect the major east Thames corridor development site there, passing beneath or near the Ford plant, the new Barking power station and the A13 extension. It might also require a new route to be devised for the rail link all the way to
  83
  Stratford, affecting many more properties than the current alignment, which closely follows the existing railway corridor.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains currently use the track proposed to be used for the channel tunnel rail link through Barking between the hours of(a) 8 am to noon, (b) noon to 4 pm, (c) 4 pm to 8 pm and (d) 8 pm to midnight; and what he expects the figures will be after the rail link is in operation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of trains currently using the existing railway corridor between Barking and Purfleet is as follows:

  Passenger

  Other

  Total

  (a) 8 am to noon

  20

  6

  26

  (b) noon to 4 pm

  17

  4

  21

  (c) 4 pm to 8 pm

  25

  3

  28

  (d) 8 pm to midnight

  14

  9

  23

  The number of trains likely to be using the railway corridor in the future, including after the rail link opens, will be a commercial matter for the railway operators involved.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties there are in the Barking constituency where the boundary of the property is directly adjacent to the rail track boundaries for the proposed channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways calculates that, on the south side of the route of the rail link as it runs through Barking on the surface, some 185 residential properties would be directly adjacent to the rail link track. On the north side of the route, some 136 residential properties would be directly adjacent to Railtrack track.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the smallest distance between the rear of any domestic house in the Barking constituency and the rail track for the proposed channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways calculates that, on the south side of the route of the rail link as it runs through Barking on the surface, the shortest distance between the rear of a house and the rail link track would be about 6.5 m. In general the shortest distance is between 7 and 8 m.

  On the north side of the route, houses would be closer to Railtrack's track than to that of the rail link. The shortest distance between the rear of a house and the Railtrack track would be 2.5 m—though, again, this is exceptional. In general the shortest distance is about 10 m.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 702, if he will list all the driving test centres that were identified by the Driving Standards Agency regional staff against the criteria marked A to D.

  Mr. Key
  No.

  Staff Appraisal
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 47, if he will make a statement on the
  84
  reasons for the percentage of male and female typists receiving box 1 and box 2 markings; and if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the present reporting system.

  Mr. Norris
  Male and female typists are awarded appraisal markings by their line managers based on their judgment of their work performance. All reporting officers are required to certify that they have worked through the Department's material on staff reporting which gives detailed guidance on reporting standards.

  Romney House Records Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which edition of the Official Journal of the European Communities contained the advertisement for the Romney House records service market test; and if it asked contractors to submit bids for call-off contracts.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department placed a notice in the Official Journal dated 17 September 1993. The notice invited expressions of interest from firms to provide a range of record services. The notice did not set out terms of contract or invite bids. An invitation to tender for a call-off contract is to be issued shortly.

  Road Accidents (Pedestrians)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) children and (b) adults have been (i) killed and (ii) seriously or (iii) slightly injured on or near pedestrian crossings in (i) the Metropolitan police area of London and (ii) England and Wales in 1991,1992 and 1993.

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

  Child and adult casualties, by severity on or near pedestrian crossings in England and Wales: 1991–93

  Casualties

  On Crossing

  3Within Zig-Zag

  4Within 50 metres

  1991

  Child1

  Fatal

  7

  1

  7

  Serious

  236

  36

  241

  Slight

  967

  119

  797

  Adult2

  Fatal

  118

  19

  86

  Serious

  758

  129

  669

  Slight

  2,141

  212

  1,862

  1992

  Child1

  Fatal

  11

  3

  8

  Serious

  272

  32

  240

  Slight

  978

  117

  798

  Adult2

  Fatal

  82

  11

  95

  Serious

  744

  112

  677

  Slight

  2,047

  232

  1,814

  1993

  Child1

  Fatal

  7

  1

  6

  Serious

  217

  31

  197

  Slight

  902

  109

  734

  Adult2

  Fatal

  84

  13

  67

  Serious

  687

  99

  612

  Slight

  2,003

  206

  1,716

  85
  1Aged 0–15.

  2Aged 16+.

  3Casualties approaching and exiting crossing within zig-zag lines.

  4Casualties elsewhere within 50 metres of crossing.

  Charter Payments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been paid out by way of charter payments to those travelling on each of the regions' railway networks in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Charter payments disaggregated by region are not available. Charter payments by each of the three rail businesses for the periods requested are as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Season ticket discounts

  InterCity

  34,000

  241,000

  Network SouthEast

  53,000

  2,063,000

  Regional Railways

  0

  134,000

  TOTAL

  87,000

  2,438,000

  Compensation

  InterCity

  1,387,000

  N/a

  Network SouthEast

  283,000

  N/a

  Regional Railways

  175,000

  N/a

  TOTAL

  1,845,000

  2,300,000

  TOTAL

  1,900,000

  4,700,000

  Note: A breakdown for 1993–94 compensation payments by the three rail businesses is not yet available.

  Health Screening
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department is giving to cutting its health screening programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is reviewing the effort currently deployed on health screening as part of its efficiency gains programme.

  Civil Service Lifeboat Appeal
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future commitment of his Department to the civil service lifeboat appeal.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is reviewing the effort currently deployed on administrative support for the civil service lifeboat fund appeal in the Department as part of the efficiency gains programme.

  Railway Bridges
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) bridges and (b) culverts British Rail (i) repaired and (ii) replaced in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and how many Railtrack will repair or replace in 1994–95.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available centrally. It would therefore involve a disproportionate cost to provide an answer to this question.
  86

  Rail Strike
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much fare income had been lost by British Rail as a result of the signal staff strike on 15 July 1994; and how much compensation was owed to British Rail by Railtrack at this date.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail estimates that it loses of the order of £9 million per day in revenue for each one-day strike. Questions of compensation as a result of strike action are a matter for BR and Railtrack.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much British Rail invested in(a) rolling stock, (b) track and signalling, maintenance and repair and (c) track and signalling renewal and new-build schemes in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  £m 1993–94 prices:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Rolling stock1

  402

  295

  Track and signalling maintenance and repair2

  625

  525

  Track and signalling renewals and new build schemes

  410

  393

  1 Excludes prepayments by European Passenger Services of £124 million in 1992–93 and £144 million in 1993–94.

  2 Excludes electrification/other infrastructure investment.

  Rail Finance
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is British Rail's provisional external financing limit for 1994–95; and what plans he has to change it;

  (2) what is Railtrack's provisional external financing limit for 1994–95; and what plans he has to change it.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provisional negative EFLs for 1994–95 for Railtrack and British Rail are, respectively, £280 million and £348 million. They will be kept under review during the course of the year, and adjusted as necessary.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is British Rail's provisional public service obligation grant for 1994–95; and what plans he has to change it.

  Mr. Freeman
  Support for BR's passenger services, including compensation for the costs of public obligations, in 1994–95 is being paid by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising. Provision of £1,675 million has been made in class VI vote 7. My right hon. Friend has made no proposals to change it. In addition to this grant payable direct to BR, there is additional provision for metropolitan railway grants to be paid to passenger transport authorities.

  Rolling Stock Leasing
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much(a) British Rail and (b) the three rolling stock leasing companies will invest in new rolling stock in 1994–95;

  (2) what is Railtrack's investment budget for maintaining and improving the railway infrastructure in 1994–95; and what proportion of this budget it expects to invest in the course of the year.
  87
  Mr. Freeman
  BR plans to invest over £250 million in rolling stock in 1994–95 of which around 40 per cent. will be on passenger vehicles that will pass to the rolling stock leasing companies. European Passenger Services Ltd. is planning to invest up to £150 million in rolling stock. Railtrack plans to spend around £500 million on improving and maintaining the railway infrastructure. Investment decisions and priorities within these total figures are a matter for the industries concerned.

  Cars (Running Costs)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost to the motorist per mile of running a typical family saloon car in 1979 and in each year since then (i) in cash terms and (ii) at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Key
  Data for 1979 to 1993 are contained in the attached table. I regret that data for 1994 are not yet available.

  Motoring running costs—1979–1993

  Year

  Costs per mile (pence, current prices)

  Costs per mile (pence, 1993 prices)

  1979

  5

  15

  1980

  8

  17

  1981

  9

  17

  1982

  10

  18

  1983

  11

  18

  1984

  11

  17

  1985

  12

  18

  1986

  11

  16

  1987

  12

  16

  1988

  12

  16

  1989

  13

  16

  1990

  15

  16

  1991

  15

  16

  1992

  16

  16

  1993

  17

  17

  Source: National Travel Survey, Transport Statistics Great Britain, Family Expenditure Survey.

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to running costs only and take no account of depreciation.

  2. Running costs based on the average of all non-company cars.

  3. Fuel costs in this series rose by 28 per cent. between 1979 and 1980.

  4. Costs at current prices are deflated by the Retail Price Index (all items) to obtain costs at 1993 prices.

  5. Data for 1993 are provisional.

  Blood Donor Scheme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future commitment of his Department to the blood donor scheme.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is reviewing the effort currently deployed on administrative support for the blood donor scheme in the Department as part of the efficiency gains programme.

  Staff (Running Costs)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the staff running costs budget set for his Department in April 1993.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The budget set for my Department's staff running costs in April 1993 for the financial year 88
  1993–94 was £27795 million. This includes staff running costs for executive agencies in the net controlled area and the Vehicle Inspectorate, which is a trading fund.

  Unstaffed Stations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with representatives of British Rail Network SouthEast and Railtrack plc concerning the implications for the safety of passengers of having stations unattended by the staff of either company; which stations are currently unattended while trains are running at any time of the day; and what plans there are to alter this arrangement in respect of any station.

  Mr. Freeman
  Station staffing is a matter for the BR train operating units and Railtrack. Information about which stations are unattended whilst trains are running is not readily available. A list of staffed and unstaffed stations in the operational area of Network SouthEast was placed in the Library of the House pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) of 14 March 1994,Official Report, column 508.

  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many former employees of the BREL carriage works in York have died of asbestos-related diseases since 1964; how many have received compensation from British Rail; what was the average length of time from the date at which compensation was sought to the date it was paid; what was the average cash amount of compensation awarded; and what plans his Department has to improve the speed with which British Rail settles these claims and the level of compensation paid.

  Mr. Freeman
  The statistical information requested in the question is not readily available. I understand from British Rail that claims are dealt with, and compensation is determined, in accordance with established legal and commercial principles. Claims are processed as quickly as possible but, given that the episodes giving rise to such claims are likely to have occurred some 30 or 40 years before hand, the task of investigating in order to establish the relevant facts is time consuming, for both claimant and employer alike.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring; and if he will set out his targets to help small businesses in the next year.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. The Government help small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislation and administrative burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate and are currently establishing a network of business links to provide high-quality business support
  89
  across the country. The Department's aim of a more efficient, safe and environmentally friendly transport system, using the market to offer the widest possible choice of transport users, will assist businesses of all sizes.

  My Department is, like others, systematically reviewing the regulations for which it is responsible to ensure that the unnecessary or over-burdensome regulation is cut back. When considering new regulations, we take particular account of the burden and cost those regulations impose on small business. As part of the business link initiative, we are also considering whether the existing channels of communication can be improved between the Department, its executive agencies and the business sector.

  Passengers Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the implications of the extension of timetabled journey times by British Rail for the operation of the passengers charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from British Rail that it has periodically found it necessary to adjust timetables to accommodate factors such as engineering works and speed restrictions. Such adjustments are not designed to make it easier for BR to meet its passengers charter standards, which are from time to time made more demanding.

  Car Registration
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 521, what encouragement is being given to car dealers to join the automatic first registration and licensing scheme.

  Mr. Key
  Trade associations which have co-operated with the Department on the development of the scheme report enthusiasm for it among their members and anticipate a high take-up rate. A number of manufacturers are keen to become involved. Press releases and articles on the initial pilot under way in Bristol will be issued and further publicity will coincide with the extension of the scheme nationwide early next year.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to close the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Key
  There are no plans to close the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations underlie the closure of part of the Driving Standards Agency public counter service.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. John Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. A. Lobo to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 18 July 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive to reply to the question you raised about the considerations that led to the closure of part of the Driving Standards Agency public counter service. As Dr. Ford is on annual leave I am replying on his behalf.
  90
  The use of public counters has declined in recent years. Each of the present 8 counters now deals with an average of only 50 applications a week—compared with a total weekly average of more than 33,000 applications. This facility is a very expensive way of receiving test applications, and the introduction of credit card bookings for Large Goods Vehicle and Passenger Carrying Vehicle driving tests from October, to facilitate booking of those tests at short notice, will reduce the use of counter services even further.

  Public counters at Cambridge and Edinburgh were closed in October 1993 and March 1994 respectively.

  The present public counters will be closed next October.

  Nuclear Fuel Transport
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what communications he has received from Railtrack in regard to the derailment of a wagon carrying a nuclear fuel transport flask at Hartlepool nuclear power plant on 6 July;

  (2) what information he has received from Nuclear Electric or British Rail in regard to the derailment of a wagon carrying a nuclear fuel transport flask at Hartlepool nuclear power station on 6 July; and whether he has instituted an investigation into the incident;

  (3) what information he has received from the nuclear installations inspectorate on Health and Safety Executive regarding the derailment of a wagon carrying a nuclear fuel transport flast at Hartlepool nuclear station sidings on 6 July; and if he will make it his policy to investigate the incident.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department received notification of the incident from Railtrack, Nuclear Electric and the Health and Safety Executive. It was reported that track damage was minor; there was slight damage to the wagon, but no damage to the empty flasks which were being carried and that there were no radiological safety consequences to workers or members of the public. The Health and Safety Executive nuclear installations inspectorate and railways inspectorate are conducting inquiries as part of their normal response to such incidents.

  Trunk Roads (Report)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the report from the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment before the summer recess.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 20 May 1994,Official Report, column 599.

  Union Railways
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current position and policy of Union Railways's attitude towards buying residential properties in West Thurrock and Purfleet.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways will, if requested, purchase homes within the area safeguarded for the new channel tunnel rail link, on the same basis as if they were being acquired under a compulsory purchase order. For homes beyond the safeguarded zone, a separate discretionary purchase scheme operates. This applies in cases of hardship where the property is expected to be seriously affected by, most importantly, operational noise above the proposed threshold for the noise insulation regulations for new railway lines.
  91

  Woolwich Rail Tunnel
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the current situation regarding the proposed Woolwich rail tunnel.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: A feasibility study, led by London Transport, has been undertaken on the Woolwich rail crossing. It has been agreed that the results justify a fuller appraisal of engineering and economic issues, including financing options. This will be undertaken by Railtrack, London Transport, London Docklands development corporation and British Rail.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the performance of the compound hyperform in helping reduce exhaust emissions.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: None.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many(a) oral and (b) written questions have been tabled during the present Parliament; and what is his estimated total cost of the replies.

  Mr. Newton
  In the current Parliament up to and including Friday 15 July, 11,153 oral and 92,414 written questions have appeared on the Order Paper. These figures do not include questions for oral answer which were unsuccessful in the shuffle or questions which were withdrawn before the day on which they were to be asked. Using the latest estimated costs of £225 for answering an oral question and £97 for answering a written one—Official Report, 30 November 1993, column 387,—the total cost of answering these questions is estimated at £11,473,583. These costs do not include printing and publishing costs or the work of the Table Office in processing the questions.

TREASURY

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the known earnings of rugby union players has on the private club status of rugby union clubs with regard to the payment of income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has confirmed that any earnings of rugby union players have no effect on the private club status of rugby union clubs with regard to the payment of income tax.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Inland Revenue has taken aerial photographs of crowds at certain rugby union grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue has not taken any aerial photographs of crowds at any rugby union grounds.
  92
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 378 (1) how many rugby union clubs are paying employers' national insurance contributions in respect of earnings or financial rewards received by players;

  (2) if payments of income tax and national insurance contributions from earnings through playing rugby union are now being received.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: The Inland Revenue's special compliance office has started investigations into rugby union clubs. These investigations are continuing and at this stage is not appropriate to comment further.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been paid in corporation tax in each year after privatisation by the privatised water companies in England.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Corporation tax paid by privatised water companies in England is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  70

  1991–92

  115

  1992–93

  125

  1993–94

  110

  Note: Figures rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Staff Pensions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the public sector accounts for pension costs and for the change in potential pension liabilities for(a) civil servants in Departments and (b) executive agency staff.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Staff in Departments and executive agencies are members of the principal civil service pension scheme. Although the scheme is unfunded, employers meet on an accruals basis the cost of pension cover provided for their staff by the payment of accruing superannuation liability charges. These payments are appropriated in aid of the treasury civil superannuation vote; class XVII, vote 3. The level of the charge reflects actuarial assessment by the Government Actuary of the payments that need to be made to finance the liabilities of the scheme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of pensions paid to former Treasury staff in real terms in 1965, 1975, 1985 and the most recent year; and what is the estimated cost in 1995 and 2000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Staff of the Treasury are members of the principal civil service pension scheme which is the occupational pension arrangement for civil servants. The Treasury meets, on an accruals basis, the emerging pension costs of the staff it employs. Pension payments to former Treasury staff, including surviving spouses, are estimated at £21·75 million for 1993–94. Information relating to previous and future years is not readily available.
  93

  Football Pools
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the betting duty on football pools companies once the national lottery has been introduced.

  Sir John Cope
  There are no plans to reduce the rate of pool betting duty upon the introduction of the national lottery. The rate of duty on the national lottery was included in the Finance Act 1993 in the light of many factors including the rate of pool betting duty.

  Incomes (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of households in(a) York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) Yorkshire and Humberside have incomes of (i) £10,000 per annum or less, (ii) £20,000 per annum or less, (iii) £64,000 per annum or less and (iv) £100,000 per annum or less.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information for(a) and (b) are not available. Estimates for (c), the Yorkshire and Humberside region, from the 1992 family expenditure survey are: Proportion of households with gross income of:

  (i)—£10,000 per annum or less—40 per cent.

  (ii)—£20,000 per annum or less—69 per cent.

  (iii)—£64,000 per annum or less—99 per cent.

  (iv)—£100,000 per annum or less—not available.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to Her Majesty's Treasury if personal allowances were increased by(a) £1,000, (b) £2,000, (c) £3,000 and (d) £5,000 for all people aged over (i) 70 and (ii) 75 years for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates of the Exchequer costs in a full year at 1994–95 income levels are given below:

  £ million

  Cost of increase in personal allowances for people aged

  Increase in allowance of

  70 years or over

  75 years or over

  (a)

  £1,000

  340

  190

  (b)

  £2,000

  600

  340

  (c)

  £3,000

  820

  460

  (d)

  £5,000

  1,130

  640

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the upper percentage limit on pay increases in the public sector consistent with the Government's public sector pay policy.

  Mr. Portillo
  The approach to public sector pay is that increases should be met from existing budgets and should be paid for by greater efficiency or other savings. Settlements should reflect the particular circumstances of individual groups.
  94

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role will be played by his Department in any consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination in financial services.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the publication of a consultation document on 15 July. The Treasury contributed to its preparation. I would encourage everyone with an interest in services to disabled people, including financial services, to respond to the consultation paper.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the most recent Council meeting of European Economic and Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Economic and Finance Council of the European Union in Brussels on 11 July.

  In the morning, the Council discussed, in open session, the work programme for the German presidency. I emphasised that the main task of the EU was to establish the conditions to reinforce the recovery of the European economy and thus create the new jobs that Europe needs to get unemployment down. This required the convergence of economic policies to restore healthy public finances and to keep inflation low. I also emphasised the importance that the United Kingdom attaches to effective action to tackle fraud against the Community budget.

  The Council adopted the broad economic guidelines for the economic policies of the Community and the member states which had been approved by the European Council at Corfu on the basis of the text agreed by ECOFIN on 6 June.

  The Council agreed in principle to a loan of up to 130 million ecu for Slovakia, to be disbursed in two equal tranches. Disbursement of the second tranche would be subject to further Council agreement.

  The Council adopted a set of detailed conclusions on the Commission's 1993 report on fraud, its strategic programme and 1994 work programme. Conclusions were also adopted, at United Kingdom initiative, on the procedure for examining special reports of the Court of Auditors to ensure that effective follow-up action is taken on the issues raised.

  There was a general discussion of a proposed withholding tax—taxation of savings—from which no conclusions were drawn. I emphasised the United Kingdom's strong opposition to a tax of this sort. The presidency said that ECOFIN would return to the matter on 27 July.

  The Council agreed to hold an orientation debate on 27 July on a VAT definitive system. There was a brief presentation from the Commission on the taxation of small and medium-sized enterprises, of which the Council took note.

  No formal votes were taken in the Council meeting.
  95

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the average annual tax saving enjoyed by a typical investor in a £6,000 personal equity plan;

  (2) what was the revenue cost of the capital gains tax concessions on personal equity plans in each of the last three years;

  (3) what was the revenue cost of the tax concession on dividends in personal equity plans in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of the income tax revenue costs are in the table. The average annual tax saving for a typical investor with a £6,000 PEP cannot be estimated, nor can a reliable estimate be made of the cost of tax relief on capital gains.

  Estimated total cost of income tax relief

  £ million

  1991–92

  90

  1992–93

  120

  1993–94

  1140

  1 Provisional.

  Civil Service (Severance Costs)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to assist Departments with the costs of early retirement, redundancy and severance from the civil service.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government propose to finance from the Treasury's civil superannuation vote 80 per cent. of the costs of early departures paid by the Paymaster General and currently recharged in full to Departments, to cover those eligible people leaving the civil service between 1 October 1994 and 31 March 1997.

  Parliamentary approval for this expenditure will be sought in a winter supplementary estimate for HM Treasury's civil superannuation vote; class XVII, vote 3. Pending that approval, any urgent expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Tax Accountants
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to take forward the consultations on the Inland Revenue's power to call for the papers of a tax accountant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have arranged for an independent inquiry into the Inland Revenue's power to request accountants' papers. Mr. Philip Ely, a former president of the Law Society, has been appointed for this purpose, and representations are invited in an Inland Revenue press release issued today.

  Taxation (Self-employed)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the initiative the Inland Revenue is taking in north-west England to apply PAYE to self-employed construction and plant-hire operators; and what plans he has to extend this to other areas.
  96
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: There is no special initiative to apply PAYE to self-employed construction and plant-hire operators in north-west England. The Inland Revenue has reviewed the employment status of a number of individuals taken on by plant-hire operators in north-west England. This is to ensure that taxpayers are treated consistently in line with the Inland Revenue's commitment under the taxpayers charter. There are no plans for special initiatives in other areas. However, employment status will continue to be reviewed, where necessary, as part of the Inland Revenue's normal compliance activity.

PRIME MINISTER

  Railtrack
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 7 July, to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett),Official Report, column 447, what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the payment of £500 to members of the Railtrack board for attendance at a board meeting.

  The Prime Minister
  All Railtrack board payments were agreed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and by the Treasury before Railtrack was established. No additional payments have been introduced since that time.

  Non-executive directors of Railtrack receive a £500 fee for each meeting of one of the board's committees—safety, environment and health; audit; and remuneration—which they attend as a member. Each committee meets up to four times a year, and no non-executive director is a member of more than two. They receive a separate annual fee of £10,000 for their main board duties.

  These payments are consistent with the Treasury guidelines on nationalised industry board members' appointments, pay and bonuses.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to establish a pre-legislative committee or working group to consider the findings of the consultation on disability issues.

  The Prime Minister
  Decisions on the way forward will be made in the light of the responses to the consultation document "Disability on the Agenda", issued on 16 July.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with(a) European leaders and (b) Commonwealth leaders about (i) the Trinidad terms and (ii) Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I announced in the House on 11 July 1994,Official Report, column 668, that the Naples summit had agreed to pursue additional measures aimed at increasing the level of debt relief for the poorest countries in line with the initiative that I originally proposed four years ago. We have consistently pressed for the implementation of full Trinidad terms in contacts with European, Commonwealth and other Governments. We regularly discuss Kashmir with our European Union

  97
  partners. and with the Indian and Pakistan Governments who are the Commonwealth Governments most directly concerned.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

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

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from the Secretary General of the Arab League about the Arab League's resolutions on Lockerbie and the destruction of Pan Am 103.

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretary General of the Arab League handed a copy of the Arab League resolution concerning the Lockerbie bombing to Her Majesty's ambassador in Cairo on 31 March this year.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 483, how many overseas visits he has made as Prime Minister during which he undertook fund-raising activities for the Conservative party.

  The Prime Minister
  Fund-raising activities for the Conservative party are not part of my official duties.

  European Council
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the special European Council held in Brussels on 15 July.

  The Prime Minister
  A special meeting of the European Council was held in Brussels on 15 July to consider the presidency of the European Commission and certain international questions. I attended with my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary and with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Following his consultations with Council members over the previous two weeks, the President of the European Council, Chancellor Kohl, proposed that the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Jacques Santer, should take over as the President of the European Commission on 7 January 1995.

  All members of the Council endorsed this proposal. During a short discussion, I underlined the challenges facing the European Union in the period ahead, including making the single market and the need to extend prosperity and security to the east. I believed that Mr. Santer was well qualified to lead the European Commission during this period. He will have an important role to play in bringing together different points of view.

  In accordance with article 158 of the treaty on European Union, the Council President will now consult the European Parliament on the nomination of Mr. Santer.
  98
  After a report by the Italian Prime Minister on the Naples summit, the Council discussed the former Yugoslavia. My right hon. Friend reported on the visit which he had paid earlier in the week to the region with the French Foreign Minister. Heads of Government expressed their support for the contact group's plan. They believed that everything possible should be done to secure its acceptance and avoid a yet more dangerous situation.

  The French Prime Minister briefed the Council on the action taken by his Government in Rwanda. In the light of the grave humanitarian situation there, the Council asked the Commission to bring forward proposals for additional aid from the European Union.

  Finally, the Council discussed the Baltic states and Ukraine. The European Union is seeking to develop its relationships with those countries; to work for the withdrawal of the last Russian troops from the Baltic States; and to help Ukraine to develop a new energy strategy, including closure of the nuclear power plants at Chernobyl.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Population and Reproductive Health
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries he intends to increase population and reproductive health programmes in the next five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are aiming to achieve increases over the next two years and more in some or all of the following countries: Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana, the Gambia, Nigeria, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Cambodia, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Peru. Achieving this aim will depend on agreeing, with the countries and institutions concerned, proposals that we judge to be sufficiently likely to succeed in their objectives.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the percentage of their aid budgets that is spent by each of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries on population and reproductive health.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the OECD's 1993 development assistance committee chairman's report, a copy of which will be placed in the House Library, for details of the percentages of each member state's aid budget spent on population and health. The most recent information from the OECD and the United Nations Population Fund indicates that in 1991 average OECD expenditure on population as a percentage of overall development assistance was about 1.3 per cent. The United Kingdom figure was just under 1.5 per cent.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the World bank that more should be spent on population and reproductive health measures; and what has been the result of those representations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Through the development commit-tee and the World bank board, United Kingdom
  99
  representatives have urged that further attention should be given by the bank to population and reproductive health. This approach has been endorsed by both bodies. World bank funding of this work is increasing and it is producing a sector review of population in developing countries.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, at the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, he will make it clear that Her Majesty's Government's policy is that when, how many or whether to have children is a decision for women and men to make freely without coercion.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We believe that women and men should be able to access the information, commodities and services that they need to reduce the likelihood of conception and thus have children by choice, not chance. They should be free to decide whether to use contraceptive measures, and which to use, without coercion of any kind. Our delegation to the United Nations Conference on Population and Development in Cairo will emphasise these elements of Government policy.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the European Union's aid budget is spent on population and reproductive health measures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At present, less than 1 per cent. of the European Community aid budget is spent on population and reproductive health measures. Between 1991 and 1993, the EC provided 58 mecu—£45 million1 —for population and reproductive health measures, mostly in South Asia and Mediterranean countries. Financing of some 27 mecu—£21 million1—is planned for 1994.

  1Conversion rate for July 1994: 1 ecu=£0·7817.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Britain's bilateral aid budget was devoted to population and reproductive health activities in 1979 and each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of bilateral net official development assistance devoted to population and reproductive health programmes

  Per cent.

  1979

  0·31

  1989

  0·30

  1990

  0·97

  1991

  0·89

  1992

  0·93

  1993

  1·48

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the World Health Organisation that more should be spent on population and reproductive health measures; and what has been the result of those representations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Decisions about the allocation of the World Health Organisation's regular budget are made by successive world health assemblies, by means of resolutions that are based on recommendations of the 100
  executive board. Through participation in the executive board's working group on WHO's response to global change, British officials encourage WHO to propose plans of work that reflect global priorities—including the need to improve reproductive health.

  The United Kingdom is the single largest donor to the co-sponsored United Nations programme of human reproduction research, administered by WHO. This contribution and active role in the HRP's policy and co-ordination committee has enabled us to influence the intensity and focus of this programme's research.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United Nations Development Programme about the rate of progress in implementing reconstruction projects in north-west Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to press UNOSOM and other multilateral agencies to pursue sustainable programmes of assistance in the north-west. But their ability to do so is dependent on the existence of a secure environment, stability and a planning framework which sets clear priorities and mechanisms for accountability.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Ethiopia about Sudanese refugees and their humanitarian needs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  According to recent reports there are some 50,000 Sudanese refugees in three camps in Ethiopia, a number that has not substantially changed over the last three years. The camps are managed by the Ethiopian administrator for refugee affairs, are largely financed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and are in receipt of food aid supplied by the World Food Programme.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest information from the World Food Programme about the extent of humanitarian need in southern Sudan and about the adequacy of the international response; and what action he is going to urge upon the United Nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations operation Lifeline Sudan has reported outstanding emergency needs of about £26 million for southern Sudan to the end of 1994, including 26,000 tonnes of food aid. We initiated and participated in United Nations-led discussions last month which produced a plan of action to address constraints on the delivery and management of the relief effort.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the difficulties in the relationship between the French forces and aid agencies in Rwanda; and how they are to be resolved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The French forces in Rwanda are working closely with the aid agencies which are operational in the French protection area. Following an
  101
  ODA assessment mission to this area last week, we will be funding a number of specific projects with British non-governmental organisations in that area.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the adequacy of the international response to the humanitarian needs of those in the zone protected by the French in Rwanda; and what has been the British contribution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A number of aid agencies are active in the area protected by the French. We are contributing to the non-governmental organisations Care and Merlin towards their operations in that area.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what figures he has for the number of visitors to the United Kingdom from north America on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of D-day.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have received preliminary estimates from the British Tourist Authority about the number of visitors from north America to the United Kingdom as a result of the 50th anniversary of D-day marketing campaign in north America by the BTA and by the Southern tourist board which included a dedicated STB unit within the BTA office in New York.

  BTA's early indications show substantially higher numbers of visitors and visitor spending than suggested in pre-campaign forecasts. These figures indicate between 75,000 and 125,000 additional visitors to the United Kingdom from north America, increasing British tourism earnings by between £44 million and £73 million.

  I should like to pay particular tribute for this success to the work of Mr. Jeff Hamblin, BTA general manager in north America and his staff, for marketing so effectively the wide range of civilian and military events throughout the United Kingdom, commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-day; also to the exceptional commercial leadership of Mr. Michael Green, chairman of the STB, and Mr. John Slater, managing director of the STB.

  National Lottery
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will amend the licence to be awarded under section 5 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to Camelot Group plc to preclude the use of the lottery network for(a) benefits distribution, and (b) other commercial activities.

  Mr. Brooke
  This is a matter for the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery. I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member, and place copies of his reply in the Library of the House.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the operation and the practice of the television licence office in agreeing or refusing concessionary licence fees to pensioners in sheltered accommodation.

  Mr. Brooke
  Under section 180 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, responsibility for the administration of the 102
  television licensing system, including the concessionary licence scheme, passed to the BBC with effect from 1 April 1991. TV Licensing acts as the BBC's agents in the administration of the television licensing system, and I have no power to intervene.

  British Library
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 260, how many reports his Department has commissioned about the British library project from the consultants Kennedy and Donkin.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have commissioned three reports from Kennedy and Donkin Building Services Ltd. for the British library project. They are: a report into the electrical wiring installation; a follow-up report detailing results of a simple inspection of the electrical installation; and a survey of the "as installed" mechanical and electrical services to which I referred in my answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 470.

  Football Pools
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to ask the ITC arid Radio Authority to change their respective codes barring advertising by the football pools companies to permit advertising in the future.

  Mr. Brooke
  None.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring; and if he will set out his targets to help small businesses in the next year.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. The Government help small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislation and administrative burdens. They provide direct assistance where appropriate and are currently establishing a network of business links to provide high-quality business support across the country.

  During the past year, my Department has reviewed regulations from whatever source on the business sectors in which it has a policy interest. I also commissioned an inquiry into the impact of regulations on the tourism industry and held a series of meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss its findings. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance, "Maintaining Portable Electrical Equipment in Hotels and Tourist Accommodation" and my Department hopes to co-operate with the HSE in producing further guidance on health and safety at work regulations for those in the arts, leisure and tourism industry.

  In addition, the national lottery, which will begin in November, will benefit many small businesses; in

  103
  particular, the thousands of small retailers which will soon be selling tickets, and businesses offering ancillary services to the lottery operator.

  My Department intends to continue its work to reduce legislation and administrative burdens on business, and to improve its links and consultation arrangements with businesses operating within the areas where I have a policy interest.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what role will be played by his Department in any consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination against disabled people in sport, arts and entertainment.

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the publication of a consultation document on 15 July. My Department was involved in its preparation. I welcome the publication of the document and would encourage everyone with an interest in these issues, especially disabled people themselves, to let us have their views.

  Science Museum
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he intends to take to overcome the backlog at the science museum in cataloguing on computer pre–1984 documents.

  Mr. Sproat
  The National Heritage Act 1983 lays responsibility for the management of the national museum of science industry, of which the science museum forms part, on its board of trustees. It is for the trustees to decide their priorities within the resources available to the museum.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last paid an official visit to the science museum; what plans he has for future visits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  I last visited the science museum on 15 March to attend its annual dinner. I have not made any plans to visit in the immediate future.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which water companies in England and Wales take account of ability to pay in levying charges.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Director General has a duty to set price limits at levels which enable companies to finance their functions as water undertakers, which at the same time protect the interests of water consumers. He is also required to act so as to avoid pricing which discriminates against different classes of customer. The Director General of Water Services has issued guidelines to the companies on their dealings with customers who have difficulty in meeting their charges. His guidelines encourage the introduction of frequent payment options, extending the range of payment facilities which they make available, and early contact with customers.
  104
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the sum of money granted by Her Majesty's Government in grants and loans to water boards in England in the 10 years before their privatisation; and if he will place a schedule of payments, board by board, in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  Prior to 1989, when the water authorities were privatised, as with other nationalised industries, the Government controlled their borrowing through external financing limits. Details of these EFLs can be found in the relevant annual reports and accounts. Information about grants made to water authorities between 1979 and 1989, which included grants to assist with flood defence and land drainage, can be found in the supply estimates for the Department of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Copies of the water authority annual reports and the two Departments' supply estimates are available in the Library of the House.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there is a presumption against development in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Mr. Curry
  In general, development control decisions affecting areas of outstanding natural beauty should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. In all cases, the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration, although regard should be paid to the economic and social well-being of the areas.

  It would normally be inconsistent with the aims of designation to permit the siting of major industrial or commercial development in these areas. Only proven national interest and lack of alternative sites can justify an exception.

  Beaches
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 697, if he will name the beaches that do not comply with the relevant EC directive; and how many people annually use these beaches.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer, given by my predecessor, of 1 December 1993,Official Report, column 558–59.Records of the number of people using these waters are not held centrally.

  Solent Wetlands
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to designate areas of wetlands in the Solent and surrounding waters under the Ramsar convention.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are awaiting detailed proposals from English Nature for the listing of Southampton water and the Solent as a Ramsar site.

  Building Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigation his Department has made in respect of changing lead times and prices of materials in the building industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department discusses such aspects of the construction market through its "Consultative
  105
  Committee on Construction Industry Statistics". It produces joint biannual state of the construction industry reports. The latest was published on 7 July; copies are available in the Library.

  Cemeteries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the long-term problems of shortage of space in existing cemeteries and the desirability or otherwise of creating new cemeteries; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the use of re-usable graves.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under section 214 of the Local Government Act 1972, the provision of new cemeteries is a matter for local authorities, which are clearly best placed to decide how to satisfy the long-term need for burial space. It is not the practice in the United Kingdom for graves to be re-used. Policy on the removal of human remains is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Environmental Information Regulations 1992
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests for information on animals held in captivity for scientific purposes have been

  Single regeneration budget: Provisional regional breakdown, 1994–95

  £ million

  Greater London

  South East

  Eastern

  South West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North East

  HQ

  Total

  Urban Development Corporations

  109·6

  0·0

  0·0

  14·5

  0·0

  47·0

  17·0

  28·5

  13·9

  60·5

  0·0

  291·0

  Housing Action Trusts

  42·9

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  7·0

  13·5

  0·0

  24·8

  0·0

  0·0

  88·2

  Estate Action

  98·0

  3·1

  6·9

  12·8

  29·7

  49·4

  38·6

  59·3

  44·5

  29·7

  0·6

  372·6

  City Challenge

  52·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  22·5

  30·0

  22·5

  29·1

  31·8

  44·1

  0·0

  232·5

  Urban Programme

  12·8

  0·0

  0·0

  0·9

  3·4

  12·1

  9·4

  9·1

  8·6

  11·8

  14·9

  83·0

  Task Forces

  3·8

  0·0

  0·0

  1·3

  1·9

  1·7

  2·0

  1·0

  2·2

  2·1

  0·0

  16·0

  City Action Teams

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·7

  0·9

  Regional Enterprise Grants

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  0·6

  0·7

  2·9

  1·4

  0·0

  9·0

  GEST 19

  1·8

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·8

  0·2

  0·3

  1·1

  0·4

  0·0

  4·8

  Programme Development Fund

  0·5

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·2

  0·4

  0·2

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  0·0

  3·3

  TEC Challenge

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  0·3

  0·1

  0·5

  —

  0·6

  0·8

  0·7

  0·1

  4·3

  Business Start-up Scheme

  8·0

  6·6

  4·6

  7·6

  7·5

  7·8

  6·5

  4·8

  9·1

  4·0

  3·6

  70 1

  Local Initiative Fund

  2·5

  2·3

  1·4

  1·5

  1·5

  1·9

  1·3

  1·7

  3·3

  1·9

  9·2

  28·6

  Education Business Partnerships

  0·3

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·2

  0·2

  0·1

  1·5

  10·6

  Teacher Placement

  0·3

  0·4

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·1

  Compacts

  0·8

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·5

  0·5

  0·7

  0·5

  0·6

  0·7

  Safer Cities

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·2

  0·2

  0·1

  2·9

  3·5

  Section 11 (Urban)

  28·6

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·2

  13·3

  0·3

  6·5

  11·2

  0·6

  0·0

  60·5

  Ethnic Minority Grant

  2·4

  0·3

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·4

  0·0

  1·2

  0·7

  0·1

  0·0

  5·7

  Ethnic Minority Business Initiative

  0·2

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·2

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·6

  Total

  365·7

  14·2

  14·6

  40·9

  69·2

  174·3

  113·2

  144·2

  156·4

  158·9

  33·5

  1,285·1

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude English Partnerships; regional breakdown depends on Corporate Plan.

  2. UDCs figure for Greater London includes Docklands Light Railway and for South West includes MOD contribution.

  3. City Challenge figures include a contribution from the Housing Corporation.

  4. The North West figure for TEC Challenge includes Merseyside.

  5. HQ figures cover 1993–94 retentions, national contracts and a small amount of unallocated resources.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Government are planning to spend, by region, on urban projects in 1995–96, broken down into planned expenditure already earmarked for specified urban programmes and planned expenditure forming the general pool of the single regeneration budget.106
  made to his Department citing the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; and how many were accepted as falling within the scope of the regulations.

  Mr. Aitkens
  I am not aware of such requests.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the names of the organisations or local authorities which have submitted indicative single regeneration budget bids; how many indicative bids each body has submitted; what is the title of each bid; what is the amount of SRB funding each indicative bid would involve; and what are the indications given to each organisation or local authority by the regional Government offices as to whether their indicative bids fit the SRB criteria and are worthy of being worked up into a full bid to be submitted by 7 September.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave her on 14 July 1994,Official Report, column 764.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Government are spending, by region, on urban projects in 1994–95, broken down by Government programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  I attach a provisional regional breakdown of expenditure for those programmes which now form part of the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Baldry
  A regional breakdown of committed expenditure in 1995–96 for those programmes which now form part of the single regeneration budget is not readily available. The regional distribution of unallocated single regeneration budget funds will not be known until the bidding round has been completed and the successful schemes are announced. The timetable is set out in the
  107
  bidding guidance for the budget issued on 14 April 1994, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Pollution
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards meeting the requirements of article 6 or directive 85/210/EEC and article 3 or directive 78/611/EEC about pollution.

  Mr. Atkins
  In accordance with the requirements of directive 85/210/EEC, which replaced directive 78/611/ EEC, the Motor Fuel (Lead Content of Petrol) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 require leaded petrol and unleaded petrol to meet the lead content limit imposed by the directive. The regulations also require leaded and unleaded petrol to meet equivalent quality requirements in respect of the primary parameters that could influence the levels of other pollutants.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the capping regime for local authorities.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are committed to firm control of public expenditure. The Government will announce their capping criteria as part of the local government finance settlement.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will continue to pay standard spending assessment reduction grant to local authorities in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We propose to pay standard spending assessment reduction grant for a second year, in 1995–96. I recognise that, without some form of damping grant, a number of local authorities would face significant reductions in resources. However, these authorities will by 1995–96 have had more time to bring their spending in line with their standard spending assessment. The scheme may therefore not need to be as generous as in the previous year. We will have to decide the level of SSA reduction grant later this year in the context of the overall local authority settlement.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to allow councils to levy additional taxes in 1995–96.

  Mr. Curry
  The level of council taxes in 1995–96 will depend, among other things, on authorities' spending decisions, on their collection performance and on the revenue support grant settlement, details of which will be announced later this year.

  Local Councillors (Remuneration)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce or extend the entitlement to remuneration of local government elected representatives; what are his proposed new levels for their official duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  A copy of my consultation letter of 14 June to the chairmen of local authority associations on proposed changes to the councillors' allowances system has already been placed in the Library of the House.
  108

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the timetabled targets set in his annual update on "This Common Inheritance" have not been met; and if he will set out the reasons for the failure to meet each of those targets.

  Mr. Atkins
  The commitments to action reviewed in the third report on the 1990 environment White Paper, Command 2549, are set out in tabular form and the tables themselves show the action taken to date, action that is still required and new commitments.

  Architects (Registration)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on measures to simplify present arrangements for the registration of architects as set out in the Architects (Registration) Acts.

  Sir George Young
  Since October the Government have been working with the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Architects Registration Council to agree on suitable and acceptable measures to streamline the Architects Registration Council. We have now arrived at a package of reforms aimed at making the council more focused and efficient. My Department has today issued a consultation paper on the proposed reforms. Copies are available in Library.

  The main proposal is to replace the existing council of 73 members with a small board of 15 members. The new board would represent both lay and professional interests and would concentrate on the key activities of setting criteria for registration; preventing misrepresentation by non-registered architects; disciplining unprofessional conduct; and setting fee levels.

  The consultation will be completed in mid-September. We hope that appropriate legislation can be drafted thereafter.

  London Pensions Fund Authority
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the financial management and policy review of the London Pensions Fund Authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following his consideration of the final report of the review, which is being published today, my right hon. Friend has agreed that the London Pensions Fund Authority should continue to operate, at least until the future of the local government superannuation scheme is settled in the light of a recent efficiency scrutiny of that scheme. My right hon. Friend has also agreed with the authority an action plan designed to improve the LPFA's already very good service levels and its public accountability.

  Copies of the report and of the action plan have been deposited in the Library.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to local authorities' professional construction and property services.
  109
  Mr. Baldry
  Compulsory competitive tendering is being extended to six professional support services, in a phased programme—legal services, professional construc-tion and property services, IT, finance personnel, and corporate and administrative services. Detailed proposals for each service are being developed in close and productive consultations with local authority associations, the Audit Commission, the Account Commission for Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy and the professional bodies.

  Detailed consultation proposals for construction and property services CCT were issued by my Department on 22 February 1994. The Government have now considered the responses received from local authorities, the construction and property professional bodies and other interested parties.

  We have concluded that the percentage subject to CCT should be 65 per cent., as suggested in the consultation proposals. I carefully considered comments that the competition figure should be lower, but I feel confident that the proposed figure—subject also to a minimum in-house provision of £450,000 to safeguard the position of the smallest authorities—will enable authorities to gain the benefits of competition across a wide range of their construction and property work, while ensuring that authorities can maintain the necessary in-house profession-al expertise. The minimum figure of £450,000 will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it continues to meet its purpose.

  I also considered the alternative suggestion that these services should be sub-divided into a set of client-side functions, which would be excluded from CCT, and a set of functions of a consultancy nature, all or nearly all of which would be subject to competition. I note, however, that individual local authorities have different views on the types of work which they prefer to retain in-house and those which they prefer to put out to competition. We have sought to ensure that the CCT arrangements for professional services allow individual authorities flexibil-ity in the way in which they approach competition, and I believe that the simple percentage approach provides greater flexibility and is preferable.

  We propose that the defined activity will cover construction and property services in relation to local authorities' construction and maintenance programmes and projects, and the management of local authority property—other than housing, which is separately covered by housing management CCT. It therefore does not include authorities' professional work in support of other activities such as regulatory and enforcement functions.

  The Government propose that authorities will be able to count the following categories of professional and construction work towards meeting their CCT require-ment: work being carried out in house following a voluntary competitive exercise; work carried out for the locally managed schools; work in support of other local authority activity which itself has been exposed to C'CT; and construction and property work already contracted out. For a transitional period, authorities will also be able to count construction and property work related to housing management, where this service will become subject to CCT at a later date for the authority in question; and similarly count project work which the authority has in progress at the time when CCT comes into effect and which it is not sensible to tender midway through the project.
  110
  Where individual members of staff spend less than 50 per cent. of their time on construction and property work, their time will not be included in the authority's aggregate of defined activity.

  In the consultation proposals, we suggested two-stage implementation—initially 35 per cent. rising to 65 per cent. six months later. Responses indicated that this was not felt to be particularly useful. We therefore propose to move to one-stage implementation, but starting at the later date of April 1996 for the London boroughs and English metropolitan districts. This additional six months before commencement will give authorities good time to prepare specifications and carry out tendering.

  For shire counties and districts, I have already announced that CCT will come into effect following the local government review and the determination of each authority's new structure, and I have now decided to allow an additional six months in the implementation timetable for both professional construction and property and legal services in all shire areas. We want new authorities to take a fresh and radical look at the way in which they organise and provide themselves with support services, and the additional six months will ensure that they have a full opportunity to do so. Separate timetables will apply in Scotland and Wales.

  CCT requires the authorities to operate free and fair competition. My Department is issuing guidance to local authorities and others on the conduct of tendering for professional services. This guidance emphasises that authorities should give full weight to quality in defining their requirements for professional services, and should consider quality of bids fully alongside price, in selecting the best tender proposals.

  My officials will be writing to local authorities with the text of the order which the Government will table shortly, and which will provide, subject to resolution of both Houses of Parliament, for professional construction and property services to become a defined activity for CC'T purposes.

  Some 215 responses were received on the consultation proposals. I have placed a list of responses in the Library.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the context of the Local Government Commission's review of the structure of local government in the shire counties, county councils will be expected to take account of the views of possible successor authorities concerning waste disposal strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Waste disposal activities frequently involve long-term considerations, particularly where the creation of new facilities for waste disposal is concerned, and as a consequence the waste disposal contracts entered into by some authorities may run for up to 20 years or more. I am therefore keen that thorough consultation and co-operation between counties and districts is seen to be important in its own right. This is particularly important in view of the current review of local government structure in the counties. The local authority associations have issued guidance—"A Code of Practice on a Prudential Approach to Financial Management prior to Local Government Re-organisation"—which draws attention to the need for successor authorities to be consulted before decisions are taken which will involve successor authorities in a
  111
  significant financial commitment. The Audit Commission's consultative paper "Time for Change?" also addresses these issues. It is particularly important that a county council that wishes to pursue a waste disposal strategy which will necessarily involve a long-term contract should seek to involve possible successor authorities in early discussion of the options and ways forward, with the aim of obtaining support for that strategy from all the authorities concerned. I believe that it is in the interests of all if a common view can be achieved on the selection of the best waste disposal options for the future.

  Landlord and Tenant Legislation
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the conclusions he has reached on(a) the issues discussed in the consultation paper issued by his Department on 27 May 1993 on commercial property leases and (b) the recommendations of the Law Commission in its reports 208, "Landlord and Tenant—Business Tenancies: a Periodic Review of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II" and 178, "Landlord and Tenant Law—Compensation for Tenants' Improvements"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Consultation paper on commercial property leases.

  The consultation paper discussed whether the Government should take any action over three aspects of commercial leasing practices which had aroused concern: upward only rent reviews, confidentiality clauses and dispute resolution procedures. We issued the consultation paper in response to concern about apparent rigidities in the market and the difficulties a number of commercial tenants were facing with their leases.

  It is evident that the market is now providing a greater variety of lease terms. We welcome signs that this is taking place, especially the availability of shorter leases. It is important for the industry to be flexible if it is to meet changes in the market. While the relative bargaining strengths of the parties will depend on the state of the market, it is not clear that occupiers fully appreciate the strength of their own bargaining positions. We consider the best way forward would be for the industry to adopt a code of practice which not only draws attention to the implications of upward rent review clauses but encourages flexibility on other terms. On the assumption that a satisfactory code of practice can be developed and accepted by all sectors of the property industry in consultation with occupiers' representatives and put into effect, we consider that statutory intervention to regulate rent review clauses would not be appropriate.

  We favour maximum transparency in the marketplace. We recognise that despite this, confidentiality clauses in leases sometimes reflect the specific and legitimate needs of the landlord and tenant. A ban would be insensitive to these needs. Nevertheless, it would be to the advantage of interested parties if in general greater openness could be achieved, as this should improve the quality of information on which decisions are based. We envisage that the code of practice should encourage greater openness, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. We shall consult with interested parties on how this could be achieved.

  On resolution of disputes, it is no part of the Government role to regulate the procedures to be followed. The main emphasis must rest on the parties remaining free
  112
  to agree dispute resolution procedures of their own choice. There is, however, scope for better understanding, especially among tenants, of the procedures available and while, in general, existing procedures work satisfactorily, there is a continuing need to be vigilant about the scope for improvement. We therefore look to discussions about a code of practice to stimulate greater awareness of current procedures. More generally the competitiveness White Paper refers to other work being taken forward to simplify the law on arbitration and encouraging other forms of dispute resolution. We also intend to review with interested organisations options for providing a quick, cheap and cost-effective method of resolving disputes for small tenants.

  In conclusion, the Government will work with representatives of both landlords and tenants and other interested parties with the aim of producing a code of practice within the next twelve months. The Government will appraise the operation of the code after three years when it should have had reasonable time to influence commercial practices. In particular, we will review the impact on the flexibility and transparency of the market.

  Law Commission report on landlord and tenant law

  Law Commission report No. 208 dealt with the workings of part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and was concerned primarily with technical issues. It has made a number of useful recommendations about the better workings of the Act—for example, streamlining the procedures for serving notices when a tenancy comes to an end. We propose to implement most of these.

  However, some of the issues raised have wider implications for relationships between commercial landlords and tenants. In particular, we wish to give further consideration to the proposal to make it easier for landlords and tenants to contract out of the provisions of the 1954 Act; we will want to satisfy ourselves that this proposal will not jeopardise the position of tenants.

  We shall be taking a further look at these wider issues in conjunction with advice provided by my Department's property advisory group.

  Law Commission report No. 178 recommended the abolition of the statutory scheme for compensating tenants for improvements that they carry out. We accept the Commission's proposals. This scheme is little used. The procedures are complicated and time-consuming, and the provisions of the 1954 Act have rendered it largely obsolete. The 1954 Act gives tenants the right to lease renewal, except in defined circumstances; and the rent on renewal does not take account of improvements carried out by the tenant.

  The 1927 Act also enables tenants to obtain court approval for carrying out improvements which would otherwise be unlawful. We accept the Law Commission's recommendation that this should remain.

  We will need primary legislation to implement proposals stemming from these two reports.

  I should emphasise that we have no intention of abolishing the 1954 Act, which has stood the test of time and provides a careful balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. In particular, we are not considering removing security of tenure for business tenants.
  113

  Marriages
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office, how many reports have been made by marriage registrars, and from which registration areas, to the Registrar General, that marriages are suspected to be solely for immigration purposes, in each year since 1992, to the latest convenient date; and in how many of these instances information has been passed on to his Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information will be placed in the Library. During 1993 superintendent registrars reported 361 cases to the Registrar General where they suspected that a proposed marriage had been arranged for the sole purpose of evading statutory immigration controls. Of this number, informa-tion in respect of 304 was passed to the Home Office.

  So far this year (to 14 July 1994) 270 reports have been received from superintent registrars, of which 194 have been referred to the Home Office.

  Environmental Planning
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that environmental planning decisions are taken in full appreciation of their impact on human health and that adequate public health advice is provided by the NHS to joint regional offices of the departments of Health, Employment, Transport and Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department does not have joint regional offices with other Departments. It is a responsibility of regional and district directors of public health to have regard to and, when appropriate, provide advice upon all factors which may have significant impact upon the public health in their area—including those which may be associated with the consequences of planning decisions. Advice may also be obtained from the National Health Service Executive.

  Responsibility for planning matters rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We understand that guidance to planning authorities, and to applicants for consent to major projects, requires that impact upon human beings should be taken into account in assessing the environmental impact of development plans and projects.

  Plumbing Systems
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the consultation paper on the future of water regulations controlling the installation of plumbing systems on buildings.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: Publication is planned for later this summer.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military situation in Bosnia.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The month-long agreement on a cessation of hostilities expired on 10 July. Fighting has continued in 114
  various parts of Bosnia, mostly at a relatively low level. The situation in Sarajevo is generally calm but heavier fighting continues in parts of central Bosnia and in the Bihac area of western Bosnia.

  Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent evaluation he has undertaken of the contribution made by United Kingdom nuclear weapons to global non-proliferation.

  Mr. Hanley
  Our minimum nuclear deterrent and our strong support of international non-proliferation policies both contribute to security and stability.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held with defence chiefs with regard to the future large aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  We hold regular discussions with the chiefs of staff on all aspects of defence policy including our future requirement for transport aircraft.

  Hercules
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has made about the Hercules replacement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The options for either refurbishing or replacing the first half of the Hercules fleet are still under consideration. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the way forward by the end of the year.

  Belize
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his recent visit to Belize.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend paid a very successful visit to Belize between 27 and 28 May, in the course of which he held useful discussions with the Government of Belize covering regional and bilateral issues and visited the Belize defence force and British Forces. This was the first visit by a Secretary of State for Defence and demonstrates the United Kingdom's continued strong links with Belize, since she became independent in 1981.

  Fraud
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to eliminate fraud in his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has taken a range of measures to deter and detect fraud and to make staff aware of the need for vigilance. All suspected cases are vigorously pursued.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is current policy on the production or use by the United Kingdom forces or by other nations with which the United Kingdom carry out joint operations of anti-personnel mines.
  115
  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom does not currently produce anti-personnel mines. The production and use of such mines by other nations is a matter for individual Governments, but these mines are legitimate defensive military weapons provided that they are used against military targets and in accordance with the laws of war.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent information he has received from the United States relating to Gulf war syndrome.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department continues to receive information relating to the investigations into an alleged Gulf war syndrome being undertaken by the United States Department of Defence and the Department of Veteran's Affairs.

  Sir Bedivere
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the Sir Bedivere procurement.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the award of the contract for the RFA Sir Bedivere.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are placing a contract with Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd. which was the clear winner of the Sir Bedivere competition.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to announce the successful bid for work on the Sir Bedivere, and what criteria have been set for awarding the contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  I can today announce the results of the three competitions including that for work on the RFA Sir Bedivere. Contracts are awarded on the basis of best value for money.

  We are placing a contract with Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd., which was the clear winner of the Sir Bedivere competition.

  Separately, Swan Hunter has emerged as the lowest bidder for the refit of RFA Olwen. Contract award must, however, depend on Swan Hunter meeting my Department's usual financial and other requirements, in default of which this work will be placed with the next lowest bidder.

  Finally, we are placing a contract with Devonport Management Ltd., which submitted the lowest bid for the refit of HMS Birmingham.

  Christmas Island Nuclear Tests
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the number of service personnel who were involved in the Christmas Island nuclear tests and are still living; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although information is not held in the form requested, studies by the National Radiological Protection Board have shown that of over 20,000 former participants in the atmospheric nuclear test programme which took place during the 1950s and early 1960s, some 2,800 had died by the end of 1990. This death rate is lower 116
  than among the general population in the same age group, and no higher than for the matched control group in the NRPB study. Copies of the NRPB reports are in the Library of the House.

  Humanitarian Relief Operations
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects next to meet his NATO counterpart to discuss humanitarian relief operations.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence next plans to meet his NATO counterparts at an informal meeting of Defence Ministers in Seville in September. The agenda for that meeting has not yet been decided.

  Partnership for Peace Initiative
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the NATO partnership for peace initiative.

  Mr. Hanley
  The implementation of partnership for peace is going very well. To date, 21 states, including the Russian Federation, have signed; the partnership co-ordination cell has been established; the first individual partnership programme, with Poland, has been agreed, and others are under negotiation; and the first land and maritime exercises under the partnership are planned to take place this autumn.

  Royal Air Force (Command Structure)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the new command structure in the Royal Air Force which followed the "Options for Change" reductions.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received no specific representations about the new RAF command structure.

  Stefan Adolph Kock
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Stefan Adolph Kock acquired British nationality; and who from the Ministry of Defence or other Government Department intervened with the police in Oban in Argyll regarding the prosecution of Stefan Adolph Kock after he had fired an automatic pistol at two motorists on 15 January 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is responsible for prosecutions in Scotland. The information requested however cannot be compiled in the time before the House rises for summer recess. I shall therefore arrange from my right hon. and learned Friend to write to the hon. Member as soon as this information is available and and arrange for a copy of the letter to be place in the Library of the House for the benefit of other hon. Members.
  117

SCOTLAND

  Council Tax Payers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations or laws govern the ability or duty of the proposed new councils to give personal details of council tax payers to(a) the proposed new water boards and (b) other outside bodies.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill provides that it will be the duty of local authorities to supply information held on the setting, levying or collection of council tax to the new water and sewerage authorities if required to do so by my right hon. Friend and if he considers this will assist the latter either in making a charges scheme or collecting water and sewerage charges made under such a scheme. The Bill provides for such requirements to be imposed by regulations subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

  As regards other outside bodies, the principal statutory provisions concerning the release of information about council tax payers are contained in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The provisions of the Act will apply to the proposed new councils. Paragraph 17 of schedule 2 to the Act provides that regulations may be made for the supply of relevant information to any person who requests it for a purpose not relating to part I or II of the Act. However, personal information is specifically excluded from the definition of relevant information.

  Child Care Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total public expenditure on child care services for pre-school children under the age of five years, by sector, including all local authority provision and grants for the voluntary sector, for each year from 1989–90 to 1993–94; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for Scotland, in each of these years.

  Mr. Stewart
  Services for children under five are provided from public expenditure by local authorities and from grants from the Scottish Office under the urban programme and under sections 9 and 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

  Child and adult pedestrian casualties on or near pedestrian crossings in Scotland, years 1991 to 19931

  Severity/Year

  On pedestrian crossing

  Within zig zag of crossing

  Within 50 metres of crossing

  Total

  Child pedestrian2

  Fatal

  1991

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1992

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1993

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Serious

  1991

  31

  2

  46

  79

  1992

  20

  6

  40

  66

  1993

  18

  3

  29

  50

  Slight

  1991

  117

  11

  108

  236

  1992

  91

  12

  113

  216

  1993

  103

  13

  77

  193

  118

  £000

  Local Authority LA Facilities

  Expenditure Voluntary Facilities

  Scottish Office Expenditure

  1989–90

  11,604

  1,859

  2,163

  1990–91

  13,696

  1,917

  2,766

  1991–92

  14,537

  2,285

  4,190

  1992–93

  116,030

  11,441

  4,647

  1993–94

  n/a

  n/a

  4,657

  1 Provisional.

  The percentage that this expenditure represents of the Scottish gross domestic product for each of the years for which full information is available lies between 0.04 per cent. and 0.05 per cent.

  Cemeteries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the long-term problems of shortage of space in existing cemeteries and the desirability or otherwise of creating new cemeteries; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the use of re-usable graves.

  Mr. Stewart
  The provision of cemeteries is a matter for local authorities, whose statutory powers for this purpose include a right to purchase land compulsorily for new cemeteries or the extension of existing cemeteries. The re-use of graves would involve the disturbance of remains, which would be unacceptable to many people; and the implications would need careful and sensitive consideration. I understand that the Institute of Burial and Cremation Administration in Scotland is considering the scope for optimising the use of cemeteries in ways which would not involve disinterment.

  Road Accidents (Pedestrians)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) children and (b) adults have been (i) killed, (ii) seriously or (iii) slightly injured on or near pedestrian crossings in Scotland in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested on children and adults killed or injured on or near pedestrian crossings between 1991 and 1993 is given in the table below.
  119

  Severity/Year

  On pedestrian crossing

  Within zig tag of crossing

  Within 50 metres of crossing

  Total

  Total

  1991

  148

  13

  156

  317

  1992

  111

  19

  153

  283

  1993

  122

  16

  106

  244

  Adult pedestrian

  Fatal

  1991

  5

  3

  14

  22

  1992

  12

  2

  7

  21

  1993

  4

  —

  11

  15

  Serious

  1991

  117

  19

  149

  285

  1992

  89

  18

  120

  227

  1993

  53

  22

  77

  152

  Slight

  1991

  234

  24

  268

  526

  1992

  203

  18

  269

  490

  1993

  152

  34

  198

  384

  Total

  1991

  356

  46

  431

  833

  1992

  304

  38

  .396

  738

  1993

  209

  56

  286

  551

  1These figures relate to pedestrian casualities on or near pedestrian crossing involving any number of vehicles. 'Road Accidents Scotland' table 34 provides figures for pedestrian casualities on or near pedestrian crossing involving single vehicles.In 1992 there were 997 such pedestrian casualties compared with 1,021 (283+738) provided above.

  2Child 0–15 years.

  Local Government
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings have taken place of the staff advisory committee on local government in Scotland; on what dates; what was the outcome; what instructions he has given to the committee; what advice he has received from it; and when he expects to promulgate such advice to individual local authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  The staff advisory committee held its first meeting on 18 May. I understand that it has held regular meetings since then and has undertaken a number of visits to local authorities. My right hon. Friend has invited the committee as a first task to prepare advice on the nature of any redundancy compensation scheme which should apply in Scotland during the period of reorganisation. The Committee's advice on this issue is expected quite shortly.

  Agricultural Services Agency
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the annual report and accounts of the Scottish Agricultural Services Agency for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today published the report, and I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what preparations he will make to establish new water and sewerage authorities as provided in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.

  Mr. Lang
  Work to establish the new water and sewerage authorities will proceed as quickly as possible after Royal Assent is obtained to the legislation.
  120
  Restructuring of the industry is a major undertaking and it is essential that the chief executives of the new authorities should be in post at the earliest possible date following Royal Assent. Any delay is likely to incur inefficiencies and costs in implementing the restructuring. Selection of candidates will need to be thorough. It will also be time consuming. I therefore intend now to invite tenders for the appointment of executive search consultants to help identify candidates for chief executive posts.

  Substantial assets will need to be transferred from the existing local authorities to the new bodies. The asset transfer arrangements will be complex. A priority task will be to issue guidance to assist the regional and islands councils and the Central Scottish Water Development Board in their preparation of asset transfer schemes. To expedite this I also intend to invite tenders for the appointment of technical consultants to advise on the preparation of guidance on asset transfer schemes.

  Expenditure on these consultancies is a new service for which parliamentary approval will be sought in a winter supplementary estimate for the housing and environmental services, Scotland vote, class XIV, vote 7. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £200,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Prison Rules
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will introduce new rules for prisons and young offender institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The new Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994, which were the subject of wide-ranging public consultation late last year, have been laid before this House today. They will come into force on 1 November. The revised rules not only pull together and update the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 and the Young Offenders (Scotland) Rules 1965, but also lift out of the old Prisons (Scotland) Standing Orders
  121
  a number of matters which, because they concern prisoners' rights, more appropriately appear on the face of the rules so that they are subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny. They take account of the relevant European guidance, the European convention on human rights and the European prison rules. They represent a fundamental and wide-ranging overhaul of the rules governing the management of Scottish penal establish-ments, and are designed not merely to codify existing practice, but to introduce change.

  The rules provide inter alia for the making of directions. While the latter have legislative force, they do not require to be formally laid before Parliament. Nevertheless, so that hon. Members may see the detail of what is proposed, copies of the draft directions have been placed in the Library. In due course, the directions, like the rules, will be published.

  Childhood Cancer, Dounreay
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the recent update of the epidemiological data concerning the incidence of childhood cancer in the Dounreay area.

  Mr. Stewart
  Details of this work, which was carried out on behalf of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, were published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health on 16 June 1994. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The study found that in the period 1985–91, four cases of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were observed in the one to 24 age group resident within 25 km of Dounreay, compared to 1.4 expected cases. The results have been examined by COMARE, which concluded that the results reinforced the previous findings that the raised incidence of childhood and young adult leukaemia in the area is a real phenomenon and is less likely to have arisen by chance. The committee concluded that further epidemiological research in the Dounreay area to try to determine causal mechanisms was not a practicable way forward at present. The Government accept this advice. Further studies are, however, under way on a national basis —one on the incidence of childhood cancer in the vicinity of all nuclear sites in Scotland, the other a case control study of childhood cancer in Scotland, linked with a parallel study in England and Wales.

  The full test of the Committee's advice is as follows:
  Comare statement
  Incidence of Leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in Children and Young Adults Resident in the Dounreay Area of Caithness, Scotland, in 1968–1991. Black R. J., Sharp L, Harkness E. F., McKinney P. A.
  Background
  The second report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), entitled 'Investigation of the possible increased incidence of leukaemia in young people near the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment, Caithness, Scotland', which was published in 1988, concluded that for the period 1968–1984: "There is evidence of a raised incidence of leukaemia in young people living in the vicinity of Dounreay.".
  Further case-control and cohort epidemiological investiga-tions were recommended and undertaken in subsequent years [Case-control study of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in children in Caithness near Dounreay nuclear installation. Uruquhart et al, BMJ 1991; 302, 687–692. Incidence of leukaemia and other cancers in birth and school cohorts in the Dounreay area. Black et al, BMJ 1992; 304, 1401–1405]. In the
  122
  light of this work and other considerations, COMARE requested that the epidemiological data for childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the vicinity of Dounreay should be analysed to include the period 1984–1991.
  This work was undertaken by the Information and Statistics Division of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department and was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health on 16 June 1994.
  The Study
  The objective of this report was to review the geographical incidence of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in children and young adults resident in the area less than 25km from the Dounreay nuclear installation, and in the reminder of the KW postcode area. The full-time period 1968–91 for which data are now available was studied to determine whether the excess incidence reported in the period up to 1984 has continued in subsequent years.
  In comparing observed and expected numbers of cases of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the expected numbers were based on Scottish national rates.
  The authors report that in 1968–91, 12 cases were observed compared with 5.2 expected in the zone within 25km of the Dounreay plant (p=0.007). In the latest period 1985–91, which was not included in the second COMARE report, 4 cases were observed compared with 1.4 expected (p=0.059).
  Comare's Advice to Government
  COMARE have considered this study and welcomed its publication.
  The Committee endorsed the methods used.
  Eight additional cases of childhood cancer are reported in this study for the period 1985–1991. Of these, 4 were within 25km of Dounreay and these cases give added weight to the previous findings that the raised incidence of childhood and young adult leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in this area is a real phenomenon.
  COMARE's second report concluded:
  "Although chance cannot be entirely dismissed as an explanation of the raised incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of Dounreay, we consider that it is now less likely than when Sellafield was considered in isolation".
  The new findings reinforce that view.
  Regarding the causation of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the area, the Committee considered that this study neither adds nor removes support for the "population mixing" hypothesis suggested by Professor Kinlen. The Committee also noted that the data in the case-control study [Urquhart et all 1991], which examined parental exposure to radiation, showed that the "paternal preconception irradiation" hypothesis put forward by Professor Gardner could not account for the observed excess and that the new data did not change this position.
  The Committee concluded that further epidemiological research in the Dounreay area to try to determine causal mechanisms is not considered to be a practicable way forward at present, because of the small number of cases involved. However, the incidence of any new cases of childhood leukaemia which might arise should continue to be monitored at appropriate time periods. Rigorous analysis of pathological material from such individuals should continue to be strongly encouraged.

  Health Visitors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health visitors were employed in each health board area in September 1988 and in September 1992.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The information requested is shown in the table below.

  Health visitors employed by the National Health Service in Scotland1 (whole time equivalent as at 30 September)

  1988

  19922

  Scotland

  1,515·9

  1,408·3

  Argyll and Clyde

  119·2

  116·3

  Ayrshire and Arran

  105·7

  88·1

  Borders

  26·1

  23·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  37·3

  27·9

  Fife

  112·4

  112·7

  123

  1988

  19922

  Forth Valley

  89·6

  85·4

  Grampian

  161·3

  1539

  Greater Glasgow

  322·7

  264·3

  Highland

  46·0

  44·9

  Lanarkshire

  160·8

  153·6

  Lothian

  217·9

  211·0

  Orkney

  7·0

  5·0

  Shetland

  8·0

  6·7

  Tayside

  90·9

  107·7

  Western Isles

  11·0

  7·6

  1 Excludes combined duty nurses and health visitors in training. Includes field work teachers.

  2 Grades G to I. These staff are assumed to be qualified health visitors.

  Agricultural Schemes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost in 1993 in Scotland of payments under(a) the environmentally sensitive area scheme, (b) the nitrate sensitive area scheme, (c) the farm and conservation grant scheme, (d) the pilot beef and sheep extensification schemes, (e) the woodland grant scheme, U) the farm woodland premium scheme, (g) the orchard grubbing scheme, (h) the optional five-year set-aside scheme, (i) the habitat scheme, (j) the moorland scheme, (k) the countryside access scheme and (1) the organic aid scheme; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1994.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information is given in the table.

  1993–94 Actual expenditure £ million

  1994–95 Estimated expenditure £ million

  Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme

  0·963

  4·500

  Nitrate Sensitive Area Scheme

  nil

  0·100

  Farm and Conservation Grant Schemes

  5·325

  5·150

  Pilot Beef and Sheep Extensification Schemes

  0·074

  0·074

  Woodland Grant Scheme

  11·600

  12·600

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  0·485

  1·134

  Orchard Grubbing Scheme1

  nil

  nil

  Five-year Set-Aside Scheme

  3·981

  2·423

  Habitats Scheme

  nil

  nil

  Moorland Scheme

  nil

  nil

  Set-Aside Access Scheme (Scottish equivalent of Countryside Access Scheme)

  nil

  nil

  Organic Aid Scheme

  nil

  0·950

  1 Scheme now closed.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost in 1993 in Scotland of payments under(a) the sheep annual premium, (b) the suckler cow premium, (c) the beef special premium and (d) the hill livestock compensatory allowances; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1994.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The expected values of the 1993 scheme payments in Scotland are detailed below:

  £ million

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  99·1

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  43·4

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  24·8

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  50·9

  124
  Estimates for the value of each scheme in Scotland for the 1994 scheme year are detailed below:

  £ million

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  95·7

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  53·4

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  30·7

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  40·8

  Wheelchair Service
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what changes in the basis of funding of the wheelchair service to individual disabled people he has made following the report to the Scottish Home and Health Department, "How should the Wheelchair Service develop in the Nineties?"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether his Department has responded to the recommendations made to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department contained in the report "How Should the Wheelchair Service Develop in the Nineties?"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: No changes have been made to the funding arrangements for this financial year. At present, the six centres which provide wheelchair services are funded by direct allocations from the national services division of the Common Services Agency. The future funding arrangements are under review by that division and any decision will be taken in consultation with health boards which are responsible for assessing the health needs of resident populations and for purchasing the appropriate services.

  The views and recommendations expressed in the report "How should the Wheelchair Service develop in the Nineties?" have been noted by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department and have been drawn to the attention of the national services division and health boards.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what developments are taking place in community care to accommodate psychiatric patients who are currently in hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: The level of provision for community care for every patient will vary and in all cases will reflect and respond to the needs of the individual. The aim is to secure the most effective package of services to meet the needs of patients and carers.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which management consultants have been employed by his Department to assist in the assessment of applications for trust status; how much each was paid; and how many assessments they undertook, in each wave.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: The information requested is provided in the table:
  125

  Wave

  Consultants

  Number of Trust applicants assessed

  Payment (including VAT)

  First

  None

  3

  —

  Second

  KPMG Managemement Consulting

  14

  £44,885

  Third

  Coopers and Lybrand

  23

  £51,183

  In addition, KPMG Management Consulting was paid £3,760 to assist in the assessment of the merger between Royal Scottish National Hospital NHS trust and Forth Valley healthcare unit. They have also been appointed to assist in the assessment of the current fourth wave of NHS trust applicants.

  Traffic Offences
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of speeding offences recorded within Argyll and Bute district in each year since 1987; and what was the total number of successful prosecutions in each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: The available information for 1987 to 1993 is detailed in the table:

  Speeding offences, number recorded by the police and number of charges proved in Argyll and Bute, 1987–1993

  Number of offences recorded by the police

  Number of charges proved

  1987

  168

  12

  1988

  139

  25

  1989

  137

  17

  1990

  296

  21

  1991

  407

  84

  1992

  383

  59

  1993

  361

  1—

  1 Not yet available.

  Notes:

  1. The result of court proceedings may well refer to offences committed in earlier years.

  2. Speeding offences may be dealt with by way of fixed penalties in addition to court proceedings.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many motorists were(a) charged with and (b) convicted of (i) failure to accord precedence at pedestrian crossings, endorseable offences, (ii) failure to comply with traffic sign, (iii) speed limit offences, (iv) driving after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and (v) reckless driving and so on in Scotland in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: The available information for 1991 and 1992 is given in the Scottish Office statistical bulletins "Motor Vehicle Offences In Scotland 1988–91" and "Motor Vehicle Offences In Scotland, 1992", copies of which are in the Library. Information for 1993 is not yet available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Permanent Secretaries' Handbook
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under what provision of the code of open government it has been decided to keep secret those parts of the permanent secretaries' handbook not related to national security.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: In addition to exemption 1 of the code of practice—defence, security and international relations—exemptions 2— internal discussion and advice—7—effective management of the public service—and 8—public employment, public appointments and honours—would be relevant to the handbook's contents.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the last amendments were made to the permanent secretaries' handbook.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The handbook is revised as new material becomes available.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the headings of all those sections in the permanent secretaries' handbook which do not relate to national security.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 9 March,Official Report, column 256.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Light Bulbs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee why more powerful light bulbs have been installed in various rooms and corridors of the Palace of Westminster; and what assessment he has made of the energy conservation efforts of this practice.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The general policy on lighting in the Palace of Westminster over the last four years includes a rolling programme to install low-energy light bulbs wherever safety and the design of lighting allows. The result has been a 63 per cent. reduction in the use of electricity for lighting in those areas where such bulbs are used.

  There is an additional programme throughout the Palace to overhaul the lighting in the corridors and to install emergency lighting. The use of modern electrical fitttings in these areas gives more efficient lighting but with a reduction in power consumption. Any instances where more powerful light bulbs have been installed have been at the request of Members.

  I will ask the Director of Parliamentary Works to write to the hon. Member about the energy conservation programme.

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibitions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the skin care campaign to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 21 November to Friday 25 November.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 28 November to Friday 2 December.

  Details of permanent and temporary notified vacancies 11 October 1993 to 8 April 1994

  Period

  11 October 1993 to 7 January 1994

  10 January 1994 8 April 1994

  Region

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Permanent vacancies notified

  Temporary vacancies notified

  Northern Region

  15,619

  5,769

  18,809

  5,498

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  28,980

  8,466

  32,935

  8,530

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  35,125

  12,076

  40,182

  8,906

  London and South East Region

  99,996

  30,770

  115,843

  24,927

  South West Region

  28,889

  9,637

  37,981

  8,107

  Office for Wales

  20,909

  13,155

  24,830

  10,413

  West Midlands Region

  32,415

  9,240

  38,040

  7,085

  North West Region

  54,348

  22,229

  63,767

  18,775

  Office for Scotland

  42,347

  16,614

  49,574

  13,534

  National total

  358,628

  127,956

  421,961

  105,775

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction workers were registered as unemployed in each of the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: Estimates from the labour force survey of the number of ILO unemployment people whose previous employment was in the construction industry are shown in the following table:

  Numbers of ILO Unemployed People Previously Employed in the Construction Industry (SIC 92—Section F).

  Great Britain

  Thousands (Not seasonally adjusted)

  Spring 1992

  401

  Spring 1993

  412

  Winter 1993–94

  369

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, columns 212–15, if he will update the information on the number of temporary and permanent vacancies at jobcentres in each region.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 19 July 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question asking for an update of information given earlier about the number of temporary and permanent vacancies at Jobcentres in each region.

  In my earlier reply, I gave you details of temporary and permanent vacancies notified to Jobcentres from April 1987 to 8 October 1993. The updated information, covering the period I I October 1993 to 8 April 1994, is given in the attached table.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what role will be played by his Department in any consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination in employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the publication of a document entitled "A Consultation on Government Measures to Tackle Discrimination Against Disabled People" on 15 July, to which the Department contributed. This document includes proposals for measures to tackle unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people in the labour market. I would encourage everyone with an interest in these issues, especially disabled people themselves, to let us have their views. We shall be considering the responses that are made to the proposals during the consultation process.
  129

  Training
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will examine the criteria for output-related funding to make possible payment for completion of component units of national vocational qualifications in order to ensure the delivery of appropriate training to young people with special training needs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department is experimenting with the scope for using units of national vocational qualifications as part of output-related funding pilots with a number of training and enterprise councils. However, TECs are already responsible for ensuring that suitable training is available for young people, including those with special training needs.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to develop a national policy on training which would enable the training and enterprise councils, the careers service, local authorities, educational institutions, training providers and industry bodies to co-ordinate fully the delivery of training to young people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training for young people is a strategic priority set out in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's vocational education and training strategy statement for Great Britain, "Prosperity through Skills" published in December 1993. Within this strategy, the development of specific initiatives such as modern apprenticeships requires all those involved in vocational education and training to work together at local, sectoral and national level. A copy of "Prosperity through Skills" is available in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to secure an improvement in co-ordination between all those organisa-tions involved in the delivery of training to young people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Improvement in the delivery of training for young people requires concerted action by all those involved in vocational education and training at local, sectoral and national level. A series of strategic level indicators, some of which are linked to the national targets for education and training, are set out in "Prosperity through Skills"—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement of vocational education and training strategy. Those indicators are intended to help planners and practitioners assess how vocational education and training activities are achieving progress in line with the statement, and identify scope for improved co-ordination. A copy of "Prosperity through Skills" is available in the Library.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women were serving an apprenticeship with companies or industries within the Greater London area at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Available information from the labour force survey shows that, in winter 1993–94, 14,000 men resident in the Greater London area, who were in employment, were undertaking apprenticeships. The sample size does not allow reliable estimates for women in this geographical area. Information based on the workplace is not collected.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Africa (Parliamentary Statements)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions since 1979 when a Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House on matters to do with Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested as recorded in the JUSTIS database is:

  (1) 9 and 12 July 1984: Statements (further to that of the Home Secretary on 6 July) about the abduction of Mr. Umaru Dikko, the Nigerian ex-Minister on 5 July and subsequent developments to date.

  (2) 19 May 1986: Statement on South African incursions into Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  There have additionally been a number of other general statements in which reference to Africa has been made.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances Her Majesty's Government will re-open discussions with Argentina concerning the sovereignty of the Falkland islands.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House on 4 May, he was able to reassure the Falkland islanders during his recent visit that sovereignty of the islands is not for discussion. We have no doubts about our sovereignty and we have made it clear to Argentina that the matter is not for negotiation. We support the right of the islanders to self-determination.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people have been repatriated to Vietnam from Hong Kong in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers

  1989

  874

  1990

  5,387

  1991

  7,747

  1992

  11,668

  1993

  12,751

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what compensation has been paid to Vietnamese boat people who lost possessions during the disturbance at the Whitehead detention centre, Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No compensation has been paid to Vietnamese migrants who claim that they lost possessions during the operation carried out in the Whitehead detention centre in Hong Kong on 7 April. The question of civil liability and damages, if any, will be considered only if and when any claims are received and will be determined by the courts of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of
  131
  police and security forces that were used to quell the disturbances at the Whitehead Vietnamese detention centre, Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A total of 1,349 police and Correctional Services Department officers were involved in the operation which took place in the Whitehead detention centre on 7 April. The Governor of Hong Kong ordered an independent inquiry into the operation which concluded that the Correctional Services Department had acted correctly in deploying such a large contingent.

  Haiti
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions he will support against Haiti; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom voted in favour of Security Council resolutions 841 and 917. These resolutions prevented the sale and supply of petroleum products and arms; imposed an import and export ban, subject to minor exceptions for humanitarian purposes; prohibited aircraft flights, except for scheduled passenger flights, taking off from, landing in, or overflying the United Kingdom if they are destined for or have come from Haiti; and restricted payments under bonds. The necessary legislation has been passed to bring these measures into effect.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to support the United States Government efforts to restore democracy to Haiti.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Along with our European Union partners, we have consistently reaffirmed our commitment to the restoration of democratic government in Haiti. We support the efforts of the Organisation of American States and the United Nations to bring about a political settlement. We are taking steps to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 917, which was adopted by the United Nations on 6 May 1994 to impose sanctions on Haiti.

  Chinese Hydrogen Bomb Test
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he has had with the United States of America in relation to its criticism of the Chinese hydrogen bomb test on 10 June.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Officials are in regular contact with their United States counterparts on all aspects of nuclear testing, including the Chinese nuclear test on 10 June.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for the Government's policy in relation to the test ban negotiations of the nuclear test by China on 10 June.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have made it clear that we regret the nuclear test carried out by China on 10 June. China is nevertheless contributing to the present negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty; we welcome this. We are committed to concluding, at an early date, a treaty which will make an effective contribution to the non-proliferation regime.
  132
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to China regarding its explosion of a hydrogen bomb underground in a test on 10 June; and what are his reasons for any action or inaction in this area.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 8 July,Official Report, column 362.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had and with whom regarding the return to the United Kingdom of Mr. Asil Nadir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Officials of the Serious Fraud Office have pursued their investigations in both northern Cyprus and Turkey. We have been in close touch with those involved in the investigation here and in Cyprus and Turkey.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts Her Majesty's Government have had with the Malaysian Government about the role of the British press, its editors and proprietors in relation to United Kingdom Malaysian relations; what was discussed; what action was taken(a) formally or (b) informally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Malaysian Government are well aware of our concern that inaccurate reporting and speculative allegations in the press can be deeply damaging to British interests. They also fully understand that the British Government do not seek to intervene in or influence the editorial or management policy of the press.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development conference which meets in Nairobi on 18 July to consider the future of Sudan; and what they were.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have given strong political support to the IGADD initiative but have made no representations to the IGADD Governments on points of detail in advance of the third round of talks. Such points will be for the parties themselves to resolve. We are providing £25,000 in financial support for the IGADD secretariat.

  North Korea
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had with the United States Government on the future of the nuclear programme in North Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We discuss the issue of North Korea's non-compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement regularly with the
  133
  United States Administration. Following the death of Kim Il-Sung we hope that talks between the United States and North Korea aimed at resolving this crisis will be rescheduled very soon, and that a new date for a summit between the leaders of North and South Korea will also be set. We believe that any solution to this crisis must reaffirm the IAEA's right to inspect all North Korea's nuclear facilities to the agency's satisfaction.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation he has made of the threat posed by the current North Korean nuclear programme; and what action he plans to take.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As a result of North Korea's consistent failure to co-operate fully with its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, the agency's director general has stated that he cannot conclude that nuclear material has not been diverted for military use in North Korea. We urge North Korea to allay suspicions by complying fully with its IAEA safeguards agreement and affirming unequivocally its commitments to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If dialogue between North Korea and the United States and South Korea fails, then we are ready to support further consideration of the matter by the United Nations Security Council including the imposition of sanctions.

  Algeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the security situation in Algeria; what estimate he has made of the risk to British citizens; and what are the implications for regional security.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The security situation in Algeria is serious. British citizens are at risk. We are advising that visitors should not travel to Algeria and that British residents should leave unless they have compelling reason to remain. So far, there is no evidence that the conflict has had any destabilising effect in other countries.

  European Union
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek representation for members of national Parliaments on the reflection group of representatives of Foreign Ministers; what is his assessment of the extent to which the group's discussions could be biased by association with the European Parliament only; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details of the work and membership of the study group of Foreign Ministers' representatives have not yet been decided, but the Corfu European Council agreed that two representatives of the European Parliament will also participate in the work of the group. The study group would become unwieldy if each national Parliament was separately represented. We can see no reason, however, why national Parliaments should not put their own ideas to the study group, arid my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has suggested that the appropriate Select Committees should make representa-tions in due course.

  European Union (Accessions) Bill
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement in the House of 11 July,Official Report, column692–93, on Chancellor Kohl's views on the old idea of a United States of Europe, what assessment he has made of the new German policies for the future of Europe and of the recent comment by the German ambassador to Moscow, Otto von der Gablentz, on national sovereignty.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We look forward to close co-operation with the Germans during their presidency on such issues as competitiveness, deregulation, closer co-operation with central Europe, open markets and subsidiarity. I have not seen a text of what the German ambassador in Moscow is suggested to have said, but I certainly would not agree that"national sovereignty is becoming irrelevant and meaningless". Such comments would be hard to reconcile with statements by Chancellor Kohl, first, in a speech in Schwäbisch hall on 4 May 1994, that he "does not want a European superstate… In the Europe of the future, we will remain securely rooted in our homeland." or secondly, in a speech to the Bundestag on 11 November 1993, that
  "Unity in diversity is the only sensible alternative to dreary centralism."

  East Timor
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the information he has regarding the arrests and killing of students at the university of East Timor by Indonesian Government forces on 14 July.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are concerned about reports from East Timor of renewed clashes between students and the military, but the facts surrounding the events of 14 July are still far from clear. We have asked Her Majesty's embassy in Jakarta for a detailed report.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) the Indonesian diplomatic mission in London and (b) the Indonesian Government regarding the killings and arrests by Government forces at the university of East Timor on 14 July.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Initial reports of events in Dili on 14 July differ widely. We have asked Her Majesty's embassy in Jakarta for a detailed report. A decision on whether representations are appropriate will be taken in the light of that report, in consultation with European Union partners.

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will provide members of Her Majesty's diplomatic service with passports which clarify their diplomatic status in accordance with the practice of other countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This matter was recently reviewed and the Government have decided to issue diplomatic and official passports to members of Her Majesty's service when serving abroad, staff from other Departments on
  135
  long-term attachments at our overseas posts and accompanying dependants. The new passports, for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be responsible, are intended to clarify diplomatic status and remove scope for misunderstanding. They will be identical to standard common format passports except for the addition of "diplomatic" or "official" on the cover and two inside pages. This measure will rectify a long-standing anomaly in Britain's passport issuing practice and bring our diplomatic personnel into line with their colleagues elsewhere.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in Burundi and the illegal importation of arms.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Latest reports indicate that the security situation in Burundi remains calm but tense. There is no mandatory United Nations embargo against the importation of arms into Burundi.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person applying for entry clearance on 31 March or the latest convenient date at each post in the Indian sub-continent could expect to wait, in each queue, for(a) first interview, (b) referral of

  Number of applicants for entry clearance visas waiting for first interview at 31 March 1994

  Number of persons

  Bombay

  Delhi

  Islamabad

  Madras1

  Dhaka2

  Queue 1

  Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years old, special compassionate cases

  —

  —

  45

  —

  330

  Queue 2

  Spouses and children under 18 years

  142

  277

  1,248

  —

  2,704

  Queue 3

  Fianc(es) and others applying for the first time for settlement

  321

  162

  209

  —

  337

  Queue 4

  Reapplicants

  292

  95

  629

  —

  337

  Total

  755

  534

  2,131

  34

  3,871

  1 Madras does not operate a separate queueing system.

  2 Only a proportion of applicants at Dhaka are listed as awaiting first interview. Other applicants will have their applications resolved without interview, where possible.

  Major Reginald Dunk and Mr. Alexander Schlesinger
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investiga-tions into the conduct of his Department he proposes to carry out following the acquittal on appeal of Major Reginald Dunk and Mr. Alexander Schlesinger.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Court of Appeal has yet to deliver its reasoned judgment. We shall consider whether to make any changes in the light of that judgment.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes in the policy and practice of his Department he proposes to institute following the acquittal on appeal of Major Reginald Dunk and Mr. Alexander Schlesinger.
  136
  the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (c) decision after first interview and (d) for the explanatory statement prepared by the post in the case of appeal against any refusal to be despatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The only information which is available centrally is on expected waiting times to interview for applicants applying in the Indian sub-continent. This information is published in table 2·5 of the Home Office statistical bulletin issue 9/94, "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Third and Fourth Quarters and Year 1993", a copy of which is in the Library. Statistics for the first and second quarters of 1994 will be published in October.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children were waiting in each queue at each post in the Indian sub-continent on 31 March or the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is given in the table. No information is available centrally on the gender of applicants in queues. In Calcutta there are no applicants awaiting first interview. Information on the number of applicants in Karachi is not centrally available but all applicants are expected to receive a first interview within three weeks.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to my answer to his previous question. Any investigation must similarly await the reasoned judgment of the Court of Appeal.

EDUCATION

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of primary school classes being taught by one teacher contain 20 or fewer pupils.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1993, the latest date for which information is available, 11 per cent. of primary school classes taught by one teacher had 20 or less pupils.

  School Closures
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many proposals from local authorities to close or re-organise schools have been awaiting a decision from him for(a) up to three months, (b) three to six monehts, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine to 12 months and (e) more than 12 months.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  At 15 July, a total of 149 proposals published under either section 12 or section 13 of the Education Act 1980 were under consideration in the Department. Of these, 94 had been awaiting a decision for a period of up to three months, 28 for between three and six months, 14 for between six and nine months, six for between nine and 12 months and seven for in excess of 12 months. Proposals received by the Secretary of State within the last four months may in certain cases fall to the local authority for determination.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the annual expenditure on discretionary awards by each local education authority in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  Returns made to the Department by local authorities about their expenditure on discretionary awards for the academic year 1992–93 will not be available for publication until August. Data for 1993–94 have not yet been collected.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, columns 327–28, how many delegates attended each of the conferences on special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of delegates attending each conference was as follows:

  Location

  Date

  Number

  London

  15 June

  218

  Manchester

  21 June

  200

  York

  24 June

  214

  Cardiff

  1 July

  129

  Bristol

  5 July

  166

  Birmingham

  7 July

  217

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress is being made on establishing the special educational needs tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I am pleased to be able to announce that regulations governing the tribunal's procedures have today been laid before the House. In addition, a guide to the tribunal, entitled "Special Educational Needs Tribunal: How to Appeal", which has been awarded the crystal mark by the Plain English Campaign, will be published shortly. The guide will suggest easy-to-follow steps for parents wishing to appeal to the tribunal. I am arranging for proof copies of the guide to be placed in the Library.

  Weapons Technologies (Access)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the conclusion of his discussions with the representatives of the universities 138
  and colleges about means of ensuring that postgraduate students and researchers from countries of proliferation concern do not gain access to technologies which could assist in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Boswell
  I have written today to the chairmen of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, representing universities, and the Standing Conference of Principals, representing the higher education colleges, about the need agreed with them for careful consideration of applications from certain visiting researchers from overseas at postgraduate and post-doctoral levels in certain fields of scientific research. The Government have agreed to provide information and guidance to the universities and colleges on the countries and technologies of concern, for them to take into account when reaching their decisions. Copies of those letters have been placed in the Library.

  Road Safety
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the last research into the provision of road safety education was undertaken; and whether the results were published.

  Mr. Forth
  The last full survey of the provision of road safety education was undertaken in 1986–87 by Reading university, under contract to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The project was funded wholly by Government funds. The results were published in 1989.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department has spent on road safety training during each of the past 10 years for which records are available.

  Mr. Forth
  Most schools now have delegated budgets which allow them to invest in road safety training. The Department does not, itself, provide road safety training for school teachers.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what percentage of schools include road safety training in their normal programmes.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will ask the Office for Standards in Education to undertake a review of road safety education and to make recommendations on good practice and how road safety education can be improved.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Parental Choice
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of parents obtained their first choice of school for their children on transfer at 11 years in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Data on the percentage of parents securing their first choice of school for their children on transfer at 11 years are not collected centrally. Surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and by The Times in 1993 suggest that some 90 per cent. of parents gain places for their children at their first choice of secondary school.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment of potential advantages to recipients as a whole preceded the recent universal distribution of the updated parents charter.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The changes taking place in our schools are of great importance to everyone, not just to the parents of school-age children. Independent research carried out last year among a representative sample of parents supported the view that distribution by national doordrop would be the right course of action.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the total public expenditure on(a) nursery schools and classes and (b) children under five in reception classes, in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for England;

  (2) what was the average cost in 1993–94 of a full-time equivalent place in (a) a nursery class and (b) a nursery school.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Euducation what work has been, or is being, undertaken to examine the relative costs and benefits of providing education and day care services for children under the age of five years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government are exploring a range of possible ways of making education provision for children under five years old more widely available as resources allow. The review is examining the relative cost-effectiveness and quality of different forms of provision, bearing in mind the rich diversity of current provision and the preferences of parents. Day care provision for children is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring; and if he will set out his targets to help small businesses in the next year.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. They help small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislation and administrative burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate and are currently establishing a network of business links to provide high quality business support across the country.

  The Government's policies for increased participation in further education and vocational training, reinforced by their support for the national targets for education and training, will help small firms to improve the skill levels of their emloyees. The charter for further education sets out what employers have a right to expect from colleges in the further education sector.
  140
  The Department encourages small firms to tender for its contracts. It abides by the CBI prompt payment code; and each contract also includes a requirement to ensure sub-contractors are paid promptly. The Department monitors both the number and value of its contracts let to small firms. In the first four months of 1994–95, 58 per cent. of contracts were placed with small firms–35 per cent. by value. The corresponding figures for the previous 12 months were 46 per cent. and 22 per cent.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what role will be played by his Department in any consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination against disabled people in education.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the publication of a consultation document on 15 July. The Department for Education contributed to its preparation. I welcome the publication of this document and would encourage everyone with an interest in these issues, especially disabled people themselves, to let us have their views.

  There are no further plans for specific consultations on countering unfair discrimination against disabled persons in education since comprehensive new measures have been introduced by the Education Act 1993. In particular, the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special education needs, published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in May this year under the 1993 Act, reflects extensive consultation with schools, local education authorities, the health service and voluntary agencies.

  Primary Schools
  Mrs. Anne Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his present estimate of the number of surplus places in primary schools in total and in each local education authority area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest figures available on a comprehensive basis were collected by the Department through a detailed survey of local education authorities in 1991. For figures derived from that survey, I refer the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on 31 January 1994,Official Report, columns 517–21. The total number of surplus places in primary schools in 1991 according to our survey was 639,696.

  Surplus places figures for 1994 will be available later this year once we have completed our analysis of the first information returns made by LEAs and the Funding Agency for Schools in accordance with the requirements of regulations made under section 21 of the Education Act 1993.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the figures for(a) school leavers, (b) further education leavers and (c) higher education leavers for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1992–93, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1990–91 and (v) 1980–81.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department does not have information on the numbers of school leavers for 1993–94
  141
  or 1992–93. The estimated numbers of school leavers in England in 1991–92, 1990–91 and 1980–81 were 519,200, 541,900 and 734,000 respectively. Comprehensive data on leavers from further and higher education are not collected centrally.

  Cycling
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with his colleagues at the Departments of Health, of Transport and of the Environment about encouraging children to bicycle to school, in order to reduce pollution and congestion, while encouraging health.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 18 July 1994,Official Report, column 71.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Castration and Tail-Docking
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many piglets were castrated in the last period of 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Soames
  Figures on the number of piglets which have been castrated are not available.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many lambs were(a) castrated and (b) tail-docked in the last period of 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Soames
  Figures on the number of lambs castrated and tail-docked are not available.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss fisheries policy.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss various aspects of fisheries policy. On 23 May I chaired an important seminar on fish marketing, with representatives from a wide range of interested parties.

  Deer
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what investigations her Department is undertaking in respect of the condition of deer frequenting the deer sanctuary at Baronsdown;

  (2) when she will report on the effect of administering uncontrolled doses of Panacur at the deer sanctuary at Baronsdown.

  Mr. Soames
  I am looking into several complaints which have been received about deer management on Exmoor and in particular the apparent administration of the drug Panacur to deer at the Baronsdown sanctuary.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her policy in respect of administering the drug Panacur to wild deer.

  Mr. Soames
  Panacur, like any veterinary medicine, should be administered in accordance with the law. It is not 142
  currently specifically licensed for administration to deer. Under European legislation however, and in line with the code of practice adopted by the British Veterinary Association in 1991, a veterinarian may prescribe a veterinary medicine licensed for another species for administration to animals under his care.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessments she has made of the effect of administering(a) uncontrolled under-doses and (b) uncontrolled overdoses of the drug Panacur to wild deer.

  Mr. Soames
  It is for manufacturers of veterinary medicines to assess the proper dose rate for their product as they seek to satisfy the efficacy criterion to obtain the necessary license. Panacur does have a reasonable safety profile and moderate changes in dose rates should not give rise to unacceptable risks. Underdosing may, however, involve a theoretical risk of creating resistance to the drug in the target worms.

  Wormers
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which wormers are approved for administration to wild animals.

  Mr. Soames
  According to the information currently available to me, there are no wormers licensed for administration to wild animals.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research she has conducted into the epidemiology of BSE in the siblings of affected cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  The occurrence of BSE in siblings has naturally been an integral part of research studies to determine whether susceptibility to BSE has a genetic component. To date, these studies have revealed that the genetic make-up of cattle does not play a major role in their susceptibility to BSE.

  Diets and Nutrition
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people in the population were estimated in her Ministry's 1994 report of the 1986–87 dietary and nutritional survey to be below the lower reference nutrient intake recommended for energy, by age and sex, representing the lowest intakes which will meet the needs of some individuals in the group set out in paragraph 1.3.8 of the report of the panel on dietary reference values; and which family and socio-economic categories were disproportionately represented among them.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no lower reference nutrient intakes for energy in the report of the panel on dietary reference values.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the energy requirements defined for children of different age and sex and the minimum cost at standard market prices of meeting those requirements in 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated average energy require-ments published by the Department of Health in 1991 are:
  143

  Age

  Males

  Females

  MJ/day

  kcal/day

  MJ/day

  kcal/day

  0–3 months

  2·28

  545

  2·16

  515

  4–6 months

  2·89

  690

  2·69

  645

  7–9 months

  3·44

  825

  3·20

  765

  10–12 months

  3·85

  920

  3·61

  865

  1–3 years

  5·15

  1,230

  4·86

  1,165

  4–6 years

  7·16

  1,715

  6·46

  1,545

  7–10 years

  8·24

  1,970

  7·28

  1,740

  11–14 years

  9·27

  2,220

  7·72

  1,845

  15–18 years

  11·51

  2,755

  8·83

  2,110

  The minimum cost of meeting these requirements would require a diet consisting entirely of the cheapest sources of energy such as lard, sugar or flour. Such a diet would not be recommended as it would not meet children's need for a balance of nutrients.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the abattoirs in England and Wales.

  Mr. Soames
  There are 468 red meat and 99 poultry abattoirs licensed in England and Wales at the present time. I am depositing a list of these today in the House Library. The licensed poultry abattoirs have been licensed under the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976, as amended, and the list is likely to change on 1 August 1994 when abattoirs will be licensed under the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1994. These regulations will bring more poultry abattoirs into the list of licensed premises, and will require rabbit and farmed game bird meat abattoirs to be licensed for the first time.

  Set Aside
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage of set-aside land in each EC member state.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1993, the set-aside requirement in all member states was 15 per cent. of the area on which arable area payments were claimed under the main scheme. The percentage of land set aside in each member state as a percentage of the total area claimed under both the main and the simplified scheme is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  4·63

  Denmark

  11·36

  Federal Republic of Germany

  11·40

  Greece

  1·34

  Spain

  10·78

  France

  12·30

  Republic of Ireland

  8·92

  Italy

  5·60

  Luxembourg

  5·56

  Netherlands

  2·40

  Portugal

  11·40

  United Kingdom

  13·98

  EC (Total)

  10·83

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether imported beef, cheese, butter and meat products from EEC countries are examined for bovine immunodeficiency virus; and what evidence of bovine immunodeficiency virus has been found.

  Mr. Soames
  Intra-Community trade in these com-modities is governed by harmonised animal health rules, none of which currently provide for controls in respect of bovine immunodeficiency virus.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans her Department has to ensure that food labelling includes animal welfare criteria.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: The Food Advisory Committee has recommended to the Government that information about methods of animal welfare should be conveyed to consumers by means other than labelling. The Government, therefore, have no plans to make statutory provision in this area, but have no objection to voluntary labelling schemes so long as the information is not presented misleadingly.

  Diets and Nutrition
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list(a) the estimated average requirements recommended by the 1991 panel on dietary reference values of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, (b) the recommended daily amounts defined previously 1979 to 1991 and (c) the corresponding recommended daily amounts in the United States for energy for (i) males and females of different age and (ii) males and females of different age and different levels of activity, as defined in annex 4 of the 1991 panel report.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the report from the Committee of the Medical Aspects of Food Policy "Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom" published in 1991, the estimated average requirement—EAR—is defined as an overall energy expenditure as a multiple of basal metabolic rate. EARs for energy for children and adolescents, and for men and women, at different activity levels are given in tables 1.1, 2.5 and 2.7 of the report. Different EARs for energy for children under 10 years of age were not made according to activity level.

  The 1979 COMA recommendations are listed in table 1 of the report "Recommended Daily Amounts of Food Energy and Nutrients for Groups of People in the United Kingdom". Copies of both reports are available in the Library. The 1989 United States recommended dietary allowances are shown in the table. The values in the three reports are derived in different ways and therefore are not directly comparable.

  United States recommended dietary allowances for energy: 1989

  Age (years)

  Kilocalories daily

  Infants 0–0·5

  650

  0·5–1

  850

  145

  Age (years)

  Kilocalories daily

  Children

  1–3

  1,300

  4–6

  1,800

  7–10

  2,000

  Males

  11–14

  2,500

  15–18

  3,000

  19–24

  2,900

  25–50

  2,900

  51 +

  2,300

  Females

  11–14

  2,200

  15–18

  2,200

  19–24

  2,200

  25–50

  2,200

  51 +

  1,900

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research, with specific reference to children, she has commissioned to satisfy the recommendation made by the panel on dietary reference values of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy in 1991 on investigations to be carried out into nutrient requirements of the United Kingdom population, their nutritional status and methods for its measurement, particularly for the elderly and for children.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of the national diet and nutrition survey programme, run jointly by the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a survey of children aged one and a half to four and a half years was completed in July 1993 and the report is expected to be published later this year. A survey of children aged five to 15 years is being planned. In 1993, the Department of Health and Medical Research Council's nutrition programme committee commissioned two research projects to examine the relationship between weight, height and nutritional status of children and their current and future health. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also has research programmes on optimum nutrient status and on dietary surveys, including improvements in methodology.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the difference in the energy requirements defined by her Department's dietary experts for a family with a boy aged eight and a girl aged six in which(a) both parents are unemployed and (b) both parents are in full-time employment; and what are the relative risks in each family of not being able to meet those requirements.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  Employment status is not known to have any direct influence on energy requirements.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific information about the energy requirements of children of different ages in families with different levels of income has been issued by her Department in the 1990s.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The report from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy—COMA—"Dietary Reference Values for
  146
  Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom", copies of which are available in the Library, provided estimates of average energy requirements by age, sex and activity level, but not income. Income is not known to influence energy requirements.

WALES

  Schools (Road Safety)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will request the Curriculum Council for Wales to(a) undertake research into the current provision of road safety education in schools, (b) identify examples of good practice and (c) recommend how such good practice might be extended.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have plans to invite the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales to conduct such research.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consider including training of teachers in road safety education as a national priority area in grants for education support and training.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Details of the Welsh Office's 1995–96 grants for education support and training—GEST —programme were sent to local education authorities in June this year. Training in road safety education is not included in the programme which has been the subject of extensive consultations with LEAs. The Department will, in due course, consult LEAs on the priorities to be supported in the 1996–97 GEST programme and will consider any proposals for funding, including any relating to road safety education, as part of that exercise.

  Child Care Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total public expenditure on child care services for pre-school children under the age of five years, by sector, including all local authority provision and grants to the voluntary sector, for each year from 1989–90 to 1993–94; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of gross domestic product for Wales in each of these years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people work on the Welsh Development Agency industrial estates; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Cancer Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of cancer have been identified in each years in Wales since 1979.
  147
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of malignant neoplasms registered in each year since 1979 is given in the following table. Figures for 1990 and later years are not yet complete for all hospitals in Wales.

  All Malignant Neoplasms ICD9 (140–208)

  1979

  12,456

  1980

  12,554

  1981

  12,642

  1982

  12,686

  1983

  13,737

  1984

  14,414

  1985

  14,848

  1986

  15,284

  1987

  15,241

  1988

  15,775

  11989

  15,397

  1 Provisional

  Source: Wales Cancer Registry

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role will be played by his Department in any consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination against disabled people in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people announced the publication of a consultation document on 15 July. The Welsh Office contributed to its preparation. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the publication of this document and would encourage everyone with an interest in these issues, especially disabled people themselves, to let us have their views.

  Out-of-school Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total public expenditure on out-of-school services for children from the age of five for each year since 1989–90; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for Wales for each of these years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally. Grant of £24,022, £40,872 and £18,240 were paid to Kids Club Network in financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 respectively, from the Department's child and family services grant scheme. In 1993–94 the Department launched its out-of-school children grant initiative through the training and enterprise councils in Wales with a grant of £153,000.

  Health Authorities (Legal Fees)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much(a) Clwyd, (b) East Dyfed, (c) Gwent, (d) Gwynedd, (e) Mid Glamorgan, (f) Pembrokeshire, (g) Powys and (h) West Glamorgan health authorities spent on legal fees in each year from 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.
  148

  "Caring for the Future"
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of publishing "Caring for the Future"; and how many documents were published.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cost of publishing 25,000 copies of the English language version of "Caring for the Future" was £22,600, equivalent to 90p a copy. The cost of producing 2,000 copies of the Welsh language version was £5,700, equivalent to £2·85 a copy.

  GP Lists (Removal of Patients)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details for each family health service authority area and for Wales as a whole of the number of patients removed from general practitioners' lists for the latest available year; and how many and what proportions of these were removed without their consent.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available in the form requested. The following table shows the number of patients removed from general medical practitioners' lists in 1993 at the request of the doctor and the number of those who were re-allocated to another doctor in the same area by their family health services authority.

  Patients removed

  Patients reallocated

  Clwyd

  532

  1—

  Dyfed

  95

  49

  Gwent

  244

  126

  Gwynedd

  87

  31

  Mid Glamorgan

  407

  177

  Powys

  26

  24

  South Glamorgan

  831

  279

  West Glamorgan

  567

  261

  Wales Total

  2,769

  2927

  1Not available.

  2Financial year 1993–94.

  3Excludes Clwyd.

  Notes:

  1. All figures shown in the table have been provided by individual authorities and have not been statistically validated.

  2. Information on the specific numbers of patients removed from GPs' lists without their consent is not available. The table indicates the number of patients who transferred at the request of doctors and will include those who moved against their wishes. Other reasons for removal include patients who moved out of the practice area.

  3. If the patient has been transferred more than once during the year he/she will have been counted each time.

  4. Removals due to the death of the patient, emigration, adoption and the retirement of the doctor are not shown in the table.

  5. Patients reallocated by the authority are those who were unable to find another doctor within the area willing to accept their registration.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current annual budgets of all the grant-maintained schools in Wales; and what are the capital and revenue allocations made by him to each such school during the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The annual maintenance grants, special purpose grants for development and capital grants allocated to grant-maintained schools in the current financial year are shown in the following table:
  149

  Capital Grants

  School

  County

  AMG £

  SPG(D) £

  Formula £

  Projects £

  Bryn Elian

  Clwyd

  1,682,885

  37,750

  27,100

  250,000

  Derwen

  Clwyd

  254,564

  9,400

  16,000

  300,000

  Eirias

  Clwyd

  2,301,715

  55,100

  34,040

  280,000

  Emrys ap Iwan

  Clwyd

  2,529,331

  58,750

  35,500

  579,726

  Maelor

  Clwyd

  1,223,319

  26,300

  22,520

  99,681

  Pen-y-Bryn

  Clwyd

  386,954

  15,000

  18,000

  50,000

  Brynmawr

  Gwent

  1,317,383

  27,000

  22,800

  685,469

  Cwmcarn

  Gwent

  881,624

  18,000

  19,200

  262,729

  Our Lady

  Gwent

  348,379

  10,800

  16,320

  180,000

  St. Albans

  Gwent

  1,339,177

  29,250

  23,700

  606,000

  Caergeiliog

  Gwynedd

  391,316

  12,700

  17,080

  262,000

  Llanerfyl

  Powys

  69,304

  5,000

  16,000

  73,000

  Mary Immaculate

  South Glamorgan

  1,423,755

  30,550

  24,220

  —

  St. Cyres

  South Glamorgan

  3,091,696

  71,250

  40,500

  540,000

  Stanwell

  South Glamorgan

  2,353,411

  53,600

  33,440

  1,972,752

  Bishop Vaughan

  West Glamorgan

  12,309,330

  48,350

  31,340

  594,283

  1Provisional.

  In addition, the Department would meet 50 per cent. of the school's premises insurance costs, and provide funding to help with the cost of VAT. Schools may also apply for a special purpose grant for restructuring in their first two years as a grant-maintained school.

  West Wales Task Force
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that, if the proposed closure of proof and experimental establishment Pendine is confirmed, he will consider as included in the west Wales task force area those communities of east Carmarthenshire directly affected by any closure or cut back and increase the funding of the task force accordingly.

  Mr. Redwood
  The position of the communities most directly affected can be considered once the consultations with staff on the proposal for a phased run down are complete. The consultation period ends on 14 October.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the estimated average times which will be taken under the tariff scheme of the criminal injuries compensation scheme (i) to make a first decision, (ii) to deal with a case subject to internal review and (iii) to decide a case which goes to appeal; and what is his projection of the estimated percentage of cases which will be concluded within 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  No realistic averages are yet calculable. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the challenging performance targets which have been set for the new Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. These are set out at paragraph 11.2 of the guide to the tariff scheme, which was published in March. A copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average award of the criminal injuries compensation scheme in(a) 1965, (b) 1988 and (c) 1993 expressed at 1993 prices; and what annual real-terms rate of increase that represents.
  150
  Mr. Maclean
  The following information has been calculated using data given at annexe A to the White paper "Compensating Victims of Violent Crime", Cm. 2434, published in December 1993.

  At 1992–93 prices, the average award in 1964–65 was £2,737; in 1987–88, it was £3,376, and in 1992–93, it was £4,162. That represents an annual average rate of increase between 1964–65, and 1987–88 of 1 per cent. and between 1987–88 and 1992–93 of 5 per cent.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the staff required to administer the criminal injuries compensation tariff scheme in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97 will be paid over £35,000; and if he will publish a table of the grading of staff who presently administer the existing scheme and those required for the proposed scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is expected that the number of staff administering the tariff scheme in the period 1994–97 who will earn more than £35,000 a year will be between two and four. The staff administering the two criminal injuries compensation schemes now, and the staff expected to be doing so at 31 March 1995, are set out in the following table. This does not include the 41 board members working on the old scheme.

  Grade

  Number now

  Number at 31 March 1995

  5

  1

  1

  6 (Legal)

  1

  1

  7

  1

  1

  7 (Legal)

  14

  14

  SEO

  4

  5

  HEO

  19

  33

  EO

  55

  54

  TM

  1

  1

  PS

  3

  3

  AO

  216

  212

  SGBI

  1

  1

  SGBII

  12

  12

  TYP

  18

  18

  AA

  88

  94

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assumptions have been made in estimating future costs of both the existing scheme of criminal injuries compensation and the proposed tariff
  151
  scheme with particular reference to projected levels of violent crime, the numbers of victims and applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

  Mr. Maclean
  The assumptions used to calculate the future costs of an unreformed scheme were given in a written answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 6 July,Official Report, column 201. In estimating the future costs of the tariff scheme, it was assumed that applications received would increase at a similar rate to an unreformed scheme and that the number of resolved cases attracting an award would be broadly the same. It was further assumed that the productivity improvements facilitated by the simpler tariff scheme would enable staff to resolve more cases.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much saving will be made in the criminal injuries compensation scheme in 1994–95; what proportion of victims will be adversely affected; and if he will make a statement on the basis for his calculations.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is currently expected that expenditure on compensation in 1994–95 will be some 10 per cent. higher than last year's figure of £166 million. The basis on which our forward costings are calculated has been explained again today in answer to other questions from the hon. Member. It has been estimated that, under the tariff scheme, 60 per cent. of claimants will receive as much as, or more than, they would have done under the old scheme.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the proposed remuneration arrangements for appeal panel members of the criminal injuries compensation scheme; how many person-days in each year it has been estimated will be necessary to deal with appeals; and what is the estimated total annual cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is currently expected that, when the residual old scheme cases have been cleared and the tariff scheme stands alone, some 40 to 50 appeals panel members will be required, sitting for an average of 40 to 50 days a year. Their remuneration will be at the same daily rate that members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board receive when hearing appeals. Currently this is £259 a day. The annual cost is likely to be in the order of £500,000.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff will be required to administer the tariff scheme for the criminal injuries compensation scheme in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97.

  Mr. Maclean
  The White Paper "Compensating Victims of Violent Crime", (Cm 2434), explained at paragraph 30 that the old scheme and the tariff scheme would run in parallel for about two years, until the balance of old scheme cases had been resolved. The same administrative staff would work on both schemes, with a

  Number of proceedings and findings of guilt for certain motoring offences in England and Wales and the Metropolitan Police District 1990–1992

  Proceedings

  Findings of guilt

  Year and offence

  England and Wales

  Metropolitan police

  England and Wales

  Metropolitan police

  1990

  Neglect of pedestrian rights (endorsable offences)1

  14,003

  2,467

  12,248

  2,198

  Failing to comply with traffic signs

  25,358

  3,181

  21,253

  2,779

  152
  gradual cross-over of staff as the balance of work shifted from the old scheme to the new. This would keep the overall costs of administration as low as possible.

  It is not possible to predict precisely how quickly this change over will occur or how many staff will notionally be working on one scheme or the other during any particular period.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims are likely to receive less money under the revised criminal injuries compensa-tion scheme; and if he will break down the figures into bands(a) £500 to £1,000, (b) £1,000 to £5,000, (c) £5,000 to £10,000, (d) £10,000 to £50,000 and (e) over £50,000.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available in the form requested, but the following estimates are based on calculations using data from the sampling exercise undertaken to set the tariff.

  About 8 per cent. of claimants might receive between £500 and £1,000 less under the tariff scheme than under the "old" scheme; about 15 per cent. might receive between £1,000 and £5,000 less; and about 4 per cent. might receive a payment lower by some £5,000 or more than it would otherwise have been.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the framework and frequency for upgrading the proposed tariffs under the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Paragraph 14 of the rules of the tariff scheme provides for the tariff to be revised from time to time by the Secretary of State; a copy of the rules was placed in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Information Regulations 1992
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for information on animals held in captivity for scientific purposes have been made to his department citing the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; and how many were accepted as falling within the scope of the regulations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No such requests have been received.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists were(a) charged with and (b) convicted of (i) failure to accord precedence at pedestrian crossings, endorseable offences, (ii) failure to comply with traffic signs, (iii) speed limit offences, (iv) driving and so on after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and (v) reckless driving in (i) the Metropolitan police area of London and (ii) for England and Wales in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available figures are as follows:
  153

  Proceedings

  Findings of guilt

  Year and offence

  England and Wales

  Metropolitan police

  England and Wales

  Metropolitan police

  Speed limit offences

  173,163

  9,501

  163,477

  9,187

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  127,638

  19,521

  113,166

  16,562

  Reckless driving

  11,270

  629

  7,647

  500

  1991

  Neglect of pedestrian rights (endorsable offences)1

  14,003

  3,883

  11,771

  3,143

  Failing to comply with traffic signs

  32,705

  5,446

  27,529

  4,171

  Speed limit offences

  168,980

  13,002

  156,804

  11,870

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  118,584

  19,378

  103,821

  16,031

  Reckless driving

  11,940

  878

  7,690

  600

  1992

  Neglect of pedestrian rights (endorsable offences)1

  12,898

  4,423

  10,433

  3,368

  Failing to comply with traffic signs

  40,077

  9,722

  34,229

  7,769

  Speed limit offences

  161,352

  14,376

  148,493

  12,471

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  110,208

  17,319

  95,207

  13,876

  Reckless driving

  11,040

  964

  6,849

  535

  1 Includes also offences of neglect of pedestrian rights in controlled areas, on pelican crossings, in playstreets etc. in addition to zebra and pedestrian crossings.

  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Betting Offices
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for changes in the controls on the displays and facilities in licensed betting offices.

  Mr. Howard
  I have carefully considered the responses to last year's consultation exercise on changes to the controls on the displays and facilities in licensed betting offices. I have now decided to ease these controls, so as to give consumers greater choice and lighten the burden on the betting industry.

  Since betting offices were first permitted in 1961, they have been required to operate behind obscured windows. In addition, licensees have not been allowed to advertise their services on shop windows or to display any moving text or images. Since 1986, betting offices have been allowed to provide a very limited range of refreshments and television sets have been permitted, but with restrictions on screen size and positioning so as not to be seen from outside.

  I propose that, in future, betting offices should be able to have clear windows and to provide a wider range of pre-packed snacks and sandwiches. They would be free to display information on the facilities available in their premises, the events on which betting is taking place, the range of bets available, and the odds offered on any particular event. In addition, the current restriction on the maximum size of television screens in betting offices would be lifted, as would the ban on displays incorporating moving text.

  I hope to bring these changes before the House later in the year.

  Bail (Amendment) Act 1993
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what effect the powers available to prosecutors under the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 are being put since it came into force on 27 June.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is too early to draw conclusions, and I cannot comment on individual cases, but it has been reported that prosecutors made use of the powers—which 154
  allow an appeal against the granting of bail by a magistrates court-the day after the Act came into force, and as a result a defendant continued in custody.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has received from the Animal Procedures Committee in respect of regulatory toxicity; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received the Committee's report on this subject, which was based on the work of the sub-committee chaired by Dr. Onora O'Neill, principal of Newnham college, Cambridge. I am grateful to Dr. O'Neill and the other members of the sub-committee for the efforts that they have put in to this difficult and important subject. The Home Office will be consulting with regulatory and other interested bodies about the committee's recommendations. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Additional copies of the report can be obtained from the Home Office Publications Unit, Room 1024, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW 1 H 9AT (£2·00 plus postage and packing).

  Immigration
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the effects of recent European Union visa proposals on controls on third-country nationals seeking to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 13 July, the Commission outlined in a press statement proposals relating to a uniform format for visas, for which there is provision in article 100c of the treaty of Rome. The Commission has yet to publish its proposals. When it does so, they will be made available to Parliament in accordance with the normal scrutiny requirements.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance from(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiancés and (d) fiancées made at British posts in (1) New Delhi, (2) Bombay, (3) Calcutta, (4) Madras, (5) Dhaka, (6) Islamabad, (7) Karachi and (8) Colombo for each quarter since January

  155
  1993 were (m) received, (n) granted and (o) refused; how many refusals at each post were (i) wholly and (ii) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration; how many refusals at each post were (i) wholly and (ii) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the couple could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds; what was the refusal rate at each post; and what percentage of those refusals were (x) wholly and (y) partly on primary purpose grounds.

  Table1

  Spouses and fiancé(e)s in the Indian sub-continent applying for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom 1993 and first quarter 1994

  Number of persons and percentage

  1993

  1994

  Ql

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Year

  Ql

  Husbands

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  70

  70

  70

  80

  280

  90

  Applications granted2

  60

  50

  50

  60

  210

  60

  Applications refused initially

  30

  20

  40

  40

  120

  50

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  32

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  100

  100

  70

  60

  340

  100

  Applications granted2

  70

  70

  70

  70

  280

  70

  Applications refused initially

  30

  50

  40

  40

  160

  50

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  320

  260

  230

  260

  1,060

  270

  Applications granted2

  310

  210

  180

  260

  960

  230

  Applications refused initially

  80

  50

  60

  120

  310

  130

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  22

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  770

  660

  610

  600

  2,640

  750

  Applications granted2

  660

  480

  470

  380

  1,990

  440

  Applications refused initially

  550

  470

  460

  410

  1,900

  310

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  43

  n/a

  Wives

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  260

  240

  190

  180

  880

  320

  Applications granted2

  160

  150

  200

  220

  720

  220

  Applications refused initially

  40

  30

  60

  50

  180

  60

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  19

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  380

  270

  200

  210

  1,060

  330

  Applications granted2

  130

  280

  280

  180

  940

  240

  Applications refused initially

  20

  30

  30

  40

  120

  50

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  420

  360

  310

  290

  1,380

  330

  Applications granted2

  290

  190

  240

  460

  1,180

  300

  Applications refused initially

  60

  50

  40

  40

  190

  40

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  880

  760

  770

  290

  3,020

  910

  Applications granted2

  780

  610

  600

  460

  2,390

  600

  Applications refused initially

  160

  130

  180

  40

  620

  70

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  18

  n/a

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 Applications refused initially, minus applications granted on appeal, as a percentage of applications decided.

  4 Five or fewer; — nil; n/a not applicable.

  156
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for the Indian sub-continent for each quarter of 1993 and for the first quarter of 1994 is given in the tables. Where the numbers are small, figures for individual posts have been combined. Information on reasons for refusals is not compiled for periods shorter than 12 months. Corresponding informa-tion for Colombo is not available centrally.
  157

  Number of persons and percentage

  1993

  1994

  Ql

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Year

  Ql

  Male fiancés

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  30

  30

  20

  30

  110

  30

  Applications granted2

  20

  4—

  10

  10

  30

  10

  Applications refused initially

  30

  20

  20

  20

  100

  40

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  74

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  30

  30

  10

  20

  90

  40

  Applications granted2

  20

  20

  20

  30

  90

  20

  Applications refused initially

  30

  30

  20

  20

  100

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  36

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  4—

  4—

  4—

  —

  10

  10

  Applications granted2

  —

  4—

  4—

  —

  4—

  4—

  Applications refused initially

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  73

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  40

  40

  40

  30

  140

  30

  Applications granted2

  30

  30

  20

  20

  100

  20

  Applications refused initially

  30

  30

  40

  20

  120

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  47

  n/a

  Female fiancées

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  40

  40

  40

  30

  140

  40

  Applications granted2

  30

  10

  20

  20

  80

  30

  Applications refused initially

  20

  10

  10

  10

  50

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  37

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  40

  30

  30

  30

  120

  40

  Applications granted2

  20

  30

  30

  30

  110

  20

  Applications refused initially

  4—

  4—

  10

  10

  30

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  4—

  10

  10

  4—

  20

  4—

  Applications granted2

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  Applications refused initially

  —

  —

  4—

  —

  4—

  4—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  18

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  50

  40

  60

  60

  200

  30

  Applications granted2

  30

  40

  30

  30

  120

  20

  Applications refused initially

  10

  4—

  10

  10

  30

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  n/a

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal

  3 Applications refused initially, minus applications granted on appeal, as a percentage of applications decided.

  4 Five or fewer; — nil; n/a not applicable.

  Table 2

  Spouses and fiancé(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom, 1993

  Number of persons and percentages

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate/ maintain themselves without recourse to public funds

  Number refused because pri-mary purpose of marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom

  Primary purpose refusals as a percentage of all refusals

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely on primary purpose grounds

  Partly on primary purpose grounds

  New Delhi (include Calcutta)

  Husbands

  10

  20

  60

  20

  50

  15

  Wives

  10

  40

  90

  40

  47

  22

  Male fiancés

  2—

  3—

  70

  3—

  74

  4

  Female fiancées

  2—

  3—

  40

  10

  67

  16

  Bombay (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  2—

  20

  60

  20

  36

  15

  158

  159

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate/ maintain themselves without recourse to public funds

  Number refused because pri-mary purpose of marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom

  Primary purpose refusals as a percentage of all refusals

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely on primary purpose grounds

  Partly on primary purpose grounds

  Wives

  20

  20

  40

  20

  31

  15

  Male fiancés

  3—

  3—

  60

  3—

  57

  14

  Female fiancées

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  38

  19

  Dhaka

  Husbands

  110

  80

  110

  50

  36

  16

  Wives

  110

  30

  10

  10

  4

  4

  Male fiancés

  2—

  3—

  10

  3—

  182

  118

  Female fiancées

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  150

  150

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  320

  880

  560

  880

  30

  46

  Wives

  370

  80

  40

  60

  7

  10

  Male fiancés

  10

  50

  40

  50

  35

  46

  Female fiancées

  10

  10

  3—

  10

  7

  29

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  440

  1,000

  800

  970

  32

  39

  Wives

  510

  170

  180

  130

  16

  12

  Male fiancés

  10

  50

  180

  60

  55

  17

  Female fiancées

  10

  20

  50

  20

  45

  20

  1 Percentages based on fewer than 15 applications refused

  2 Nil

  3 Five or fewer.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for registration as British citizens of children born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983 have been(a) received, (b) granted or (c) refused since 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Some 2,063 children born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983 have been registered as British citizens since 1 January 1993. The numbers of such applications received and refused are not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) adult registration with entitlement, (b) naturalisation on grounds of residence, (c) naturalisation on grounds of marriage and (d) registration of minors his Department estimates it (i) will receive and (ii) expects to grant in 1994–95.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The latest estimate of the numbers of citizenship applications likely to be received and granted in 1994–95 is as follows:

  Passenger admissions1 and persons refused leave to enter and removed, for selected nationalities in 1993

  Nationality

  1st quarter 1993

  2nd quarter 1993

  3rd quarter 1993

  4th quarter 1993

  Year 1993

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  Jamaica

  5,490

  114

  6,610

  119

  9,600

  98

  5,330

  157

  27,000

  488

  Turkey

  20,800

  59

  19,700

  59

  33,200

  50

  23,100

  65

  96,800

  233

  Morocco

  3,720

  9

  4,600

  18

  6,660

  27

  3,860

  21

  18,800

  75

  USA

  515,000

  227

  793,000

  245

  930,000

  257

  627,000

  257

  2,870,000

  986

  Australia

  78,400

  58

  141,000

  72

  161,000

  53

  114,000

  60

  494,000

  243

  Malaysia

  17,200

  58

  29,000

  110

  37,700

  106

  26,200

  80

  110,000

  354

  Hong Kong2

  17,800

  20

  23,100

  27

  36,000

  34

  13,700

  9

  90,600

  90

  Guyana

  1,090

  18

  1,590

  20

  2,310

  23

  1,250

  16

  6,230

  77

  Trinidad and Tobago

  3,140

  16

  4,150

  19

  7,090

  17

  3,570

  17

  18,000

  69

  Colombia

  4,180

  74

  5,800

  72

  6,620

  106

  5,320

  104

  21,900

  356

  Algeria

  3,050

  43

  3,560

  48

  5,890

  60

  3,590

  60

  16,100

  211

  160

  Intake

  Applications granted

  Adult registration

  4,200

  5,100

  Naturalisation (residence)

  17,000

  12,750

  Naturalisation (marriage)

  14,200

  12,950

  Minor registrations

  4,600

  9,100

  Total

  40,000

  39,900

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Jamaica, (b) Turkey, (c) Morocco, (d) the United States of America, (e) Australia, (f) Malaysia, (g) Hong Kong, (h) Guyana, (i) Trinidad, (j) Colombia and (k) Algeria were (i) granted and (ii) refused permission to enter the United Kingdom at ports of entry in each quarter since January 1993, and in total, to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested for 1993 is given in the table; corresponding data for quarters of 1994 are not yet available.
  161
  1 Rounded figures, numbers of journeys.

  2 Excluding Hong Kong stateless persons.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for settlement by wives and children in (i) Dhaka and (ii) Islamabad were(a)

  Applications for entry clearance for settlement made by wives and children in Dhaka and Islamabad, 1993 to 1994

  1993

  1994

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Year

  Q1

  Applications newly received1

  Dhaka

  720

  660

  580

  550

  2,510

  580

  Islamabad

  1,020

  870

  960

  760

  3,620

  1,040

  Applications granted2

  Dhaka

  540

  410

  440

  610

  2,000

  490

  Islamabad

  850

  730

  690

  430

  2,700

  620

  Applications refused initially

  Dhaka

  270

  200

  130

  110

  710

  200

  Islamabad

  200

  170

  240

  200

  810

  100

  Aplication withdrown or lapsed

  Dhaka

  20

  3—

  20

  20

  60

  60

  Islamabad

  80

  40

  80

  50

  250

  40

  Applications outstanding at end of period

  Dhaka

  2,340

  2,410

  2,410

  2,240

  2,240

  2,090

  Islamabad

  1,990

  1,980

  2,020

  2,170

  2,170

  2,510

  Applications awaiting first interview at end of period

  Dhaka

  980

  1,450

  1,720

  1,670

  1,670

  1,700

  Islamabad

  760

  890

  890

  1,060

  1,060

  1,010

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 Five or fewer.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers arriving at United Kingdom ports of entry during 1993 and the first quarter of 1994 were referred to port medical inspectors for examination; what are the most common diagnoses made; and how many people have been(a) refused entry (i) wholly or (ii) partly on medical grounds and for what medical reason or (b) required to report for further medical treatment after entry and for what medical reason.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Two passengers were refused entry principally on medical grounds in 1993. Corresponding information for the first quarter of 1994 is not yet available. The other information requested is not available centrally.

  1993

  1994

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  Persons subject to deportation action:

  Supervised departures

  363

  287

  300

  268

  1,218

  244

  191

  Departed voluntarily

  37

  46

  37

  76

  196

  25

  21

  Illegal entrants:

  Departed voluntarily

  68

  85

  114

  117

  384

  85

  80

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) husbands, (b) wives and (c) dependent children have been refused (i) extension of stay and (ii) settlement in the United Kingdom on the grounds
  162
  received, (b) granted, (c) refused, (d) deferred at first interview, (e) lapsed and (f) outstanding and awaiting first interview for each quarter since the beginning of 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons detained under Immigration Act powers applied to the Home Office to be allowed to depart voluntarily under(a) the supervised departure provisions and (b) the voluntary departure provisions of the immigration rules in each quarter since January 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The readily available informa-tion relates to persons subject to deportation action who were removed under the supervised departure procedures, or left voluntarily, and persons dealt with as illegal entrants who left voluntarily. This information is given in the table. Most of these persons will have been detained prior to departure. A number will have been subject to restrictions as an alternative to detention, but such cases could be separately identified only at disproportionate cost.

  that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that they can be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds, in each quarter since January 1993, and in total.
  163
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information relating to after entry cases is given in the table. Information on dependent children is not readily available.

  Refusals1 on grounds of maintenance and accommodation, of after-entry applications by husbands and wives (numbers of persons)

  Refusals to grant probationary year on grounds of:

  Accomodation

  Maintenance

  Maintenance and accommodation

  Refusals of settlement after probationary year2

  1993

  Quarter 1

  Husbands

  —

  1

  —

  14

  Wives

  —

  1

  —

  17

  Quarter 2

  Husbands

  —

  2

  —

  8

  Wives

  1

  3

  1

  13

  Quarter 3

  Husbands

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Wives

  —

  1

  1

  6

  Quarter 4

  Husbands

  —

  1

  3

  6

  Wives

  —

  —

  2

  6

  1994

  Quarter 1

  Husbands

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Wives

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1 Excluding dependents.

  2 Refusals of settlement after probationary year on general considerations, including recourse to public funds.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many appeals under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 where cases have been dismissed but with a recommendation to the Home Office to reconsider the Home Office has(a) followed and (b) not followed the recommendation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, by country, were granted

  Cases12 not recognised as refugees but granted exceptional leave, excluding dependants, by nationality, 1992 to 1994 (2nd quarter)

  Number of grants to principal applicants

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Nationality

  1st Qtr

  2nd Qtr

  3rd Qtr

  4th Qtr

  1st Qtr

  2nd Qtr

  3rd Qtr

  4th Qtr

  1st Qtr

  2nd Qtr

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  *

  Colombia

  —

  *

  5

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  Romania

  5

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  80

  40

  445

  970

  560

  235

  40

  20

  30

  5

  Former USSR

  *

  —

  *

  —

  *

  *

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Former Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  *

  —

  —

  *

  5

  45

  220

  385

  Others

  *

  *

  5

  *

  5

  *

  *

  —

  —

  *

  Total

  90

  45

  455

  970

  565

  240

  55

  65

  255

  400

  Africa

  Angola

  —

  —

  *

  5

  *

  —

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Benin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  30

  425

  855

  900

  1,465

  75

  25

  10

  10

  20

  Ghana

  5

  5

  10

  5

  —

  *

  5

  *

  —

  20

  Nigeria3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  *

  5

  5

  *

  5

  Sierra Leone3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  *

  *

  —

  5

  Somalia

  470

  505

  720

  510

  1,200

  1,280

  265

  330

  320

  305

  Sudan

  5

  5

  25

  80

  215

  425

  15

  5

  5

  5

  Togo and Ivory Coast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Uganda

  5

  5

  175

  975

  805

  295

  15

  5

  10

  5

  Zaire

  *

  *

  *

  5

  5

  5

  *

  5

  —

  *

  164
  exceptional leave to enter or to remain in each month of 1992,1993 and 1994 to the latest convenient date; and how many of these were granted such leave because of (a) the situation in the country from which they claimed asylum or (b) the length of time the Home Office had taken to decide on their case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for 1992 to end June 1994, by quarter, on the number of grants of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, by nationality, is given in the table. Information on the reasons for which exceptional leave to remain is granted is not readily available.
  165

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Nationality

  1st Qtr

  2nd Qtr

  3rd Qtr

  4th Qtr

  1st Qtr

  2nd Qtr

  3rd Qtr

  4th Qtr

  1st Qtr

  2nd Qtr

  Others

  5

  5

  25

  50

  175

  120

  30

  25

  20

  20

  Total

  520

  960

  1,810

  2,530

  3,865

  2,205

  365

  390

  370

  380

  Middle East

  Iran

  50

  15

  280

  260

  65

  55

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Iraq

  60

  40

  455

  655

  145

  95

  45

  20

  50

  85

  Lebanon

  25

  5

  70

  505

  185

  70

  15

  5

  5

  5

  Others

  20

  5

  30

  70

  55

  30

  10

  5

  15

  10

  Total

  150

  70

  835

  1,495

  455

  245

  70

  30

  75

  100

  Asia

  China

  5

  *

  *

  10

  —

  5

  *

  *

  *

  *

  India

  185

  85

  125

  65

  20

  5

  5

  *

  5

  20

  Pakistan

  180

  80

  90

  50

  25

  5

  5

  *

  5

  10

  Sri Lanka

  270

  460

  2,060

  1,475

  2,285

  80

  30

  25

  20

  25

  Others

  100

  50

  65

  30

  65

  10

  5

  5

  *

  5

  Total

  740

  680

  2,345

  1,630

  2,395

  105

  45

  35

  35

  65

  Other, and nationality not known

  Grand Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grand Total

  1,500

  1,755

  5,445

  6,625

  7,285

  2,790

  530

  520

  730

  950

  1 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  2 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  3 Figures for 1992 not separately identified = n/a. Included in Others.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the(a) passengers in total and (b) persons treated as illegal entrants who were granted temporary admission/release in 1993 subsequently absconded; and how many (i) later reported voluntarily to the immigration authorities and (ii) were rearrested.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information relates to the number of persons who absconded, either from detention or by failing to respond to the terms of temporary admission/release, and is given in the table. The other information requested is not available.

  Absconders in 1993

  Category of person

  Number of persons

  Passengers1

  667

  Illegal entrants

  218

  DNA tests on children under the Government scheme, results received and outcomes 1993 to Ql 1994

  Number of children

  Country/post where application made

  Number of tests carried out

  Tests offered but not taken

  Number awaiting results received

  Number of results received

  Related as claimed to both parents

  Outcomes Related as claimed to one parent but not other

  Not related as claimed to either parent

  1993

  Indian sub-continent1 2

  1,306

  20

  616

  1,214

  1,050

  60

  89

  Bangladesh (Dhaka)2

  793

  5

  361

  824

  712

  32

  65

  Pakistan (Islamabad, Karachi)

  409

  12

  242

  350

  300

  27

  23

  India (Bombay, New Delhi)

  104

  3

  13

  40

  38

  1

  1

  Outside of Indian sub-continent3

  138

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

  23

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Ghana (Accra)

  25

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Jamaica (Kingston)

  6

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Kenya (Nairobi)

  11

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Nigeria (Lagos)

  43

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Philippines (Manila)

  8

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Turkey (Istanbul)

  1

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Thailand (Bangkok)

  5

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Uganda (Kampala)

  6

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Yemen (Sana'a)

  11

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  166
  1 May include some abconders recorded as "illegal entrants".

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many DNA tests to prove family relationships for immigration purposes have been carried out under the Home Office-funded scheme during(a) 1993 and (b) the first quarter of 1994, listed by country of origin; what was the average waiting period for the test and for its results: and in how many of those tests the family relationships were proved to be as claimed by the applicants.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table.

  The average waiting time from the taking of a blood sample to a decision being made on DNA tests is six to eight weeks.
  167

  Country/post where application made

  Number of tests carried out

  Test offered but not taken

  Number awaiting results at end of period

  Number of results received

  Related as claimed to both parents

  Outcomes Related as claimed to one parent but not other

  Not related as claimed to either parent

  Q1 1994

  Indian sub-continent4 5

  Bangladesh (Dhaka)5

  289

  9

  340

  303

  274

  7

  20

  Pakistan (Islamabad, Karachi)

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  India (Bombay, New Delhi)5

  15

  —

  34

  13

  9

  —

  —

  Outside of Indian sub-continent3

  54

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

  28

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Kenya (Nairobi)

  9

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Nigeria (Lagos)

  7

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Philippines (Manila)

  4

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Thailand (Bangkok)

  4

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  Turkey (Istanbul)

  7

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  United Arab Emirates (Dubai)

  2

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a Not available.

  — Nil return.

  1 In 1993, nine tests have also been carried out in Calcutta and one in Madras.

  2 Includes IS tests in Dhaka for which the outcome is not known.

  3 Refers to the number of tests for which an invoice has been received.

  4 In the first quarter of 1994, three tests wer also carried out in Calcutta.

  5 Includes four tests in Bombay, and two in Dhaka for which the outcome is not known.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting for special quota vouchers in(a) India, (b) east Africa and (c) the rest of the world in (i) May 1993 and (ii) December 1993; when those issued with vouchers on those dates had applied; how many vouchers were issued in (1) India, (2) east Africa and

  Table.1. Persons applying for a special voucher for entry to the United Kingdom, 1993 and Ql 1994

  Number of persons

  Country of application

  Applications newly received

  Vouchers issued

  Applications awaiting a decision at end of

  1993

  Q1 1994

  1993

  Q1 1994

  Q2 1993

  Q4 1993

  India

  230

  40

  300

  —

  40

  40

  Kenya

  190

  40

  160

  40

  30

  90

  Tanzania

  15

  —

  10

  10

  60

  60

  Malawi

  —1

  n/a

  —1

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Zambia

  10

  —2

  10

  —2

  10

  —2

  Rest of the world

  10

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  450

  80

  490

  40

  140

  200

  1 Includes applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2 5 or fewer.

  n/a Not available.

  — nil.

  Table 2. Waiting times for persons applying for a special voucher

  Months

  Waiting times to main interview for persons interviewed at end of

  Persons applying at end of1

  Q2 1993

  Q41993

  Ql 1994

  India

  3

  3

  —

  Kenya

  2

  0·25

  0·25

  Tanzania

  1

  1

  1

  Malawi

  —

  —

  n/a

  Zambia

  —

  —

  —

  Rest of the world

  —

  —

  —

  1 Data relate to expected waiting times.

  n/a Not available.

  — nil

  168
  (3) the rest of the world in (a) 1993 and (b) the first quarter of 1994; when those applying now can expect to receive vouchers; and how many applicants there were for vouchers in (v) India and (w) East Africa and (x) the rest of the world in (y) 1993 and (z) the first half of 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information which is currently available is given in the tables.
  169
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained under Immigration Act powers for a period of more than two months on completion of a custodial sentence during 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Some 55 people who completed a custodial sentence in 1993 were detained for more than two months under deportation powers. This figure does not include those subject to removal as illegal entrants, in relation to whom the information is not readily available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many operations against people alleged to be in the United Kingdom illegally involving both immigration officers and police took place during 1993, and 1994 to the latest convenient date; and for each operation by date, and by name how many(a) immigration officers and (b) police officers were involved; how many people were arrested and found to be (i) legally in the United Kingdom, (ii) in breach of immigration conditions, (iii) alleged illegal entrants and (iv) British citizens; how many requested and were granted legal advice before interview; how many were detained for (x) one day or less, (y) between a day and a week and (z) over a week; and how many have subsequently left the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Joint immigration service/police operations are undertaken at local level, and many are on a relatively small scale. Information in the form requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding immigration applications there are at Lunar house, at the latest convenient date from(a) students, (b) family members in the United Kingdom applying for variation of stay, (c) settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts and (d) asylum seekers; and what are the average times applicants in each category might expect to wait before a decision.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is that at the end of June 1994 there were in total about 24,500 cases in the general immigration case-working groups, including referred entry clearance applications, the majority of which were under consideration or the subject of further inquiries, and about 50,000 cases in the asylum and special cases division.

  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of the application and the decision, for cases decided in case-working groups, in the first quarter of 1994, was about two months for students and about 13 months for asylum applications. Information on average waiting times for family members in the United Kingdom for variation of leave and for settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from over-age reapplicants from the Indian sub-continent seeking to join a sponsor settled in the United Kingdom have been(a) made, (b) deferred, (c) refused and (d) granted in 1993 and the first quarter of 1994; and how many such reapplicants in each category had undergone successful DNA tests.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  170
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people during 1993 and the first quarter of 1994 were(a) required to undergo a medical examination and (b) refused entry clearance abroad, and in which countries, for (i) settlement and (ii) other purposes on medical grounds; and what are the most common medical grounds for refusal.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of passengers detained overnight under Immigration Act powers during(a) 1993 and (b) the first quarter of 1994 by nationality.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested for 1993 is given in the tables; corresponding information for the first quarter of 1994 is not yet available.

  Passengers1 detained overnight or longer in 1993, by nationality

  Geographical region and nationality2

  Number of persons

  All nationalities

  5,571

  European Community

  79

  Belgium

  3

  Denmark

  1

  France

  36

  Germany

  —

  Greece

  1

  Italy

  4

  Luxembourg

  —

  Netherlands

  10

  Portugal

  24

  Spain

  —

  Other Western Europe

  333

  Austria

  5

  Cyprus

  51

  Finland

  4

  Malta

  4

  Norway

  3

  Sweden

  7

  Switzerland

  3

  Turkey

  192

  Yugoslav passport holders

  64

  Eastern Europe

  311

  Bulgaria

  9

  Czechoslovak passport holders

  26

  Hungary

  22

  Poland

  144

  Romania

  78

  USSR passport holders

  32

  Americas

  589

  Argentina

  8

  Barbados

  7

  Brazil

  72

  Canada

  30

  Chile

  1

  Colombia

  136

  Guyana

  18

  Jamaica

  194

  Mexico

  10

  Peru

  27

  Trinidad and Tobago

  8

  United States of America

  67

  Venezeula

  11

  Africa

  2,209

  Algeria

  131

  Angola

  55

  Egypt

  5

  Ethiopia

  70

  171

  Geographical region and nationality2

  Number of persons

  Ghana

  419

  Kenya

  152

  Libya

  38

  Mauritius

  28

  Morocco

  18

  Nigeria

  575

  Sierra Leone

  207

  Somalia

  148

  South Africa

  57

  Sudan

  14

  Tanzania

  66

  Tunisia

  6

  Uganda

  46

  Zaire

  145

  Zambia

  15

  Zimbabwe

  14

  Indian sub-continent

  397

  Bangladesh

  117

  India

  136

  Pakistan

  144

  Middle East

  113

  Iran

  26

  Iraq

  36

  Israel

  10

  Jordan

  2

  Kuwait

  4

  Lebanon

  21

  Saudi Arabia

  7

  Syria

  4

  Yemen

  3

  Remainder of Asia

  385

  China

  78

  Hong Kong3

  17

  Indonesia

  2

  Japan

  8

  Malaysia

  67

  Philippines

  9

  Singapore

  11

  South Korea

  12

  Sri Lanka

  181

  Thailand

  —

  Australasia

  12

  Australia

  9

  New Zealand

  3

  Admissions to the United Kingdom of BDTCs and BN(0)s from Hong Kong in 1993

  Admission category

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  Visitors:

  Ordinary

  7,350

  13,500

  20,900

  8,160

  50,000

  Business

  1,680

  2,090

  1,790

  1,220

  6,780

  Students

  530

  370

  5,630

  810

  7,340

  Husbands and fiancés2

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  20

  Wives and fiancées2

  40

  30

  30

  10

  110

  Parents and grandparents2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  Children2

  10

  10

  20

  10

  50

  1 5 or fewer

  2 Seeking, or accepted for, settlement in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation have been made under the provisions of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990; and how many of them were(a) decided, (b) granted, (c) refused and (d) withdrawn, under each class and category of the scheme, in each quarter since January 1993 and in total throughout the existence of the scheme; and how many of these applications were from (i) heads of households or (ii) family members.
  172

  Geographical region and nationality

  Number of persons

  Others

  1,143

  British Overseas Citizens

  34

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  727

  Stateless

  382

  1 Includes some illegal entrants and deportees.

  2 Or claimed nationality where the nationality is in doubt.

  3 Excluding Hong Kong stateless persons.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations are carried out by Her Majesty's Government into the background of residents of the republics of the former Soviet Union when considering visa applications.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Entry clearance officers must be satisfied that all visa applicants, irrespective of their nationality, meet the requirements of the immigration rules before visas may be issued. In some cases, this will require inquiries to be made locally, in the United Kingdom, and/or of other overseas posts.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (i) British nationals and (ii) holders of certificates of identity from Hong Kong have been admitted to the United Kingdom in each quarter since January 1993 as(a) persons of independent means, (b) self-employed persons, (c) business people, (d) visitors, (e) students, (f) husbands and fiancés, (g) wives and fiancées and (h) other dependent relatives.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information for British dependent territories citizens and British nationals, overseas, from Hong Kong is given in the table. Corresponding data for quarters of 1994 are not yet available. Data on admissions of holders of certificates of identity from Hong Kong are not available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As at 30 June 1994, 108,502 applications had been received from heads of households. Information about family members is available only in respect of applications granted. Tables giving the other information requested are too lengthy to be printed in the Official Report and, therefore, copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In the July to September 1993 quarter, a number of appplications previously refused were reopened, to replace applications that had been withdrawn. The number of refusals relating to that quarter has been reduced by the

  173
  total number of reopened cases, which has resulted in negative refusal figures appearing for some occupational groups. The decisions subsequently reached in the reopened cases have been counted in the quarters in which they were made.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were made(a) at ports of entry and (b) to the Immigration and

  Applications1 for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions12 1993 to Q2 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  1993

  1994

  1st Quarter

  2nd Quarter

  3rd Quarter

  4th Quarter

  1st Quarter

  2nd Quarter

  Applications for asylum3

  5,905

  5,535

  5,280

  5,650

  7,110

  7,620

  Applied at port

  1,560

  1,640

  1,875

  2,245

  2,260

  2,280

  Applied in country

  4,345

  3,895

  3,405

  3,400

  4,850

  5,340

  Decisions2 3 4

  12,085

  5,500

  2,555

  3,265

  4,365

  4,995

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum5

  740

  545

  160

  150

  180

  205

  Port

  135

  100

  55

  35

  55

  80

  In country

  605

  440

  100

  110

  125

  125

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain

  7,285

  2,790

  530

  520

  730

  950

  Port

  3,770

  1,380

  215

  240

  335

  495

  In country

  3,415

  1,510

  315

  280

  395

  455

  Total refusals

  4,065

  2,165

  1,870

  2,590

  3,460

  3,840

  Refused asylum and ELR—after full consideration

  810

  835

  1,450

  1,605

  2,860

  3,010

  Port

  305

  150

  575

  625

  1,010

  995

  In country

  600

  585

  875

  980

  1,845

  2,015

  Refused under para. 180F6

  3,125

  1,130

  265

  720

  360

  590

  Port

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  In country

  3,125

  1,130

  265

  720

  360

  590

  Refused on safe third country grounds7

  130

  200

  150

  265

  240

  240

  Port

  130

  200

  140

  250

  230

  230

  In country

  —

  —

  5

  20

  10

  10

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas

  4 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  5 Excludes South East Asian refugees.

  6 Paragraph 101 prior to 26 July 1993. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  7 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how long people who applied for asylum in(a) June 1992, (b) June 1993 and (c) June 1994 can expect to wait for a decision on their case;

  (2) what was the average length of time in 1992, 1993 and 1994 at the latest convenient date that asylum applicants had waited for a decision on their case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  For asylum applications resolved in 1992, 1993 and up to the end of June 1994, the average estimated length of time taken to reach a decision was 19.3 months, 18.8 months and 14.2 months respectively; and for applications received since the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993–26 July 1993 to 30 June 1994–3.6 months.
  174
  Nationality Department in each quarter since January 1993; how many asylum applications have been (i) decided, (ii) granted, (iii) refused but exceptional leave granted or (iv) refused in each quarter; and how many applications are pending at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for 1993 and the first half of 1994 on the number of applications for asylum by location of application, and on decisions made, is given in the table. At the end of June 1994, the estimated number of applications for asylum outstanding was 50,040.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance in order to seek asylum in the United Kingdom were(a) received and (b) granted by country during 1993 and the first quarter of 1994.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Deportations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were recommended for deportation with no custodial sentence during(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 to the latest convenient date; and in how many such cases the courts directed release (i) subject to conditions and (ii) without conditions.
  175
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During 1993, 13 people were recommended for deportation by the courts with no custodial sentence and 14 during the first half of 1994. The other information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average period of time for which a person has been held on remand in custody in prisons in England and Wales during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  Estimates for the average number of days in custody in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales are published in table 2.1 of "Prison Statistics, England and Wales 1992", Cm. 2581, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. For the 12 months ending May, the average number of days in custody for untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners is provisionally estimated to be 56 days and 37 days respectively.

  Property Investment (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations are carried out by Her Majesty's Government into the background of foreign nationals wishing to invest in property in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under the immigration rules a person may be refused leave to enter on the ground that his exclusion is conducive to the public good, in the light of his character, conduct or associations. Inquiries into these matters are made where there is reason to do so, but there are no special arrangements in respect of people seeking admission with a view to investing in property.

  Extraditions (United States)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last 30 years the Home Secretary has refused a request by the United States for extradition from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the past 30 years, the Secretary of States has not refused any request from the United States which has been considered and approved by the courts; but on at least two occasions his decision to order surrender to the USA has been set aside by the High Court in judicial review proceedings.

  Immigration Detention Centres
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) men and (b) women were being held in either prisons or immigration detention centres in England and Wales on 8 July 1994.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 8 July 1994, there were 47,391 males and 1,842 females held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. A further 83 males were held in police cells. Information on immigration offenders relates to those detained on 14 July and shows that there were 353 males and 45 females detained in immigration service accommodation. A further 38 males and 10 females were held in police cells for immigration offences on that date.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his policy to encourage enforced subject access to crimninal records; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. It is not our policy to encourage enforced subject access to criminal records.

  Prisoners (Movement)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria followed by his Department as to the movement of prisoners from one establishment to another; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 19 July 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the criteria followed as to the movement of prisoners from one establishment to another.

  There is a wide range of factors which are considered when prisoners are moved from one establishment to another. These include whether the prisoner is unconvicted or sentenced, age, sex, security categorisation, type of offence, length of sentence, training or treatment needs, educational requirements, medical requirements, maintenance of control and good order, full utilisation of available accommodation, and the need to maintain family ties and prepare prisoners for release.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many minor children born to a British overseas citizen parent outside the United Kingdom have(a) been registered or (b) been refused registration as (i) a British citizen or (ii) a British overseas citizen in each year since 1 January 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Minor children may apply for registration as British overseas citizens under section 27 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The numbers of grants made under this section, most of which will have been made to minor children born abroad to a British overseas citizen parent, are as follows:

  Number

  1992

  18

  1993

  7

  1994

  0

  Prisons (Surplus Cell Capacity)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that had surplus cell capacity as of 8 July.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  177
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 19 July 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about surplus cell capacity.

  The attached list shows the prisons which held a smaller number of prisoners than their certified normal accommodation on 8 July 1994. Current population pressures and daily fluctuations in prisoner numbers mean that none of the spaces empty on that date can be regarded as surplus to our needs.

  Local prisons and remand centres, which receive prisoners directly from courts on a daily basis, must have sufficient capacity to accept unpredictable numbers of prisoners. Vacancies in training prisons, where there is normally no overcrowding, are filled in groups so that efficient use is made of prisoner escorting arrangements. This can lead to some under occupation of training prison places.

  When new prisons are opened, the capacity available is filled gradually to assist in maintaining stability. This is currently the position at Doncaster.

  Establishments with population below CNA in use of 8 July 1994

  Acklington

  Kingston

  Albany

  Kirklevington

  Aldington

  Lancaster

  Ash well

  Latchmere House

  Askham Grange

  Leyhill

  Aylesbury

  Lindholme

  Bedford

  Littlehey

  Belmarsh

  Long Lartin

  Blakenhurst

  Kirkham

  Blundeston

  Maidstone

  Brinsford

  Moorland

  Brockhill

  Morton Hill

  Bullingdon

  Nottingham

  Bullwood Hall

  Onley

  Castington

  Oxford

  Channings Wood

  Parkhurst

  Coldingley

  Portland

  Dartmoor

  Prescoed

  Deerbolt

  Ranby

  Doncaster

  Reading

  Dover

  Risley

  Downview

  Rochester

  Drake Hall

  Rudgate

  Elmley

  Send

  Erlestoke

  Spring Hill

  Everthorpe

  Standford Hill

  Featherstone

  Stoke Heath

  Feltham

  Sudbury

  Ford

  Swalesside

  Foston Hall

  The Mount

  Frankland

  The Verne

  Full Sutton

  The Wolds

  Garth

  Thorn Cross

  Gartree

  Thorp Arch

  Grendon

  Usk

  Guys Marsh

  Wakefield

  Hatfield

  Wayland

  Haverigg

  Wellingborough

  Highdown

  Wellington

  Highpoint

  Wetherby

  Hollesley Bay

  Whatton

  Holloway

  Whitemoor

  Holme House

  Woodhill

  Huntercombe

  Wymott

  Information Technology
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the result of the market test of IT services in his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  The market test of ED5, the Home Office administrative IT services division, has now been concluded and it has been decided to award a contract to Sema Group plc, whose bid was judged to represent the best value for money.
  178

  Victim Support Schemes
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the value-for-money survey by Coopers and Lybrand into the National Association of Victim Support Schemes commissioned by his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: I have done so today. The report, which was commissioned and paid for by the Home Office, was a value for money audit of the national office of victim support. It makes a number of recommendations about the relationship between victim support and the Home Office which require, and are receiving, careful consideration. They have still to be fully discussed with victim support. Our intention is to disseminate the report more widely when that consideration is further advanced.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 48, which alterations at Blakenhurst prison were paid for by United Kingdom Detention Services; how much was paid for each of these alterations; which alterations were paid for by the Prison Service; and how much was paid for each of these alterations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock dated 19 July 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about who has paid for the alterations to Blakenhurst Prison.

  United Kingdom Detention Services Limited have paid for a number of major alterations to the prison including providing prisoner shops (canteens) in four houseblocks; modifying the holding cells in reception; altering one spur of a houseblock to create a Vulnerable Prisoner Unit; and changing the majority of spy holes to polycarbonate. I understand that the cost of these and other minor alterations was greater than £200,000, including VAT, and has been met solely by UKDS.

  In their bid to run Blakenhurst, UKDS included proposals for a number of security enhancements. These included additional electronic locking and closed circuit television cameras. The cost of these was included in the price of the contract and paid for from the start-up costs which UKDS received in five monthly instalments before the prison opened.

  The Prison Service have paid for essential alterations to the water supply system; the kitchen ceiling; sports hall modifications and a small number of other projects. The total cost of these works was £91,500 including VAT, of which £80,000 was for the water supply system. The Prison Service would have incurred these costs regardless of who managed the prison.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  STEP Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what commitment in terms of expenditure and person years of staff time has been given to the STEP—standard for exchange of product data—programme in
  179
  1993–94; what similar commitment has been outlined for 1994–95; and what report has been made to Parliament on its progress.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The main United Kingdom commitment to the internatioinal development of STEP—ISO 10303; standard for the exchange of product model data—is undertaken through BSI/DISC. Within the DTI innovation budget, spend on STEP projects in 1993–94 was £336,444. For the current year, 1994–95, the forecast is £371,253, of which £88,181 has been committed. STEP is not specifically identified within the DTI manpower returns and no specific report has been made to Parliament.

  Civil Aircraft
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the future market for civil aircraft; and in what way he discusses those market prospects with British industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department of Trade and Industry currently estimates that around 12,000 commercial jet airliners and around 4,000 commercial turbo-prop airliners will be required over the next 20 years. The Department estimates that those sales will be worth in excess of £450 billion at current prices.

  This market opportunity is frequently discussed with the United Kingdom firms in this sector, both to promote the interests of the United Kingdom aerospace industry and in response to the Department's financial sponsorship commitments. The Department also uses a market panel, with members drawn from manufacturing and transport industries to advise on future civil aircraft issues.

  Business Links
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the business links established, their location, the partners involved in each business link, the current list of applications, the location of the current applications and the partners involved in the current application.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Plans have been approved for 33 areas in England, providing for 110 business link outlets. Some 34 business link outlets are currently operational. I expect around 60 business links to be open by the end of the year. The aim is that by the end of 1995, every firm in England will have access to a business link. I have today placed a list of established business links, current applications and partners involved, in the Library of the House.

  Isle of Man (Fraud)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to protect British investors from fraud operated from the Isle of Man.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no new measures in mind. Any fraud perpetrated in the Isle of Man is subject to the laws and courts of the island. There is close co-operation between United Kingdom and Manx enforcement agencies in the detection and prosecution of fraud offences.

  Nuclear Electric (Staff)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many full-time, part-time and contract staff have been employed by Nuclear Electric for each year since 1989;

  (2) how many former full-time employees of Nuclear Electric have subsequently been re-hired by the company on a contract basis in each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how much has been spent by Nuclear Electric on contract staff in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are commercial matters for Nuclear Electric.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his assessment of the effect of recently announced job losses of 2,000 personnel by Nuclear Electric on(a) safety, (b) design work and (c) export potential.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the company has yet to decide where the reductions will be made. The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate will not allow the company to operate its nuclear facilities unless it is satisfied that they can be operated safely. Resources on design work and exports are commercial matters for the company.

  Telecommunications (Deregulation)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the regulations preventing BT and Mercury transmitting entertainment; what plans he has for deregulating this area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 June 1994,Official Report, column 227.

  Ferranti/ISC
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate(a) the volume of United Kingdom trade lost and (b) the number of jobs lost as a result of the collapse of Ferranti/ISC; and if he will list in full the communications between his Department and departments of the United States Government in Ferranti/ISC; and what action by way of reports, surveys or other specific measures his Department has taken as a result of the collapse of Ferranti/ISC.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has made no estimate of the effect on trade or jobs of the ISC fraud, discovered in 1989. In January 1990, reference was made to the fraud at a meeting with the United States Treasury, and a request to DTI for United States officials to visit the United Kingdom was dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office. Since Ferranti International plc went into receivership last December, about 850 jobs have been lost, but over 1,050 have already been saved through disposals and the Department continues to keep in close touch with the receivers, who are seeking to dispose of the remaining businesses.

  Companies House
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Companies House agency's fees for inspection and filing annual returns and targets for 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In October 1992, as part of our policy of reviewing the status and performance of next steps agencies, my Department appointed consultants to look at the options for the future of Companies House. The object of the review was to consider how best to ensure that Companies House continued to build on its record of improvements in efficiency, value for money and standards of service in the future.

  The consultants' report described a number of ways in which closer private sector involvement in the activities of Companies House could help those aims. I have now asked them to explore one of them by consulting further with the market on how best to contract out most of the services of Companies House in order to gain the commercial discipline and investment in technology skills of the private sector. Under this option, responsibility for the registrar's functions and ownership of the register would remain with my Department. On the distribution of information, the consultants will consider whether, and if so how far, the new Companies House should withdraw from those activities where it might compete with other parts of the business information industry. The consultants will seek the views of Companies House, its customers and users, and the business information industry.

  This work is due to be completed in the early autumn. I will make a further announcement about the future of Companies House in the light of the consultants' findings. In the meantime, however, I am pleased to announce that the fees for incorporating a company and for submitting annual returns to Companies House will be reduced to approximately half their current level. I propose that these reductions should be implemented in respect of those documents due after 1 October 1994. A statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  I have set Companies House executive agency the following targets for 1994–95:
  to make all statutory documents available for public inspection within a maximum of five working days of receipt in Companies House;
  to ensure that 31 March 1995 a minimum of 90 per cent. of fiche provided to customers are error free;
  to reduce real unit costs by an average of 5 per cent. in 1994–95;
  to achieve a 6 per cent. average annual rate of return based on operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets employed at current values;
  to answer 90 per cent. of incoming telephone calls within six rings (20 seconds);
  to achieve an overall compliance rate for Companies filing annual returns and accounts of 90 per cent. by 30 June 1994;

  and for the remainder of the year
  to achieve, on average during the period July 1994 to March 1995, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 94 per cent. and for annual returns submitted of 91 per cent.

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of the agency to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Metrication
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation on phasing out the use of imperial units following the adoption of the 1989 amendment to the units of measurement directive; and if' he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My noble Friend Lord Strathclyde has today laid before Parliament the following instruments which implement the units of measurement directive in relation to the authorisation of units of measurement, and their use for weights and measures and price marking purposes:the Units of Measurement Regulations 1994;
  the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994;
  the Weights and Measures (Metrication) (Miscellaneous Goods) (Amendment) Order 1994;
  the Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods and Quantity Marking and Abbreviations of Units) (Amendment) Regulations 1994;
  the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 1994; and
  the Price Marking (Amendment) Order 1994.

  The first three SIs have been laid in draft for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. The last three have been made before laying and are subject to the negative resolution procedure. The legislation provides that the doorstep pint of milk and the pint of draught beer or cider in the pub will be allowed without time limit as well as the mile for road traffic signs, speedometers and odometers.

  For many purposes, the United Kingdom has already switched to the metric system. From 1 October 1995, almost all goods sold by quantity, including food pre-packed in variable weights such as cheese and meats that are not already traded in metric will have to be so traded. The principal exception is in respect of goods sold loose from bulk by the pound and ounce—primarily foods, such as meat, poultry, cheese, fish and fresh fruit and vegetables—which will not have to switch to metric until 1 January 2000.

  Retailers who price food sold loose from bulk or pre-packed in variable weights in metric during the transitional periods will be required to display a price conversion chart or to dual price items. The British retail consortium has agreed to adopt a code under which retailers will supplement this with further charts at any place where consumers select such food which is priced in metric. My Department is discussing with the trade other publicity measures.

  Insurance Intermediaries
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the European Commission's recommendation on insurance intermediaries.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Commission issued its recommendation in December 1991 as part of the single market programme. My Department issued a consultative document on it in November 1992. Most comments focused on the protection afforded to UK consumers by the current UK regulatory arrangements. Little evidence emerged to suggest that there are significant barriers to trade affecting insurance intermediaries which need to be addressed through Community legislation.
  183
  As regards the sale of most life insurance policies, the regulatory regime established under the Financial Services Act 1986 already meets the detailed provisions of the Commission's recommendations. As regards the activities of registered brokers, the rules of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council are also in accord with the recommendations. However, a number of respondents criticised the non-statutory arrangements under the Association of British Insurers' general business code of practice, "the ABI Code", which covers the sale of general insurance by company representatives, tied agents and independent intermediaries who are not registered brokers.

  The ABI Code was last revised in 1989 and its operation has since been monitored by an independent code monitoring committee chaired by Sir Kenneth Clucas. In January 1993, the committee recommended several changes to the code. The committee concluded, however, that overall the code provided reasonable protection to consumers and should continue rather than being replaced by statutory regulation. The ABI has expressed its willingness to act on the committee's recommendations. In those circumstances, I see no need to introduce more statutory regulation in this area. The most appropriate and cost-effective response to the Commission's recommendation is to build on the arrangements we already have.

  The ABI is today announcing a number of improvements in the operation of the code. These will clarify the code's provisions and will lead to more detailed procedural guidance for practitioners. The association has also agreed that changes in the IBRC's code of conduct and accounts rules will be reflected in the code. Further changes may be made to reflect aspects of the Commission's recommendation. There will be a publicity campaign to heighten awareness of the code and its application will continue to be monitored by the code monitoring committee, now under the chairmanship of Sir Terry Heiser. My Department will encourage nonmembers of the ABI to abide by the code's principles.

  The completion of the single market in insurance will undoubtedly increase competition in the sale of insurance products throughout the Community. I shall maintain a close interest in developments, and shall be sensitive to any emerging evidence of significant barriers to trade in this area.

  Export Market Information Centre
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the results of his review of the Department's export market information centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Twelve organisations expressed initial interest in running an export market information centre —EMIC—and I invited six to make formal bids. I have selected the offer from the management of the existing centre. The other bids, from the British library and the joint venture headed by the Institute of Export, included, however, a number of attractive ideas capable of enhancing the services which EMIC could offer its customers. I am pleased to say that both organisations have agreed to offer services in a form of partnership with EMIC. Precise arrangements are being negotiated. The new combined services should commence in the autumn and allow EMIC to be fully integrated with market branches, export promoters and business links.
  184

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement about the arrangements for publishing compliance cost assessments to show the cost impact on business of complying with legislative proposals.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Further to the answer I gave in my written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 19 October 1993,Official Report, column 202, the Government have revised the arrangements for publishing compliance cost assessments for domestic legislative proposals which impact on business as follows:
  in the case of Government Bills, a summary of the CCA will form part of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill and will include a reference to where the full CCA can be obtained.
  in the case of Statutory Instruments, the Explanatory Note will contain a note that a CCA is available and where it can be obtained.
  in the case of Private Members' Bills, where the Government considers it is appropriate to prepare a CCA every effort will be made to produce it by the date first set down for second reading of the Bill.
  in the case of Private Bills the Government are still considering how the system can be extended to such Bills.

  In all cases, a copy of the CCA will be available in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies will also be made available to the Vote Office and/or the Printed Paper Office for selected pieces of draft legislation, and to Committees considering Bills or statutory instruments where the Government judge it to be appropriate. The Government will also publish a command paper at six-monthly intervals to place on record those CCAs published over the preceding six month period and where they can be obtained.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he proposes to competition law in the context of the impending reorganisation of milk marketing arrangements.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have today laid before the House the Monopolies References (Alterations of Exclusions) Order 1994. The order, which amends part II of schedule 7 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, will enable the Director General of Fair Trading to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the wholesale supply of milk in areas which are no longer covered by a statutory marketing scheme. This fulfills the commitment which the Government gave in 1993 during the passage of the Agriculture Act that, once the milk marketing schemes were revoked, milk trading should be fully subject to competition law in the same way as any other sector.

  The order comes into force on 31 October 1994. As each statutory scheme is revoked, the market it covered will become subject to scrutiny by the Director General of Fair Trading, who will be able to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if he considers it appropriate.

  Power Losses
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many losses of power at the Rheola relay station have occurred in each year since 1990; and what is the average across Britain.
  185
  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested. The Independent Television Commission has determined national standards of reliability, measured in terms of service availability to viewer. For relay stations such as Rheola the minimum standard is 99 per cent. In 1993, there were seven periods in which electrical power was lost at the Rheola transmitter, of which five were for maintenances, resulting in transmissions being available to viewers for 99.5 per cent. of the time.

  Colliery Closures
  Mr. David Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the measures taken so far to help those areas in England affected by recent colliery closures.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government provided a total of £200 million in regeneration funds to help the areas affected by pit closures. This funding was designed both to provide direct help and to encourage other public and private-sector investment in those areas: attracting new jobs, filling the funding gap for strategic projects and providing for other key activities such as retraining.

  Training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service play a key part in regenerating coalfield areas. That is why the £180 million package announced in October 1992 including £75 million for training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service for special training and employment measures, £75 million for a three-year English Partnership's programme of factory and site provision, and a number of other measures. The additional £20 million announced in March 1993 was to allow major strategic projects to go ahead.

  Since we announced the initial package, eight pits which were scheduled to close have been leased or licensed to the private sector. That means that the total number of collieries now operating is substantially more than would have been the case had the original closure proposals made in October 1992 gone ahead. That has further improved the prospects of the coalfield areas.

  Lord Walker was asked to co-ordinate this major effort to assist the coalfield areas and advise on the strategic projects. I am grateful for the effectiveness and enthusiasm with which he has carried out this task. He has established a network of contacts in each region. He has monitored and co-ordinated the various agencies responsible for delivering the original £180 million package and has made the necessary judgments on the allocation of the approximately £20 million made available for strategic projects. His role as chairman of English Partnerships gives him a continuing close interest in the regeneration of the coalfield areas.

  The main regeneration initiatives in each region are in the list. These will provide significant support in themselves, but they will also help attract further investment in the coal areas.
  North East Assisted Areas
  Restoration of Development Area status to Morpeth and Ashington TTWA.
  English Partnerships
  £16 million for the provision of industrial and commercial sites, in particular at Seaham Grange and Ashington. £1·75 million as a strategic project for improvements for site access in the Wansbeck area.
  186
  TECs and Employment Service
  £12·7 million additional budget allocation for coalfield areas.
  Coalfield Areas Fund
  £250k for regeneration projects in Easington.
  Enterprise Zone
  An Enterprise Zone comprising six sites to be designated in East Durham.
  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation
  £2 million for inward investment promotion and £2 million for development of strategic sites in Tyneside.
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Five large projects creating over 2,000 jobs (EMC Magnetics, Cramlington; Onwa Electronics and Interconnection Systems, South Tyneside; Lucas SEI and Goldstar, Wearside).
  Regeneration Partnerships
  The Government Office for the North East plays an active role in coalfield regeneration taskforces in East Durham and Northumberland and also in the Wansbeck Initiative.
  Yorkshire and Humberside English Partnerships
  £24 million for the provision of industrial and commercial sites. Plans announced:
  Barnsley–192,000 square feet of additional factory/ workshop space and 7.5 acres of land for further industrial schemes. Extra £6 million funding for Barnsley.
  Doncaster–1 10,000 square feet of factories and workshops. Extra £8 million funding for Doncaster.
  Rotherham–30,000 square feet of factories. Extra £6 million for Rotherham.
  Wakefield—Proposals to bring forward an industrial and commercial development of £4 million.
  Further and Higher Education
  Up to £2 million to support further and higher education provision in the Dearne Valley subject to the completion of negotiations.
  Road improvements
  Up to £3·75 million in Doncaster and Barnsley: contribution to Denaby on main diversion, access from the M18 into Doncaster Carr and design and preparation of access to Grimethorpe.
  TECs and Employment Service
  £25·3 million additional budget allocation for coalfield areas.
  Coalfield Areas Fund
  £1·2 million for regeneration projects.
  Enterprise Zone
  A 360 acre Enterprise Zone to be designated in the Dearne Valley.
  Department of Transport Main Programme
  Work is underway on the Dearne Towns Link Road and the Wath Manvers Spine Road.
  Assisted Area Status
  Barnsley and Doncaster upgraded from Intermediate to Development Area status.
  Wakefield & Dewsbury and Castleford & Pontefract upgraded from Non-Assisted to Intermediate Area status.
  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Regional Enterprise Grants extended to specific wards around Sharlston.
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Tunstall project in Barnsley: 600 jobs eventually, £11 million project.
  North West EC Objective 1 status
  Parkside Colliery has been identified as a key area for regeneration through targeted investment under the Objective 1 programme for Merseyside.

  187
  English Partnerships
  £4 million for the provision of industrial and commercial sites. Plans announced:
  88,000 sq ft of new factory space and the acquisition of 10 acres of land.
  TECs and Employment Service
  £2–2 million additional budget allocation for coalfield areas.
  Coalfield Areas Fund
  £270,000 for regeneration projects.
  East Midlands English Partnerships
  £21 million provision of industrial and commercial sites. Plans announced:
  173 acres acquired for development. the provision of 176,000 sq ft of new factory space.
  TEC and Employment Service
  £23·7 million additional budget allocation for coalfield areas.
  Robin Hood Line
  £6·5 million to help extend the Robin Hood Line from Newstead to Mansfield (Stage 2).
  Coalfield Areas fund
  £2·4 million regeneration projects in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
  East Midlands Development Organisation
  £650,000 two years funding for the new East Midlands Development Organisation, to promote inward investment.
  Annesley
  Flagship Business Park.
  Enterprise Zone
  Enterprise Zones to be designated in the districts of Mansfield, Ashfield, North East Derbyshire and Bassetlaw.
  Coal Authority
  To be based in Mansfield.
  188
  Assisted Area status
  Mansfield TTWA upgraded from Non-Assisted Area to Development Area Status.
  Alfreton and Ashfield; Chesterfield; Retford; and Worksop upgraded from Non-Assisted Area to Intermediate Area status.
  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Regional Enterprise Grants extended to specific wards in coalfield areas.
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Johnson Control: 450 jobs, £1–7 million grant.
  West Midlands English Partnerships
  £7 million for the provision of industrial and commercial sites. Plans announced:
  70,000 sq ft of new factory space at High Carr and 27,500 sq ft of factory space at Fenton, both in North Staffordshire. Negotiations continue regarding other sites in both North and South Staffordshire.
  TECs and Employment Service
  £8·4 million additional budget allocation for the coalfield areas of North Staffordshire, South Staffordshire and North Warwickshire.
  Coalfield Areas Fund
  £820,000 for regeneration projects in Stoke.
  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Regional Enterprise Grants extended to specific wards in the Trentham and Littleton areas.
  Objective 2 status
  Stoke will get Objective 2 status for the first time. Much of the southern Staffordshire coalfield will also be included.
  Strategic Projects
  Support for projects in Stoke:—Minton Hollins distribution centre;
  Fenton Manor Business Park—infrastructure works.
  Trentham: site investigations at Trentham North and provision for access at Trentham South.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Business Parks
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which locations in the city of Belfast there are business parks; approximately how many persons are employed at each of these business parks; at which locations new business parks are proposed; and if he will make a statement on future public funding for business parks.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The development of business parks is a private sector initiative and the Department of Economic Development does not have access to the information requested.

  As far as public funding for business parks is concerned, limited assistance may be available to private developers from the Local Enterprise Development Unit under its property development scheme.

  War Veterans
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will meet representatives of Ards borough council and war veterans from that district to discuss problems in respect of their desire to link with Belgian veterans and communities celebrating the 50th anniversary of liberation this autumn;

  (2) if he will make an announcement on the visit to Belgium of war veterans living in the Ards borough council area before the parliamentary recess.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be writing shortly to the hon. Member confirming that the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland is prepared to consider favourably the granting of approval to Ards borough council to fund a visit to Belgium by ex-service men from its district as part of the Belgian liberation celebrations. In these circumstances, a meeting would not seem to be necessary.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has held with the Data Protection Registrar, prior to the use of the national insurance number by the private sector, in relation to the Northern Ireland personal injuries claims register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  There have been no discussions at ministerial level on this subject. There has been correspondence at official level with the Association of British Insurers which, in turn, has been in contact with the Data Protection Registrar about the use of national insurance numbers for the purposes of the association's Northern Ireland personal injuries register and this is continuing.

  Enterprise Centres
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which locations in Belfast there are enterprise centres; how many persons are employed at these enterprise centres; at which locations in Belfast new enterprise centres are planned; and if he will make a statement on proposed public funding of enterprise centres.
  190
  Mr. Tim Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Total employed

  Enterprise centres

  Action Resource Centre

  12

  103–107 York Street

  Argyle Business Centre

  23

  39 Howard Street

  Brookfield Business Centre

  260

  333 Crumlin Road

  Farset Enterprise Park

  47

  638 Springfield Road

  Glenwood Enterprises

  90

  Springbank Industrial Estate

  Townsend Enterprise Park

  150

  28 Townsend Park

  Work West

  50

  301 Glen Road

  Westlink Enterprise

  66

  30–50 Distillery Road

  North City Business

  No tenants yet

  2, Duncairn Gardens

  New Enterprise Centres

  East Belfast Enterprise Park

  16 Castlereagh Street

  Ormagh Enterprises

  (location to be decided)

  In terms of public funding, the Local Enterprise Development Unit's local enterprise programme setting up the new enterprise centres is almost complete. Within the LEP strategy, LEDU is working with all the centres to build upon their achievements to date.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the salaries for each of the last 10 years for the chairman and chief executive of(a) the Equal Opportunities Commission, (b) the Fair Employment Commission, (c) the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, (d) the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland, (e) the Labour Relations Agency, (f) the Arts Council for Northern Ireland, (g) the Industrial Development Board, (h) the Local Enterprise Development Unit, (i) the Social Security Agency and (j) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The salary of the chief executive of the Social Security Agency, which was established on 1 July 1991, is based on the Northern Ireland civil service grade 3 salary scale. The total gross remuneration paid to the chief executive from that date has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  49,866

  1992–93

  53,700

  1993–94

  55,878

  The information requested for the other bodies can be obtained from the Cabinet Office annual publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring; and if he will set out his targets to help small businesses in the next year.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Assistance towards small firms in Northern Ireland is delivered for the Department of Economic Development by its agency the Local Enterprise Development Unit.

  LEDU's strategy forms an integral part of the Government's approach to encourage competitiveness and growth among small business. LEDU had a successful year in 1993–94 and I am encouraged that it has continued to build upon its record-breaking performance in 1992–93. The turnover among LEDU client companies increased by 9·5 per cent. in 1993–94 and employment increased by 4·7 per cent.

  Key results for the past two years and similar key targets for next year are as follows:

  Performance indicators

  1992–93 results

  1993–94 results

  1994–95 targets

  Business start training (nos)

  3,716

  3,979

  3,000

  Small business accommodation

  22,000 sq m

  10,501 sq m

  8,200 sq m

  Growth implementing contracts signed

  147

  141

  152

  Contracts to companies engaged in projects to overcome barriers to growth

  447

  795

  760

  Nursery Schools
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total public expenditure on(a) nursery schools and classes and (b) children under five in reception classes, in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for Northern Ireland.

  Appointment

  Duration

  Mr. David Cook

  As a City Council Trustee—Ulster Museum

  1 January 1973 to 1 June 1985

  Chairman—Health and Social Services Trust

  (Craigavon and Banbridge Unit of Management)

  23 November 1993 to 23 November 1997

  Chairman—Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  29 June 1994 to 28 June 1997

  Mrs. Fionnuala Cook

  Member—Northern Ireland Housing Executive Board

  5 November 1989 to 4 November 1995

  Chairman—Northern Health and Social Services Council

  1 April 1991 to 31 May 1995

  192
  Mr. Ancram
  Expenditure on nursery and reception classes in primary schools is subsumed in the total for primary schools, and could only be identified at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure on nursery schools is as follows:

  £m

  percentage of GDP

  1989–90

  5·1

  .001

  1990–91

  5·6

  .001

  1991–92

  6·9

  .001

  1992–93

  7·3

  n/a

  1993–94

  17·8

  n/a

  1 estimated.

  Fair Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been heard since 1989 by fair employment tribunals consisting of(a) three Catholic members, (b) two Catholic members and one Protestant member, (c) one Catholic member and two Protestant members and (d) three Protestant members.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  A breakdown of the perceived religion of panel members for the fair employment tribunals which heard and determined cases since 1989 is shown in the table:

  FET Panel Constitution

  Number of cases

  Three Catholic members

  1

  Two Catholic and one Protestant member

  52

  One Catholic and two Protestant members

  61

  Three Protestant members

  —

  Total

  114

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the public appointments held by Mr. David Cook and Mrs. Fionnula Cook since 1980.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following public appointments have been held by Mr. David Cook and Mrs. Fionnuala Cook since 1980.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many motorists were(a) charged with and (b) convicted of (i) failure to accord precedence at pedestrian crossings, endorseable offences, (ii) failure to comply with traffic signs, (iii) speed limit offences, (iv) driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and (v) reckless driving in Northern Ireland in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Information on the number of persons with the0073e offences is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Readily available information is as follows:

  Persons Convicted of Motoring Offences in Northern Ireland 1991–1993

  Offence

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Failure to accord precedence at pedestrian crossings (Zebra and Pelican)

  5

  0

  4

  Failure to comply with traffic signs (Art. 158 Road Traffic Order)

  370

  288

  280

  Speed Limit Offences

  2,683

  2,535

  2,320

  All Drunk-in-Charge Offences

  2,675

  3,203

  3,167

  Reckless Driving Causing Death

  19

  10

  19

  Reckless Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm

  11

  8

  11

  Reckless Driving

  449

  392

  327

  Rents
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he holds on the levels of rent being charged in(a) the public sector, (b) the private sector and (c) by housing associations.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland holds information on the levels of rent being charged as follows:

  (a) public sector: average weekly rent of £29·63 from 1 April 1994 1

  (b) private sector: no information is held

  (c) housing associations: average rents at 31 March 1994 are shown on the table below.

  Dwelling type

  Controlled2£

  De-controlled3£

  Bedsit

  18·95

  28·46

  1 Bedroom

  22·51

  25·94

  2 Bedrooms

  26·88

  27·73

  3 Bedrooms

  31·63

  34·25

  4 Bedrooms

  33·40

  39·12

  1 Information is not held on rent levels by dwelling type.

  2 Controlled rents are for tenancies granted prior to 16 September 1992 and Departmental approval is required for rent increases.

  3 De-controlled rents are for tenancies grated from 16 September 1992 and rent increases are not subject to Departmental approval.

  Nurse Education and Training
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to provide for the retraining and redeployment of nurse teachers who are displaced as a result of the proposed reduction in the number of nursing students.

  Mr. Ancram
  The health and personal social services staff redeployment unit was established in June 1993 with the remit of setting up a clearing house system to allow 194
  staff who are declared redundant by their current employers to have first opportunity of applying for any posts for which recruitment is taking place elsewhere in the Northern Ireland health and personal social services. The fully computerised system agreed with participating employers covers all health and social services boards, units of management, health and social services trusts, together with the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency and the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Following the introduction of the clearing house system, the staff redeployment unit has been encouraged to extend its activities to include the provision of information to employees faced with redundancy; the investigation of employment opportunities for redundant staff outside the statutory health and personal social services in Northern Ireland; and measures to enhance the employment opportunities for newly qualified nurses who are unable to obtain employment on completion of training.

  To date, the Northern Ireland national board has not found it necessary to make any of its nurse tutors redundant and has achieved reductions in staffing levels by means of voluntary early retirement.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a breakdown of the spending on nurse education and training for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 identifying the spending allocated to(a) pre-registration education, (b) post-registration education and (c) nurse teacher training and support.

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not possible to identify separately spending on pre- and post-registration education. Otherwise the information is as follows:

  Nurse education and training £ million

  Nurse teacher training £000's

  1990–91

  10·7

  180

  1991–92

  15·4

  253

  1992–93

  27·4

  246

  1993–94

  27·3

  119

  Notes:

  1. The figures for Nurse Education and Training include National Board revenue, the cost of the community nurse training programme, the training element of the cost of salaries and bursaries for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94 and the implementation costs of Project 2000.

  2. It is not possible to identify the training element in salaries and bursaries for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total cost of the changes in nurse education since 1989 which result from the introduction of Project 2000.

  Mr. Ancram
  In the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1994, a total of £7·96 million has been allocated to the four health and social services boards and the Northern Ireland National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, to meet the additional costs of implementing Project 2000.

  Road Accidents (Pedestrians)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) children and (b) adults were (i) killed and (ii) seriously or (iii) slightly injured on or near pedestrian crossings in Northern Ireland in 1991, 1992 and 1993.
  195
  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Accidents and casualties on or near pedestrian crossings

  Year

  Accidents

  Killed

  Serious injuries

  Slight injuries

  (i) Children (under 15 years)

  1991

  26

  0

  8

  22

  1992

  29

  0

  7

  25

  1993

  29

  0

  4

  29

  (ii) Adults (15 years and over)

  1991

  70

  1

  15

  94

  1992

  59

  1

  17

  84

  1993

  67

  2

  10

  97

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rate Collection Agency in 1994–95.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  For 1994–95 the following performance targets have been set for the agency:

  1. To reduce rating debt to 1–76 per cent. of the Gross Collectable Rate excluding late assessments by 31 March 1995.

  2. To achieve a reduction of 2 per cent. in the real value of the direct unit costs of collecting rates per hereditament.

  3. To generate refunds to 97 per cent. of ratepayers so entitled within 14 days of credits being identified.

  4. To process by 31 March 1995 80 per cent. of applications for the incoming year received from existing Housing Benefit recipients before 15 March 1995.

  5. To achieve a reduction of 2 per cent. in the real value of the direct unit costs of processing Housing Benefit cases.

  6. To assess 97 per cent. of Housing Benefit claims free of error.

  Public Record Office
  Sir James Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the future organisation of the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Government have decided that the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, which is responsible for the identification and preservation of Northern Ireland's archival heritage and for ensuring public access to that heritage, should become a next steps agency from 1 April 1995. This will give the Public Record Office the freedom to operate as an independent organisation within a framework of appropriate efficiency targets and performance measures. Accountability for the organisation will remain with the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Ordnance Survey
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland in 1994–95.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  For 1994–95 the following performance targets have been set for OSNI:

  1. to survey 25,000 house units in the continuous revision programme;

  2. to complete 850 data capture units representing 1,630 basic scale map sheets converted to digital format;

  3. to update the digital topographical database with 90 per cent. of the surveyed change within 7 days of receipt of the field data;

  4. to dispatch, within 7 working days, 90 per cent. of orders for folded and basic scale maps;

  196

  5. to reduce unit costs so that the weighted mean percentage reduction of selected representative activities is 3 per cent.; and

  6. to recover from the supply of goods and services, 24 per cent. of the total costs incurred by OSNI.

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency in 1994–95.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  For 1994–95 the following performance targets have been set for the agency:Vehicle Test appointments—5 weeks average waiting time. Driving Test appointments—10 weeks average waiting time. Productivity—(Vehicle Testing)—16·15 units per man per day.
  Productivity—(Driver Testing)—7·7 units per man per day. Error Rate: Faulty inspections not to exceed 0·3 per cent. of tests conducted.
  Level of complaints about booking arrangements—less than 2 per cent. of applications received.
  Level of complaints about the conduct of tests—less than 2 per cent. of applications received.
  Level of customer satisfaction with booking arrangements —greater than 80 per cent.
  Level of customer satisfaction with test procedures—greater than 90 per cent.
  Number of compensation payments for cancelled tests—not more than 1 per cent. of applications received.
  Composite unit cost—£16–32.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which management consultants have been employed by his Department to assist in the assessment of applications for trust status; how much each was paid; and how many assessments they undertook, in each wave.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: IHSM Consultants has been engaged by the Department of Health and Social Services to assist in the assessment of the management capacity of trust applicants in each of the three waves to date. The payments, which include fees and expenses in each case, and number of assessments in each wave are set out below:

  1st Wave £9,51945 in respect of one assessment

  2nd Wave £16,559·52 in respect of ten assessments

  3rd Wave £10,413–30 in respect of two assessments

  Raw Wool Purchases
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has about persons or firms from the Irish Republic purchasing raw wool from farmers in Northern Ireland and about the price offered for such wool by purchasers in Northern Ireland; and what is his estimate of the consequences of wool being moved across the land frontier to the Republic.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: The British wool marketing scheme permits the sale of wool in its raw state—that is, unsorted and ungraded—to buyers outside the United Kingdom. Little information is available about persons or firms from the Republic of Ireland who purchase raw wool from farmers in Northern Ireland or about the prices offered for such wool by such purchasers. The quantity of wool exported to the Republic of Ireland in 1993, however, was insubstantial and the prices paid are likely to have been lower than those paid for

  197
  wool sold to the British wool marketing board. The effect on the British wool market of exports of such small quantities is not expected to be significant.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of the appointment of Andersen Consulting as consultants to the Child Support Agency.

  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 shortly.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. David Hanson:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the cost of Andersen Consulting to the Child Support Agency.

  I am afraid that I am unable to provide you with information about Andersen Consulting in particular as this information is confidential due to its commercial nature. I can tell you however, that the Agency spent a total of £23 million on consultants in 1993–94.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the Child Support Agency has spent on consultants in 1993; and what is the estimated expenditure on the contract with Andersen Consulting.

  Benefit recipients in England

  Benefit

  Number of recipients (000's unless stated*)

  1964

  1971

  1981

  1991

  1993/latest

  Attendance Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  293

  771

  760

  Child Benefit

  3,199

  3,672

  6,058

  5,813

  5,919

  Rent Rebate

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,337

  2,451

  Rent Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  977

  1,338

  Community Charge Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5,475

  n/a

  Council Tax Benefit (CTB)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4,523

  Disability Living Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,033

  Disability Working Allowance*

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,990

  FIS/Family Credit

  n/a

  n/a

  85

  278

  429

  Guardians Allowance*

  n/a

  n/a

  2,695

  1,501

  1,630

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support

  n/a

  2,398

  3,131

  3,743

  4,795

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  n/a

  158

  150

  152

  169

  Invalidity Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  468

  971

  1,072

  Maternity Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  48

  40

  Mobility Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  174

  545

  n/a

  One Parent Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  399

  692

  757

  Sickness Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  282

  83

  109

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  107

  237

  245

  Unemployment Benefit

  122

  346

  951

  543

  501

  Widows Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  335

  269

  261

  Benefit recipients in Scotland

  Benefit

  Number of recipients (000's unless stated*)

  1964

  1971

  1981

  1991

  1993/latest

  Attendance Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  30

  84

  74

  Child Benefit

  405

  439

  679

  615

  621

  Rent Rebate

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  466

  458

  Rent Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  74

  91

  Community Charge Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  646

  n/a

  Council Tax Benefit (CTB)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  573

  Disability Living Allowance*

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  146

  Disability Working Allowance*

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  341

  FIS/Family Credit

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  41

  60

  Guardians Allowance*

  n/a

  n/a

  487

  255

  247

  198
  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. John Speller:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the Agency's expenditure on consultants.

  In 1993–94 the Agency spent £2·3 million on consultants.

  I am afraid that I am unable to provide the other information you request as it is confidential due to its commercial nature.

  Benefits
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the resident population in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales are in receipt of benefits other than retirement pensions; and what were the numbers in (i) 1964, (ii) 1971, (iii) 1981 and (iv) 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on a territorial basis is not available for all benefits. Such information as is available is in the tables. The numbers provided are based on awards of benefit and contain a degree of overlap as people may be in receipt of more than one benefit.

  It is not possible to determine the percentage of the resident population represented by the figures as information on the number of individuals covered by each award is not readily available.
  199

  Benefit

  Number of recipients (000's unless stated*)

  1964

  1971

  1981

  1991

  1993/latest

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support

  n/a

  322

  371

  487

  543

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  n/a

  18

  16

  17

  19

  Invalidity Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  88

  181

  200

  Maternity Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  2

  Mobility Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  21

  82

  n/a

  One Parent Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  48

  87

  97

  Sickness Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  44

  15

  17

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  18

  34

  35

  Unemployment Benefit

  36

  72

  141

  55

  57

  Widows Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  48

  39

  38

  Benefit recipients in Wales

  Benefit

  Number of recipients (000's unless stated*)

  1964

  1971

  1981

  1991

  1993/latest

  Attendance Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  28

  63

  56

  Child Benefit

  190

  212

  362

  355

  357

  Rent Rebate

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  152

  154

  Rent Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  56

  74

  Community Charge Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  341

  n/a

  Council Tax Benefit (CTB)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  273

  Disability Living Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  102

  Disability Working Allowance*

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  245

  FIS/Family Credit

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  22

  32

  Guardians Allowance*

  n/a

  n/a

  180

  94

  100

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support

  n/a

  189

  221

  257

  305

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  n/a

  25

  22

  19

  18

  Invalidity Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  71

  147

  159

  Maternity Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  2

  Mobility Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  60

  n/a

  One Parent Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  21

  39

  43

  Sickness Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  12

  12

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  22

  22

  Unemployment Benefit

  14

  23

  73

  29

  26

  Widows Benefit

  n/a

  n/a

  23

  19

  18

  Notes:

  1. n/a indicates information not available—benefit not in existence or no caseload data available for the year shown.

  2. Figures are in thousands and are rounded to the nearest thousand except for Guardians Allowance and Disability Working Allowance where the actul numbers of recipients are given.

  3. Supplementary Benefit was introduced in 1966. No figures are available for the numbers receiving National Assistance in 1964.

  4. Council Tax Benefit replaced Community Charge Benefit in April 1993.

  5.Disability Living Allowance replaced Mobility Allowance (and Attendance Allowance for persons under 65 years) in April 1992.

  Benefits Poverty Trap
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimates his Department has made for the total number of people classified as falling within the benefits poverty trap in(a) May 1992, (b) May 1993 and (c) the latest available date;

  (2) what estimates his Department made for the total number of people classified as falling into the benefits poverty trap in (a) May 1992, (b) May 1993 and (c) the latest available date.

  Mr. Burt
  The term "poverty trap" is often used to describe a situation where, because of a combination of tax and national insurance deductions, and the withdrawal of income-related benefits, a person working on low pay receives little or no increase in income when earnings rise.

  The combined rate at which tax and national insurance are deducted from earnings and income-related benefits are withdrawn is known as the marginal deduction rate. Estimates of the numbers with marginal deduction rates at
  200
  or above certain rates in 1992–93 and 1993–94 can be found in the "Social Security Departmental Report", Cm. 2513, published in March this year. A copy is in the Library.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of family credit at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated outtum for family credit for 1993–94 is £1,091 million.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were in receipt of family credit; what was the number of dependent children living in these families; and what was the average family credit payment at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  There are 1,055,000 dependent children in the 520,000 families who receive family credit. The average weekly award is £46.

  Source: Family Credit Statistics: Final Quarterly Tables October 1993.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families where both spouses, or
  201
  partners living as husband and wife, are working were in receipt of family credit at the latest date for which figures are available; and what percentage this is of the total number of families in receipt of family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  There are 22,500 families receiving family credit where both partners are working. This is 4·3 per cent. of the 520,000 families receiving family credit.

  Source: Family Credit Statistics: final quarterly tables October 1993.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons without accommodation were income support recipients in England at May 1992 and at the latest available date, breaking down the figures by age and by whether or not they were employed at the time.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 7 February 1994,Official Report, column 29.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on social security fraud of a national identity card; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Most social security fraud arises from failure to declare true circumstances—for example, working and claiming—and only a small percentage results from misrepresentations about identity. We are looking at a range of initiatives including better ways of establishing identity, to prevent or detect multiple claims and instrument of payment frauds.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the policy of the compensation recovery unit in respect of the repayment of benefits by those who have paid appropriate national insurance contributions if they win damages arising out of an industrial disease, medical neglicence, road traffic accident or industrial injury; and whether the compensation recovery unit will require those who have not paid appropriate national insurance contributions to pay back income support if they win damages arising out of industrial disease, medical negligence, road traffic accident or industrial injury.

  Mr. Scott
  Both contributory and non-contributory benefits, including income support, are prescribed in compensation recovery legislation. Recovery applies only when benefits are paid in consequence of the accident, injury or disease for which compensation is awarded.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to change the operations of the compensation recovery unit in so far as it affects asbestosis sufferers.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans for any such change.

  Pensions (Regulation)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost to the pensions industry of the proposed pensions regulator.
  202
  Mr. Hague
  Initial estimates of the cost of the new regulatory authority which was announced in the White Paper, "Security, Equality, Choice", Cm 2594, are in the order of £10 million per annum. In addition, it is expected that there will be start-up costs of around £2 million. It is proposed that these costs will be met by an annual levy on occupational pension schemes.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to consult on the levies to fund the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and the compensation scheme, as announced in his White Paper "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions", published on 23 June.

  Mr. Hague
  A consultation paper is being issued today. The paper explains how the levies will be structured, seeks views on how the costs of the levies should be distributed across the range of scheme sizes and gives some indication of the potential effect on schemes. It is being issued automatically to a number of interested parties and is available to others on request. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to conduct a quinquennial review of the independent tribunal service.

  Mr. Lilley
  In keeping with our commitment to continuing improvement in customer service and value for money in public services, reflected in the citizens charter, the Government have an established programme for regular reviews of non-departmental public bodies. As part of this programme, in consultation with my noble and learned Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate, my Department will shortly begin a quinquennial review of the organisation and management of the Independent Tribunal Service. The review will fully respect the independence of the judicial functions of the service.

  Anyone who has an interest in the work of the Independent Tribunal Service is welcome to send in their views, by 30 September 1994, and, to do so, is asked first to contact:

  Elizabeth Thorp

  DSS

  Room 1820

  Euston Tower

  286 Euston Road

  London

  NW1 3DN

  The results of the review will be announced in due course.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest information held about pensioners' income; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today published the latest information, which is for 1992. The figures show that, on average, pensioners' total net income has risen by 50 per cent. over inflation since 1979; or 58 per cent. after housing costs have been deducted. In particular, the amount that pensioners receive from occupational pensions has increased by an average of 62 per cent., to an average weekly amount of nearly £72.
  203
  Further details are in the table.

  Table 1: The average incomes of pensioner units by source, 1974–1992

  Average income

  Growth

  Average income from each source as a percentage of total income

  £per week. July 1992 prices

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Income source

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974–79

  1979–92

  1974

  1979

  1992

  (a) Pensioner Couples

  Earnings

  32·10

  26·10

  20·50

  -19

  -22

  21

  16

  9

  Benefit Income

  77·80

  87·70

  107·10

  13

  22

  50

  53

  45

  Investment Income

  18·40

  17·50

  49·90

  -5

  186

  12

  11

  21

  Occupational Pension

  27·00

  32·60

  66·10

  21

  102

  17

  20

  28

  Other Income

  0·10

  0·90

  1·40

  819

  61

  *

  1

  1

  Total Gross Income

  155·70

  164·80

  237·80

  6

  44

  100

  100

  100

  Deductions

  22·20

  23·80

  31·60

  7

  33

  14

  14

  13

  Total Net Income1

  133·50

  141·00

  206·20

  6

  46

  86

  86

  87

  Total Net Income AHC2

  116·60

  122·20

  190·70

  5

  56

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  (b) Single Pensioners

  Earnings

  8·10

  5·90

  5·10

  -27

  -14

  10

  7

  4

  Benefit Income

  51·80

  58·00

  70·80

  12

  22

  64

  69

  56

  Investment Income

  12·00

  9·30

  25·20

  -23

  172

  15

  11

  20

  Occupational Pension

  8·70

  10·10

  24·50

  16

  142

  11

  12

  19

  Other Income

  0·10

  0·60

  0·70

  326

  29

  *

  1

  1

  Total Gross Income

  81·30

  83·90

  126·40

  3

  51

  100

  100

  100

  Deductions

  10·80

  17·00

  1700

  -5

  65

  13

  12

  13

  Total Net Income3

  70·50

  73·60

  109·40

  4

  49

  87

  88

  87

  Total Net Income AHC

  59·10

  60·70

  93·00

  3

  53

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  (c) All Pensioner Units

  Earnings

  16·40

  12·90

  10·90

  -22

  -16

  15

  12

  6

  Benefit Income

  60·80

  68·20

  84·40

  12

  24

  57

  61

  50

  Investment Income

  14·20

  12·10

  34·50

  -15

  185

  13

  11

  21

  Occupational Income

  15·10

  17·90

  40·00

  19

  123

  14

  16

  24

  Other Income

  0·10

  0·70

  100

  459

  46

  *

  1

  1

  Total Gross Income

  107·10

  111·80

  168·10

  4

  50

  100

  100

  100

  Deductions

  14·70

  14·90

  22·40

  1

  50

  14

  13

  13

  Total Net Income5

  92·40

  96·90

  145·60

  5

  50

  86

  87

  87

  Total Net Income AHC6

  79·00

  81·90

  129·50

  4

  58

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Median net income, at 1992 prices, was £107·60 in 1974, £111·80 in 1979 and £162·90 in 1992.

  2 Median net income after housing costs, at 1992 prices, was £103·20 in 1974, £97·90 in 1979 and £145·80 in 1992.

  3 Median net income, at 1992 prices, was £60·70 in 1974, £66·80 in 1979 and £86·30 in 1992.

  4 Median net income after housing costs, at 1992 pricess, was £48·70 in 1974, £52·10 in 1979 and £62·80 in 1992.

  5 Median net income, at 1992 prices, was £65·60 in 1974, £68·40 in 1979 and £93·50 in 1992.

  6 Median net income after housing costs, at 1992 prices, was £5000 in 1974, £62·00 in 1979 and £76·40 in 1992.

  Notes:

  1. Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  *denotes a figure of less than 0.5 per cent.

  3. All average amounts are means unless otherwise stated.

  4. All figures are before housing costs unless otherwise stated.

  5. Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age and couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  6. "1990–91" denotes estimates from the combined sample for 1990–91. One quarter of the 1991 Family Expenditure Survey sample has been omitted because of problems in the collection of information on Community Charge payment following the delayed issue of bills in April 1991. As a result the sample size in that year is too small to provide reliable estimates of pensioner's incomes. For this reason the remaining date for 1991 has been combined with that for 1990.

  7. "n/a" means Not Applicable.

  Table 2: Proportion of pensioner units with investment income and the average amount for those in receipt

  Percentage of units with investment income

  Average amount for those in receipt (£ per week, 1992 prices)

  Percentage growth in average amount since 1979

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1992

  (a) All pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  58

  71

  84

  31·70

  24·50

  59·70

  144

  Single pensioners

  49

  57

  71

  24·40

  16·40

  35·60

  117

  All pensioner units

  52

  62

  76

  27·20

  19·70

  45·60

  132

  (b) Recently retired pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  60

  73

  83

  32·10

  26·00

  73·50

  182

  Single pensioners

  54

  60

  67

  20·40

  15·20

  51·20

  236

  All pensioner units

  58

  68

  77

  28·30

  22·00

  65·80

  199

  204
  Copies of this reply will be placed in the Library.
  205
  Notes:

  1. Recently retired pensioner units are defined as: women aged 60–64; single men aged 65–69; and couples in which the husband is aged 65–69.

  2. All average amounts are means.

  Table 3: Proportion of pensioner units with occupational pension and the average amount for those in receipt

  Percentage of units with occupational pension

  A verage amount for those in receipt (£ per week, 1992 prices

  Percentage growth in average amount since 1979

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1992

  (a) All pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  53

  65

  72

  51·30

  52·80

  92·20

  75

  Single Pensioners

  24

  32

  46

  37·20

  35·00

  52·90

  51

  All pensioner units

  34

  43

  56

  44·80

  44·40

  71·80

  62

  (b) Recently retired pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  53

  68

  73

  56·20

  62·10

  100·30

  62

  Single pensioners

  24

  37

  47

  46·40

  37·70

  71·70

  90

  All pensioner units

  43

  55

  63

  54·30

  55·30

  91·90

  66

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of the percentage of pensioner units in receipt of occupational pension income are based upon data from the Family Expenditure Survey and the GAD Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes. Due to this use of additional information, it is not possible to derive the overall average occupational receipt from the estimates in this table.

  2. Recently retired pensioner units are defined as: single women aged 60–64; single men aged 65–69; and couples in which the husband is aged 65–69.

  3. All average amounts are means.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had, and what provision he has made in his budget, in relation to the victims of crime who will no longer be sufficiently compensated by the tariff scheme of the criminal injuries compensation scheme to be able to be independent of state benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  None. A wide range of income-related benefits are paid to those whose income falls below a level set each year by Parliament. There are no cash limits to the income-related benefit budget as payment is made to all those who qualify.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to review water charges paid by women in safe housing; if he will consider introducing a water rebate scheme for those on low incomes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  No. Water charges should be treated in a similar manner to other items of expenditure in the family budget.

  Over-60s Card
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to make available the concessions and benefits of the European Community over-60s card to people in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hague
  No country has yet implemented the EC recommendation for an over-60s card. We are continuing our discussions with interested parties with a view to securing successful implementation in the United Kingdom.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which bodies have been consulted on his plans to introduce a test of habitual residence in the United 206
  Kingdom as a condition of entitlement to income support, housing benefit and council ax benefit; what will he the position of United Kingdom nationals who retired abroad and wish to return to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The local authority associations were consulted on the proposal to introduce a habitual residence test into income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The proposal was also formally referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which undertook a public consultation. The habitual residence test will apply to all people who claim these benefits. In the case of returning United Kingdom nationals, the adjudication authorities will be looking at whether the person has an established link with this country, for example whether they have any ties here, such as family, and why they have come back.

  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table setting out for each year between 1988–89 and 1993–94 the number of claimants of rent rebate and rent allowance, divided into fair rented and non-fair rented private sector tenants; if, following the Treasury's Summer Economic Forecast 1994, he will publish projections for each of the years from 1994–95 to 1996–97; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: The information is not available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give, in real terms, the cost to local authorities of a reduction in the rate of direct subsidy to local authorities for housing benefit of(a) 1 per cent., (b) 2 per cent., (c) 3 per cent. and (d) 4 per cent.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]If there were no comparable increase in the revenue support grant,
  207
  the housing benefit direct subsidy paid to local authorities would fall by approximately £100 million per annum for each 1 per cent. reduction in the rate of direct subsidy.

HEALTH

  Research and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) of 4 July,Official Report, column 97, on employment data on administration of research and development in the national health service, if she will now make it her policy to establish arrangements to collect the data centrally.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have no current plans to collect centrally such comprehensive data.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the priority-setting exercises which have been undertaken by her Department and NHS regions, and those currently under way, giving in each case (i) the amount of research funds to be allocated in each year and (ii) the total costs of the exercise in each year, showing separately the costs(a) to the Department of Health and NHS executive, (b) to the lead NHS region, (c) in time spent by research staff funded by the Department, (d) in time spent by other academic staff employed by universities, (e) in time spent by other NHS staff and (f) other costs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: The current list of research priority setting exercises for the national health service research and development programme is shown in the table.

  review exercises completed

  Mental Health and Learning Disabilities

  Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke

  Physical and Complex Disabilities

  Primary and Secondary Care Interface

  Health Technology

  Cancer

  review exercises underway

  Mother and Child Health

  Methods of implementing research findings in the Health Service

  Dentistry

  Diabetes

  The financial costs for each of these exercises cannot be disaggregated.

  The other information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total costs of her Department's research and development programme in each year from 1991–92 to 1993–94, what are the estimated costs for 1994–95 and the projected costs for each of the next five years; and if she will show, in each case, the funds allocated to (i) the centrally-funded research programme, (ii) the national health service research and development programme, (iii) running costs in the Department of Health, (iv) running costs in the NHS executive and (v) other costs, listing all significant areas of expenditure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: Details on the Department's central research and development expenditure, including the National Health
  208
  Service executive, are collected annually in the "Forward Look of Government Funded Science, Engineering and Technology".

  The total costs of the Department's research and development programme, including the NHS executive research and development programme for 1991–92 to 1993–94, as quoted in the 1994 forward look are set out below. These costs are based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Frascati definition of research which excludes running costs. Details on the running costs of the Department's research and development division, which oversees the centrally commissioned and NHS executive R and D programmes, are given in the second column of the table. The running costs include all manpower and non-manpower expenditure.

  Year

  £ million Research cost Total

  £ million Actual running cost Total

  1991–921

  27·4

  1·77

  1992–931

  31·3

  2·27

  1993–941 2

  33·9

  32·55

  The estimated costs for 1994–95 are as follows:

  1994–951

  41·2

  2·58

  1 Forward Look of Government Funded science Engineering and Technology 1994, Statistical Supplement (HMSO) for details of total R and D spend. The information on running costs is drawn from the Departmental sources.

  2 Estimated outturn for 1993–94.

  3 Actual running costs, 1993–94.

  The R and D costs of the Department of Health sponsored non-departmental public bodies are not included in the table.

  All future spending and running costs of these programmes, including the NHS executive R and D programme, are subject to departmental discussions and to the decisions arising out of public expenditure rounds.

  A copy of the 1994 forward look is available in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people resident in each family health services authority area were registered with a general practitioner in 1993–94 and in the first three months of 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest available information is published in the health service indicators set, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total public expenditure on child care services for pre-school children under the age of five years, by sector, including all local authority provision and grants to the voluntary sector, for each year from 1989–90 to 1993–94; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for England in each of these years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available in the form requested.
  209
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost per annum in 1993–94 of a place in(a) a local authority day nursery, (b) a local authority family centre and (c) a local authority playgroup.

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures are not yet available for 1993–94.

  Child Minders
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered child minders there are in each local authority area; and what is the average weekly payment in each area.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of registered child minders in each local authority area is published in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1993, England", a copy of which is available in the Library. Information on payments is not recorded centrally.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of 23 June,Official Report, column 305, what research she has undertaken into the link between growth hormone treatment, fertility treatment and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  So far, research supported by the Department has concentrated on tracing the patients treated with pituitary derived hormones and monitoring their health status. The researchers also keep in close touch with developments in other countries where these treatments were used. It is hoped that biomedical research on spongiform encephalopathies will eventually lead to the identification of the agent by which Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is transmitted.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what correspondence she has had with Dr. Bangham, former director of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, on the investigation into Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease undertaken in Australia.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department was first alerted to evidence linking Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with growth hormone treatment and fertility treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  On 11 April 1985.

  Confidentiality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement concerning the reason for the delay in publishing a code of practice or guidance in relation to the confidentiality of medical information.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The handling of personal health information raises complex legal and ethical issues. When we have concluded our consideration of these, we will issue the draft guidance.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the view expressed in the 10 report of the Data Protection Registrar on whether 210
  Crown copyright will be readily enforceable as a remedy to counter possible extraneous uses of the new NHS number; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is seeking further legal advice on the opinion expressed in the Data Protection Registrar's report.

  Patient Complaints
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of written patient complaints received by her Department in 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department receives huge amounts of correspondence in the course of a year covering the full range of its responsibilities. No separate statistics are kept of written patient complaints or letters of appreciation.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 605, when the information about the number of official complaints received from NHS patients by each NHS hospital or trust between January and March 1994 will be available; and if she will provide the information for the most recent quarter for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Statistics on written complaints are collected centrally on an annual basis. The latest data available are for the financial year 1992–93—"Written Complaints by or on behalf of Patients, England" and copies are available in the Library.

  Capital Schemes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the NHS major capital schemes costing £1 million or more that have been approved since 1 April 1991; and if in each case(a) whether the scheme is managed by an NHS trust or an NHS directly managed unit and (b) what is the parliamentary constituency in which the development took place.

  Mr. Sackville
  A list of all major national health service capital schemes costing £1 million or more approved since 1 April 1991 will be placed in the Library. To identify whether each scheme is managed by a NHS trust or directly managed unit, and the parliamentary constituency in which the development took place, could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  The earlier schemes were usually initiated by directly managed units and nearly all schemes currently in progress are managed by trusts.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the achievements of(a) her policies and (b) her Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; if she will publish the performance indicators by which her Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring; and if she will set out her targets to help small businesses in the next year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. The Government help small firms by keeping
  211
  inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislation and administrative burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate and is currently establishing a network of business links to provide high-quality business support around the country.

  The Department of Health helps small businesses through effective and proportionate regulation which takes account of the interests of small businesses, by encouraging sensible enforcement, through deregulation and by specific support and assistance.

  The Department and the national health service provide equal opportunities to all potential suppliers, of whatever size, to trade on a value for money basis. Some 75 to 80 per cent. of national health service suppliers are small businesses.

  On deregulation, the removal of unnecessary burdens on small business is an important consideration in the Department's review of regulations which we aim to complete by December 1994. The Department is active in promoting exports of health care goods and services, many of which are produced by small businesses. The prompt payment of bills, especially important to small businesses, is also taken seriously. In 1993–94, this Department paid 87.1 per cent. of its bills within an agreed credit period, or within 30 days. Prompt payment of creditors is also vigorously pursued in the national health service.

  As it is not practicable to monitor centrally the precise extent to which the national health service or the Department makes use of small businesses, no perfor-mance indicators are maintained.

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to ensure there will continue to be adequate numbers of qualified nurses to maintain the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regions commission training places for non-medical staff, including nurses, based on provider unit forecasts.

  Publications
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were(a) the design and publication cost, (b) the number printed, (c) the printing costs and (d) the distribution costs of the "National Health Service News" issued of 3 June.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  Design

  376

  Number printed

  17,000

  Printing costs

  5,436

  Distribution costs

  3,809

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were(a) the design and publication costs, (b) the numbers printed, (c) the printing costs and (d) the distribution costs of the publication "Women Managers in the National Health Service".
  212
  Mr. Sackville
  Some 5,000 copies of "Women Managers in the NHS—A Celebration of Success" were produced. The costs were:

  £

  Design and publication costs

  11,350·73

  Printing costs

  20,570·00

  Distribution of the publication was carried out by the Department's in-house distribution unit and these costs cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were(a) the numbers printed, (b) the printing costs and (c) the distribution costs of the publication, "Code of Conduct—Code of Accountability".

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for printing and distribution of "Code of Conduct—Code of Accountability" is shown in the table.

  Cost

  Number printed

  20,000

  Printing costs

  £7,509

  Distribution costs

  £1,922

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were(a) the design and publication costs, (b) the numbers printed, (c) the printing costs and (d) the distribution costs of the publication "Opportunity 2000: The Challenge in General Practice".

  Mr. Sackville
  Some 5,000 copies of "Opportunity 2000: The Challenge in General Practice" were produced. In addition, 500 copies of ancillary reports are expected to be produced in this financial year at no extra cost. The photographs taken for this publication will be used in other publications.

  Costs are as follows:

  £

  Writing/Design/Photography

  13,342

  Print

  5,638

  Distribution of the publication was carried out by the Department's in-house distribution unit and these costs cannot be separately identified.

  Family Health Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 35–6, on family health services expenditure, if she will update the information to include figures for 1993–94 and estimates for 1994–95; and if she will recalculate the appropriate figures in the new table on the basis of current prices.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available information has been incorporated in the table.
  213

  Family health services net expenditure England

  £ million

  Year

  1 5FHS expenditure

  2 5Drugs bill expenditure

  3Drugs bill expenditure at 1994–95 prices

  4 5Other FHS expenditure

  3Other FHS expenditure at 1994–95 prices

  5FHSA administration expenditure

  3FHSA administration expenditure at 1994–95 prices

  1973–74

  522

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  83

  1974–75

  630

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1975–76

  854

  277

  1,176

  577

  2,444

  n/a

  n/a

  1976–77

  993

  361

  1,348

  632

  2,361

  n/a

  n/a

  1977–78

  1,123

  461

  1,515

  662

  2,175

  n/a

  n/a

  1978–79

  1,329

  554

  1,638

  775

  2,292

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  1,549

  633

  1,603

  916

  2,320

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  1,923

  766

  1,641

  1,157

  2,477

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  2,208

  876

  1,711

  1,331

  2,599

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  2,547

  1,009

  1,838

  1,538

  2,803

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  2,730

  1,130

  1,968

  1,600

  2,786

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  3,010

  1,192

  1,976

  1,818

  3,014

  n/a

  n/a

  1985–86

  3,188

  1,275

  2,002

  1,914

  3,006

  45

  71

  1986–87

  3,419

  1,378

  2,103

  2,041

  3,115

  47

  72

  1987–88

  3,802

  1,536

  2,226

  2,265

  3,282

  49

  71

  1988–89

  4,293

  1,744

  2,368

  2,549

  3,460

  55

  75

  1989–90

  4,531

  1,942

  2,466

  2,589

  3,287

  67

  85

  1990–91

  5,156

  2,080

  2,443

  3,076

  3,614

  104

  122

  1991–92

  5,944

  2,317

  2,561

  3,627

  4,009

  136

  150

  1992–93

  6,593

  2,641

  2,809

  3,952

  4,203

  162

  172

  1993–94

  6,976

  2,951

  3,040

  4,025

  4,146

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–95

  7,401

  3,177

  3,177

  4,224

  4,224

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Net expenditure, after taking account of patient charges and other receipts, on the General Medical, General Dental, General Ophthalmic and Pharmaceutical Services. Excludes administrative costs of FHSAs and other bodies and GP Fundholders budgets for purchasing secondary care services. Information is based on the relevant year's Appropriation Account unless otherwise indicated.

  2 Represents the cost of items prescribed by GPs. Dispensing fees are not included. Costs are not separately identifiable in 1973–74 and 1974–75.

  3 Converted to 1994–95 prices using GDP deflator.

  4 Balance of net FHS expenditure minus the cost of the drugs bill. Consists mainly of the cost of remuneration and practice expenses of FHS contractors.

  5 1993–94 outturn figures are provisional; 1994–95 figures are estimates.

  Note:

  Net administrative expenditure of Family Health Services Authorities (known as Family Practitioner Committees before September 1990, and as Executive Councils before April 1974). The administrative functions of FHSAs and their precedessors have changed over time as their management responsibilities have been developed. Expenditure was not separately identifiable in the period 1974–75 to 1984–85. Excludes expenditure on national administrative bodies such as the Prescription Pricing Authority and the Dental Practice Board. Information is based on FHSA's income and expenditure accounts. 1993–94 information is not yet available on a comparable basis with previous year's figures. No forecast is available centrally for 1994–95 as FHSA administrative budgets are determined locally by Regional Health Authorities from within their overall cash limit.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations underpinned her decision not to provide a Minister or civil servant to be interviewed for the BBC "Panorama" programme on the health risks of mercuric amalgam used in tooth fillings, broadcast on 11 July.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department gave the programme makers a statement on the safety of dental amalgam.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned by her Department into the potential threats posed from mercury vapours leaking from amalgam used as tooth fillings.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has undertaken into mercury contamination arising from fillings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 14 July,Official Report, column 702.
  214

  Out-of-school Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total public expenditure on out-of-school services for children from the age of five for each year since 1989–90; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for England for each of these years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available centrally in this Department for all the services provided locally and nationally, directly and indirectly.

  Community Health Councils
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions she has had with the National Association of Community Health Councils; and what plans she has to meet representatives of the National Association of Community Health Councils in the near future.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I addressed the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales' conference on complaints on 14 June and spoke at the association's annual general meeting both last year and on 12 July this year. I also met the chairman and director of ACHCEW on 4 July. We will continue to have regular contact with representatives of ACHCEW.
  215

  Community Care
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take measures to ensure that a percentage of the special transitional grant to local authorities for community care spending is ring fenced for spending in the independent health care sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have already required local authorities to spend 85 per cent. of the social security transfer element of their special transitional grant in 1993–94 and 1994–95 on services provided by the independent sector.

  Corporal Punishment
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance as to the age of a child to which a child minder may administer corporal punishment with parental consent.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have studied the recent High Court judgment. I have already met representatives of Families for Discipline and voluntary sector organisations representing day care providers and I shall shortly be meeting local authority representatives. In due course we shall consider whether any clarification of the Department's guidance is necessary.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 605, when the information about the average time that patients in (a) England, (b) each English regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust waited from the date that their general practitioner referred them to a consultant until the date of their first out-patient appointment in the period January to March 1994 will be available; and if she will provide the information for the most recent quarter for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 July,Official Report, column 605.

  Nurse Education and Training
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to provide for the retraining and redeployment of nurse teachers who are displaced as a result of the proposed reduction in the number of nursing students.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for individual employers.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost of the changes in nurse education since 1989 which result from the introduction of Project 2000.

  Mr. Sackville
  Between 1989–90 and 1994–95, the Government have invested £431 million to introduce Project 2000 in England.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a breakdown of the spending on nurse education and training for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 identifying the spending allocated to(a) pre-registration education; (b) post-registration education and (c) nurse teacher training and support.
  216
  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for the total expenditure by regional health authorities on nurse education and training for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are shown in the table. A breakdown in the requested categories was not available centrally in those years. Information for 1990–91 was not collected centrally, figures for 1993–94 are currently being collected.

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total Annual Expenditure by RHAs on Nurse Education and training

  476·837

  521·637

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision was made in allocations for regional health authorities for nurse education in each of the last three financial years; how much was spent by regional health authorities in each of those years; and how she treats funds so allocated but not spent for the purpose of nurse education.

  Mr. Sackville
  For 1991–92 and 1992–93, the following allocations towards the cost of pre-registration nurse education and nurse teacher training were made to the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting; and to regional health authorities in respect of Project 2000 costs. For 1993–94, funds for pre-registration nurse education were transferred to regional health authorities. Funds allocated to the board are returnable to the Department to the extent that they are not used for the purposes specified. Those allocated to regions may be used for other education and training purposes if the demand for pre-registration nurse education and training has been met in full.

  £ million

  Allocations

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  National Board

  132

  138

  10

  Regional Health Authorities

  62

  87

  238

  Alternative Therapists
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been received about alternative therapists in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  These figures are not available centrally.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to regulate alternative therapists and subject them to codes of practice;

  (2) if she will consider the regulation of psychic healers and hypnotherapists; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has no plans to impose regulation on alternative therapists such as psychic healers and hypnotherapists. We do, however, encourage voluntary regulation schemes that have an enforceable code of practice.

  Homoeopathy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what caused the North Mersey national health service trust to close the homoeopathic ward at Mossley Hill hospital;
  217
  for how long the ward will be closed; what resources are provided for homoeopathy in the north-west of England; what other homoeopathic wards exist in the region; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for North Mersey community national health service trust and for North West regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. R. James, chairman of North Mersey community NHS trust, and Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of North West regional health authority, for details.

  Medical Devices Directorate
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards establishing her Department's medical devices directorate as an executive agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am pleased to be able to announce that the medical devices directorate will be established as the Medical Devices Agency from September.

  The primary purpose of the MDA is to protect the public health and safeguard the interests of patients and users by ensuring that medical devices and equipment meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and performance. The agency will be the competent authority for the United Kingdom under European Community directives for medical devices. The MDA's aim, objectives and functions are set out in a framework document, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  The chief executive has been set a number of performance targets for 1994–95, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for reviewing the NHS Pensions Agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  The NHS Pensions Agency is responsible for the administration of the national health service pensions scheme. As part of its already announced programme of market testing, the agency was intending this year to carry out a scoping study to identify which of the agency's core functions might be suitable for market testing in some form. This study would, by its nature, have looked at most of the questions which would be addressed in the prior options exercise which forms part of the normal three-year agency review process.

  In the case of the NHS Pensions Agency, the three-year review is due to be completed by the end of 1995. I have therefore decided to formalise the agency's market-testing scoping study and subsume it within the first, prior options, stage of the agency's review, which will be publicised in the usual way. This part of the review will take place in the autumn of 1994. The other elements of the full review of the agency—evaluation of its performance and revision of the framework document—will then be carried out in late–1995 to the usual timetable. This two-stage process will avoid what would otherwise have been an unnecessary duplication of effort next year.

  I would welcome contributions to the prior options review from those with an interest in the work of the agency. The review will have the usual terms of reference
  218
  —viz, to look again at the prior options questions for the NHS Pensions Agency by re-examining the feasibility of abolition, privatisation, sub-contracting, or market-testing, of any of the agency's functions. Comments should be sent by 30 September 1994 to:

  Ms Ann Gross

  NHS Pensions Review Team

  Room 259C

  Skipton House

  80 London Road

  Elephant and Castle

  London SE1 6LW.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is taking to encourage the national health service trusts to collaborate with environmental health and education services and other public services within local authorities in the prevention of illness and disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  Joint interim guidance from the Departments of Health and the Environment, HSG(93)56, "Public Health Responsibilities of the NHS and Roles of Others", was issued on 24 November 1993 and copies are available in the Library. The guidance emphasises the need for all authorities and agencies to work within a co-ordinated and comprehensive public health strategy and share information to achieve the best possible health for their population including arrangements for the control of communicable disease and infection and for dealing with the health aspects of non-communicable environmental hazards.

  The handbook "Working Together for Better Health", published in July last year in the context of the "Health of the Nation" strategy, set out the importance of collaboration between the national health service, local authorities and other local groups in the prevention of illness; gave guidance on the setting up and maintenance of healthy alliances; and gave examples of alliances in which both NHS trusts and local authorities are involved. Copies of the handbook will be placed in the Library.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with local purchasing health authorities regarding the performance of hospital trusts; and if she will specify the authorities concerned and the content of the discussion.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As part of their performance management responsibilities, regional offices of the national health service executive discuss with purchasers factors which affect local purchasing decisions, including changing patterns of service provision. These, in turn, will be affected by the performance of individual trusts.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements have been made to improve transmission information between trusts and national health authorities in order that they may make the purchase of patient care more accurate.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service executive, in partnership with the national health service, is working,
  219
  through a national information management and technology strategy, to create an environment to improve the quality and sustain the effective sharing of information across the health service.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he ensures that health authorities are producing appropriate levels of health care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The regional offices of the national health service executive assess progress in key areas of the work of the NHS.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of health authorities moving funds between different budget heads on health care and the provision of social services.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will redistribute funds from fundholding general practitioners who have underspent to those who have overspent.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had about, and what provisions she has made in her budget for, victims of crime who will no longer be sufficiently compensated by the tariff scheme of the criminal injuries compensation scheme to be independent of the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Treatment under the national health service is provided free to all at the point of delivery on the basis of clinical need irrespective of whether that need results from a criminal injury. I have no plans to make any additional provision.

  Mr. John Shepard
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action she proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. John Shepard in Brent;

  (2) if she will establish an independent inquiry into the circumstance surrounding the death of Mr. John Shepard and the subsequent actions of Brent council;

  (3) whether she has received notification from Brent council of its decision not to establish an independent inquiry into the death of Mr. John Shepard.

  Mr. Bowls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 18 July,Official Report, column 20. We expect the local authority to take any necessary action. We have no plans for Government action in addition to this.

  Elderly People (Care)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has issued to local authorities as to the management of the care of elderly people living on their own in local authority property.

  Mr. Bowis
  Policy and practice guidance issued by the Department about the care of elderly and other vulnerable people applies equally to local authority tenants and those living in other forms of accommodation.

  GPs (Practice Administration)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 833, how many hours weekly on average were actually spent by general practitioners on practice administration between November 1992 and November 1993, as found by the survey of general practitioners' work loads; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The results for the full survey period are being analysed. For the interim results, based on the first seven months' data, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 17 March at column 833.

  Psychologists (Availability)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many more psychologists have become available since the introduction of care in the community to facilitate the programme; and how is the increase funded.

  Mr. Bowis
  Clinical psychologists are employed in the national health service on a variety of duties in both the hospital and community health sectors. The total number of clinical psychologists working in the national health service in the period since 1984 is shown in the table.

  Clinical psychologists England

  30 September 1984 to 1992

  Whole-time equivalents

  Year

  Number

  1984

  1,180

  1985

  1,310

  1986

  1,380

  1987

  1,430

  1988

  1,660

  1989

  1,740

  1990

  1,730

  1991

  1,760

  1992

  2,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Assistants and trainees are excluded.

  Organ Donation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on assisting the voluntary donation of organs of the body both before death and after death; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: The Government encourage people to donate their organs after death; are committed to increasing the supply of donor organs for transplantation; and have introduced a number of initiatives to this end. In March 1993, the use of television advertising was used for the first time and this was followed up with a further television campaign last March. Also from 1 March last year, all new driving licences now contain a donor declaration box. Other measures include improved procedures for hospitals and staff involved in organ procurement, a reimbursement scheme for hospitals whose intensive care units look after potential donors, research into the reasons why some

  221
  relatives refuse permission to use organs and a feasibility study into a computerised national register of organ donors. Publicity material is made available to the public in support of organ donation and the donor card scheme.
  222
  The possibility of donation by a live donor is a very serious matter requiring expert counselling of the patient and the potential donor by experienced doctors. The final decision to participate in such a procedure must remain with the potential donor.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
Viscount Gage —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Game Licences
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on abolishing game licences.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the matter has been under review and we will announce our conclusions shortly.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, may I, I hope not misguidedly, thank my noble friend most sincerely for that reply, which I take as being distinctly encouraging? However, I remind him that the new season for game licences commences on Monday week. Is it too much to hope that "shortly" in this instance means very shortly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, these are always matters of very difficult interpretation. I would only say to my noble friend that sometimes it is better to have travelled hopefully than to have arrived.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say why the future of this silly little tax should take so long to determine?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, silly little things often take a long time to determine particularly when there are all sorts of other people and considerations which have to be taken into account before coming to a conclusion, which I rather think my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter hopes the Government will arrive at. However, I will not tell him whether we will or not.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as a great many people spend a great deal of money shooting game, is it not perfectly reasonable that the Revenue should profit therefrom, and, before rushing into abolishing them, would it not be at least worth considering having a hefty hike in game licences so that they cover the total cost of administration and yield a useful profit to the Revenue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is of course one of the considerations which has been taken into account. One of the other considerations is the fact that many people who ought to do so do not bother to obtain game licences.

Domestic Workers: Tax Relief
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a move to make the costs of employment in the home eligible for tax relief for employers would help to reduce unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is unlikely that such a move would have a significant impact on unemployment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he agree that it is time to destroy for good any vestige of past stigma attaching to the outdated "upstairs downstairs" concept? Does he also agree that every job carries its own dignity and it is time to recognise the significant contribution made by those men and women who choose to work in the home, either as domestic workers or care providers, by treating these as jobs like any other?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend up to a point, but I have to say that tax relief of the sort she suggests would be a very costly and ineffective way of attempting to reduce unemployment. There would be very considerable deadweight costs of people being taken on who would have been taken on anyway, or people who are already in work. The cost to the Revenue would be considerable.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is also responsible in this House for speaking for the Treasury. Does he accept that an idea such as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has put forward would make an enormous dent in the black economy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I am speaking for the Treasury today and not for my own department, the Department of Employment—but perhaps I am wearing both hats. It might have the effect that my noble friend points at, but I very much doubt it. The point to stress is that it would really be a very very expensive way of trying to reduce unemployment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it might be worth studying experience in other countries? I believe that the French, by relaxing conditions of employment for domestic; workers, have considerably increased the volume of jobs and thereby reduced unemployment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, certainly we would be prepared to look at the experience of other countries, but I do not believe there is evidence that expenditure of this sort—again I stress to my noble friends the very considerable deadweight costs—would actually have the effect that my noble friend seeks.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does not my noble friend the Minister agree that to be able to get domestic help in the home for the care of children, the elderly and the disabled would contribute greatly to care in the community, which is recommended by the Ministry of Health?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Help of that kind in the home is obviously very useful.

135
However, whether the tax system should distort the position and subsidise what are in fact personal expenses is another matter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there might be another benefit to the economy if a great many of our ablest women were able to continue to work and at the same time bring up their families?
Lord Henley: My Lords, they can do that at the moment but they have to pay their own child care costs, or possibly their employer might provide for such costs. But I do not think that there is a case for distorting the tax system by subsidising such employment.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, following on from the general issue of the relationship between distortions of the tax system and employment, will the noble Lord tell the House what would be the impact on employment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's newly professed desire to extend VAT to goods and services which are currently exempt such as children's clothes, food, books and newspapers, all of which are labour intensive industries? I notice that noble Lords opposite do not seem to be concerned about the impact of taxation on employment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the House will agree with me if I say that yet again the noble Lord is abusing the rights of the House. That is another Question. I should be delighted to answer it on another occasion if the noble Lord were to put down such a Question.

Otterburn Training Area
2.44 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their proposals for development of the Otterburn military training area announced by the Ministry of Defence on 23rd June will create more limitations on public access and quiet enjoyment of the Northumberland National Park than is the case at present.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we are confident that our proposals for Otterburn will create no more limitations on public access or quiet enjoyment than is at present the case. However, we shall shortly be commissioning an environmental impact assessment report which will address fully the impact of those proposals. This should be complete by the end of this year, when it will be submitted to the Northumberland National Park Authority together with a notice of proposed development.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. In his Written Answer of 23rd June he said that the proposals originally made have been significantly refined after discussion with a firm of environmental specialists. Will he say something about what those refinements are? For example, is it not
136
inevitable that the development and use of the range on a much greater scale than at present will further restrict both the frequency and extent of public access in an area which already occupies 25 per cent of the national park? Is it not also inevitable that the noise of heavy weapons in the park will diminish quiet enjoyment by the public of this area?
Is the noble Viscount aware—I am sure that he is— that the Northumberland National Park is the only national park in England and Wales which approximates to wilderness status and whose main value is quiet enjoyment? That was recognised by the Government in their reply to the Edwards Report.
Those are my questions, but I hope that the noble Viscount will accept that, as a former professional soldier, I understand very well the need for, as well as the consequences of, training in heavy artillery and armour as part of our defence equipment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I understand very well that the noble Lord has extensive military experience. I wholly accept the last part of what he says.
Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that one of the reasons for the wilderness being as it is—and he knows as well as I do what a wonderful place Otterburn is—is that the Army has been the guardian of that wilderness at a time when large sections of wilderness have been subject to the depredations of that ugly beast, man.
In relation to access, I know that the noble Lord is also aware of the considerable efforts that we have made, not only at Otterburn but elsewhere, to emphasise our policy of public access so long as it is consistent with military operations and, in particular, considerations of safety. I am sure that the noble Lord is also aware that we have made a particular effort at Otterburn in opening the Coquet valley to public access, which was not available previously.
The noble Lord quoted me as using the word "refinement". We are already in constructive discussion with the Northumberland National Park Authority at an official level. We hope that proposals which will be both acceptable to the national park authority as the planning authority and consistent with the needs of military training will emerge from the environmental impact assessment.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that a substantial increase in dry training was being considered as part of the Otterburn proposals and that that has now been rejected? Can he also confirm that there are no proposals now for an increase in that form of training?
Viscount Cranborne: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when a similar Question was asked about Otterburn on 8th December 1992 he responded that he hoped that his department would co-operate fully in any public inquiry which might ensue? Does he still take that view? Is there any reason why there should not be a public inquiry? Is he aware, for example, that, although there may be some lessening of impact in some ways, there

137
is a serious need to strengthen the roads to take these new weapons, which are much too heavy for the existing roads, and that this is a very unsuitable exercise for a national park?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Baroness, I know, has taken a consistent interest in the subject. She will be as aware as I am that, of the total area of the national parks, no more than 3 per cent. is used for military training and no more than 2 per cent. for live firing.
It is my department's policy to co-operate fully with any public inquiry which affects its activities. We do not yet know whether there will be a public inquiry. Much, I suspect, will depend on the reaction of the national parks authority to our notice of proposed development.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that the reason why Salisbury Plain is such a wonderful, untouched area is that the Army uses it for a gunnery? That is one of the many beneficial effects of having a strong Army.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, not only do I agree with the noble Lord, but I was delighted to be able to accompany the chairman of National Heritage last Friday to Salisbury Plain and with great pleasure to listen to him most eloquently putting the same point to television interviewers.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Army was in occupation of the Otterburn ranges some 38 years before national parks were conceived; and without the Army there would not now be a national park in Northumberland?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, certainly the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is in a position to speak with greater authority on this subject than almost anyone in your Lordships' House. I, for one, should be only too happy to accept that assurance as being one upon which we can rely.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, as one who lives almost on the verge of the Otterburn training area, will the Minister confirm or deny whether the Ministry of Defence is considering compensating property owners for structural damage caused within one and a half miles of the firing point of the AS-90? The point is causing considerable worry in the valley. Will he confirm also that the AS-90 can be heard up to 10 miles away? That might give some indication of the way in which such firing upsets the quiet.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord will be as aware as I am that there are standard practices for compensation claims—including claims for structural damage as a result of noise—which my department follows and has followed for many years. Those standard practices will continue for Otterburn as they do for every other part of the Ministry of Defence's activities.
He will also be aware that one of the reasons why firing the AS-90 on the Otterburn ranges will have less effect on populations than, for instance, on Salisbury
138
Plain is because far fewer people live in that area than in other parts of the country. That is a very good reason for choosing the area for Army training, as I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I fully recognise that it is essential that our military forces have proper training facilities. I recognise, too, the contribution to conservation which the military have made in the use of national parks. Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that, in terms of public access—that is what national parks are really about—the presence of the military in national parks is a necessary evil? As a quid pro quo for the greater use of the Otterburn Northumberland national park facility, will he, at least, consider releasing some of the Dartmoor facility, which is much more heavily used? Will he consider further rationalisation to make more of Dartmoor available to the public?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I 3m grateful for the tribute that my noble friend pays to the contribution to conservation of the Army in particular—a tribute which I believe is richly deserved. He will also be aware, as I am, that, although there is a clear read-across in the Army between different areas for exercising, much of the Army is still stationed in the South of England. That is one of the reasons why we have to continue to maintain Dartmoor for military exercise. I can perhaps give my noble friend some comfort. We hope to have stopped live firing on Dartmoor by 1998.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government intend to appoint independent consultants to carry out an environmental impact assessment? Who are those independent consultants? How much will they be paid?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am not yet able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who those independent consultants will be. As soon as I am in a position to do so, I shall, with your Lordships' permission, write to the noble Lord and place the answer in the Library of your Lordships' House. It therefore follows that the amount the consultants will be paid will also be available to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. This information Will very shortly be forthcoming, because we expect the report reasonably soon so that we can make an application to the national parks authority along the lines that I described.

NHS Pay
2.55 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce performance-related pay for medical staff in the National Health Service; whether such proposals are intended to apply to clinical academic staff with honorary NHS contracts, and what effect their plans will have upon the independence of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My

139
Lords, the Government are encouraging local pay arrangements for all NHS staff. This policy is being endorsed for doctors and dentists by their pay review body. Pay for clinical academic staff is a matter for the university which employs them.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that the doctors, dentists and nurses have great faith in the continuation of the review body system? Does she also agree that one of the strengths of the National Health Service has been the existence of nationally agreed salary scales irrespective of specialty; and that there is great concern in all of those professions about the proposal to introduce performance-related pay, a policy now being discarded by many major companies including, for example, British Telecom? Does she accept, too, that if crude criteria such as those used in the recent league tables relating to hospitals are to be used to introduce performance-related pay there is a serious danger that such criteria could result in assessment of throughput without careful attention to the quality of outcome?
Finally, in relation to academic medicine, which is suffering very severely from diminished recruitment, what account will be taken of contributions to teaching and research at a time when universities are having increasing difficulty in maintaining parity of payment of salaries with those working in the NHS?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as with school examinations, I shall attempt three out of the four questions. First, of course, GPs have had a form of performance-related pay since the inception of the National Health Service. So have clinicians; theirs is called the merit awards scheme. A number of companies—I understand from the CBI, about 60 per cent.—operate a policy of performance-related pay. They include ICI, Glaxo, Ernst & Young, the Abbey National Building Society, the Wellcome Foundation, British Aerospace and others. I accept the view that once one introduces performance-related pay it has to be reviewed on a regular basis. I also accept the noble Lord's view that quality of outcome is essential. When I operated performance-related pay, that was one of the criteria built into the objectives of the person whom I reviewed.
Finally, the pay review body welcomes the move towards local determination. Clearly, whatever moves take place will not happen overnight. We shall have to review the future of the review body as matters move forward.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with, and can she comment on, this important fact? The change of pace within the NHS should be undertaken in a manner which suits all those employed in the NHS, ranging from every nurse through to every specialist. In that way the necessary changes would not merely benefit those employed in the NHS but those who receive remarkable treatment and help from that service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in that I believe that performance-related pay
140
should be directly related to the quality of service given to patients. In my experience, I found performance-related pay a great motivator. I believe that increasingly many companies and other organisations are moving away from national across-the-board agreements and are seeking to reward people for their personal effort, commitment and expertise.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are other —and, some feel, much better— ways of encouraging high quality professional performance than performance-related pay and that the best results come from agreements freely negotiated with the representatives of the staff or profession concerned? Is she further aware that where performance-related pay has been introduced into NHS trusts it has run into difficulty and is not motivating the staffs concerned; for example, in Dorset, Derby City and West Cumbria?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the National Health Service, as I said, has had performance-related pay for doctors since its inception. Very specific performance-related pay was introduced for its managers in 1986. We have found that to be successful. But, as I said, I believe that the schemes need reviewing from time to time as circumstances change. Other local trusts which are introducing the policy are finding it an incentive and are able to reward their staff for the work they do.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while the idea of performance-related pay for other people may at first sight sound attractive, will my noble friend agree that establishing acceptable criteria is a matter of very great difficulty and may lead Ministers into all sorts of problems which they do not presently contemplate?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, at present doctors working in hospitals have their performance reviewed annually. It does not seem to have presented any problems. On the contrary, it concentrates minds on the work being done, on seeing whether it can be done better, and on the taking on of new duties or the discarding of those duties no longer considered relevant. What we are talking about here is linking performance to pay. That is what is concerning the BMA. Quite naturally, because it is a trade union body it wants to negotiate nationally. We are also looking at pay being locally determined. There is great strength in that.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister recall the famous gynaecologist who once said, "The most difficult thing is to stand there and keep one's hands in one's pockets." How does performance-related pay take into account the healing effect of listening to the patient?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have also heard gynaecologists say that the first few moments of life are the most dangerous. Other people retort that the last few are equally dangerous. It does depend on the objectives that are set. I do not accept that quantity is necessarily the objective one would go for. It would be quality, and a whole range of different objectives. I was talking this week to a clinical director who is doing that. He said

141
that the effect on his colleagues had been altogether good. They appreciate that somebody is looking at the work they are doing and that it is being assessed. It has led to improvements in that particular hospital.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, following that reply, surely the Minister would agree that merit awards for doctors, based on clinical excellence in dealing with patients and judged by their peer group, are very different from the type of performance-related pay which may be suggested by these new arrangements? The problem is: who is to decide the standards, and who is to decide the pay? What concerns many people is that the standards will be set by NHS managers who are inexperienced in this field; that numbers of those managers will be greatly inflated even beyond what they are now; and that they will be making judgments about activities they are not professionally qualified to carry out.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, where this system is operating, the objectives and standards have to be agreed by the person who is being assessed. It is absolutely essential that both parties must feel that the objectives are relevant, fair and measurable. For the people who assess, that is equally important. Again, it is important that it is clinical directors who carry out the assessment and not only managers. One does want one's own peers, who understand the business fully, to make the judgment; not someone who does not understand the particular stresses and strains of the job and what it entails.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that although national health dentistry has always been in effect performance-related in that it has been item-of-service paid and therefore the more work you did, the more you were paid, there has been an essential, independent quality control? Does the Minister agree that retaining a totally independent quality control will be very important?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I entirely agree with my noble friend.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that there is a direct relationship between the quality of performance and the morale of the performers? Will she also agree that at the present moment a great deal is being said about low morale among members of the National Health Service, and among doctors in particular? There have been a number of suicides among doctors, who are suffering stress and strain. Can she say what Her Majesty's Government are doing to relieve that stress?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are working very carefully and very closely with the people in the service—doctors, dentists and indeed all staff. We meet them on a very regular basis. We are taking up the matter with the managers in the service who are responsible for the morale of staff. I disagree, however, when it is said that morale is at a very low level. It depends entirely where you go. In some of the trusts I have visited I have never seen morale higher. They are
142
achieving their objectives; they are treating more patients; the whole ethos of the place has risen. So morale is a very patchy situation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, forgive me for coming back again, but I wonder whether the Minister can confirm what she said in answer to my previous question. Is it the case that under the new arrangements performance-related pay will be established exclusively by clinical directors and not by trust chief executives?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, at the moment we are working towards local determination rather than performance-related pay locally determined. So it is a question of the shift towards local determination. Each scheme will depend on how the local people want to implement the scheme. But clearly, we would want some sort of control over it through the management executive. I cannot reply in detail yet; these are very early days. The position has not been worked out fully.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does not the difference between performance-related pay and merit awards lie in the fact that performance-related pay can go up and down while merit awards tend to be seen by consultants as part of the pay scale and never disappear?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I think that there are some concerns, not least among doctors, about merit awards. In fact, the top awards can double a doctor's salary. They are awarded very often towards the end of a doctor's life. That perhaps says more about their pensions than it does about their performance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister's reply mean that Her Majesty's Government consider money to be the main motivation of the medical profession?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not think that it is the sole motivation at all. There are a whole range of things that motivate people in all walks of life. However, it would be unrealistic to think that money did not have a part to play.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we are at one in wishing to see quality of service and quality of outcome improved within the National Health Service? She referred to the incentives that are at present available to general practitioners and, through the distinction award system, to consultants in the NHS. There are many in the medical profession and in related professions who feel that such long-term incentives are preferable to performance-related pay. Does she accept that there is a danger that the introduction of performance-related pay could lead to the establishment of "have not" and "have" trusts with different standards and levels of staffing and service? Will she therefore urge her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to embark upon discussions with the professions involved in order to establish a workable and acceptable system?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, members of the management executive met the BMA last week. They are discussing schemes. Clearly, we will want to

143
introduce schemes that are acceptable or largely acceptable to most of the bodies concerned. But I do think that the alternative of not having locally determined pay is that we continue to have an outdated, unresponsive national system of pay determination which does not reflect the skills and talents of individuals and of the groups and organisations which work so hard in the National Health Service.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Secure training orders]:
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("accommodation") to end of line 24 and insert ("; and where it does so the court shall designate the local authority by whom or on whose behalf the secure accommodation is to be provided.
( ) The local authority designated by the court under subsection (3) above shall be—

(a) in the case of an offender who is being looked after by a local authority, that authority; and

(b) in any other case, the local authority in whose area it appears to the court that the offender resides or the offence or one of the offences in respect of which the secure training order has been made was committed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 8, 10, 12 to 23, 72 and 73. These are technical amendments made necessary by the amendments to Clause 1 which were adopted at Report stage of the Bill. So far as I am aware they are all technical amendments and therefore I do not need to explain them. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister and his expert drafting staff. I am quite sure that I should not have got them right on my own initiative. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the Government will advise the Members of another place to leave Clause 1 as it now stands in the Bill. Indeed, it would not be proper for me to try to press him for an answer to that. Either way, I believe that the amendments which my noble friend Lord Carr described as technical but necessary are perhaps not necessary. Frankly, I prefer the Bill and especially subsection (3) of Clause 1 as it stands in a somewhat flexible state.
If we try to tie down the court too much we may fetter the hands of the court. It is just conceivable that in the area of a particular local authority there is no secure accommodation and no other accommodation which might be suitable for the purpose intended by the clause. As subsection (3) stands at the moment it gives more flexibility. Therefore I prefer it to the alteration proposed by Amendment No. 1.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Renton in his opposition to these amendments. Certainly I believe that they are more than just technical amendments. Amendment No. 1 reads:
144
"the court shall designate the local authority by whom or on whose behalf the secure accommodation is to be provided".
Much of the intention of amendments originally agreed at Report stage was to make it possible for the offender to be kept in accommodation close to his or her home. The amendments presume that secure accommodation is available within those authorities. As soon as it is accepted that the court may designate the local authority,
"by whom or on whose behalf the secure accommodation is to be provided",
we go right back to the ill that the amendments are supposed to cure. In its infinite wisdom and possibly good sense—I opposed the amendments for good reason in the first instance—the local authority may decide that the secure accommodation should be at the other end of the country in order to separate the child from the problem that may have got him into difficulties in the first place. So in that sense the amendments are certainly more than technical. I do not feel that we should quite simply accept them.
I should like to make another point on Amendment No. 12. Unless I cannot understand the English language, the amendment reduces page 3, line 14 of the Bill to something which does not make sense. As amended, Clause 2(2) would read:
"Where accommodation for the offender at his place of detention is not immediately available".
If he is already detained there, presumably the accommodation must be available. Again, it seems to me that this is more than a technicality. I cannot help but wonder whether someone will have to bring forward another series of amendments to clarify the clarification. I have some difficulty with them.
Finally, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not in the Chamber. Yesterday he inveighed against the wordiness of legislation, more in anger than in sorrow, I think. Taking the sum of these amendments, one can see precisely what he was talking about. On those grounds also I oppose them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise briefly to oppose these amendments. It is known that I opposed the amendments at the previous stage of the Bill. Clause 1(3) as it stands is flexible and permissive. The amendments destroy to a very large degree flexibility and the exercise of judicial discretion. With respect to my noble friend Lord Carr, they are not necessary. They are not a necessity to implement. They import an element of rigidity. I may be wrong but I believe that they fetter judicial discretion.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, these changes are all very confusing. The noble Lord who proposed the original point, which was later amended, said that the amendments are technical amendments to make the clause operative in statute. Now there is a suggestion that the amendments are not technical amendments; there are vital points of fundamental importance involved in them and we ought to consider them.
We are now at Third Reading. Those kinds of differences should have been sorted out either at Committee or Report stage. I have no doubt that they

145
existed then. If we want this kind of legislation on the statute book, we shall not get very far by having Committee stage arguments at Third Reading. I hope that my noble friend, on behalf of the Government, can settle the matter of whether they are or are not technical necessities needed to implement the principle that the main clause sets out.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my name is on the amendments and perhaps I may attempt to put the matter into perspective. My noble friend Lord Renton objects to the amendments because they restrict the powers of the court. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith objects to them because they extend the powers and allow the children to be sent further away.
First of all, there is a necessity for the amendments. As it stood, the Bill referred throughout to secure training centres as the only places to which the children could be sent. Any references to that thereafter would be misleading because there are now two places to which a child may be sent. A whole chain of amendments flowed from that.
It was also necessary to define the choice of location for serving the sentence in the first instance. The choice had originally been restricted to a secure training centre. Under the amendments it would also be local authority secure accommodation. That is mentioned in the first amendment, which is the amendment to which the principal objections have been raised.
In every case the court will make the decision as to where the child will go. It is certainly the case that the areas in which the offence was committed or the child resides may or may not have accommodation available at the time. It will be for the court to decide whether that is so and whether the alternative is too far away— I remind my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith—to satisfy its judgment on how far from home and how far from the home social work department the child should be sent to serve his sentence.
I shall be advised in all these matters by my noble friend on the Front Bench as the amendments originate from his department, and we are grateful for that. They seem to fulfil the function we intended.
With regard to the question of Amendment No. 12 to which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred, the "designated" place will be the place designated in the sentence. The "place of detention" will be the place specified in the sentence. The amendment therefore does not make a nonsense of that. My noble friend has had time to gather his wits and his forces and I leave the matter there.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would it not be helpful when drafting amendments of this sort for the Government to inform their own pernickety Back-Benchers?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it would be more helpful if, when the Government are drafting amendments, they would provide a note so that your Lordships did not need to argue about their exact interpretation but would have an explanation which would put the matter beyond
146
doubt. I certainly do not read the amendments in the sense described by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as giving the court an unfettered discretion.
Problems may arise from the fact that the original wording in the Bill, as amended by the noble Lords, Lord Carr and Lord Elton—which I fully supported— referred to accommodation provided by "the" local authority. At that point the courts did not have an unfettered discretion. As I read the Bill as amended on Report, they had power only to send the young person designated for a local authority home to a specific authority; it was not specified which one. The new amendments clear that up by defining to which local authority the court may send the child.
As I read the Bill, the courts do not have any discretion. If the child is being looked after by a local authority, the child must be sent to a place under the control of that specific authority. In any other case the child must be sent to the local authority in whose area he resides. The courts therefore do not have the discretion of which the noble Lord spoke; that is, of separating the child from harmful parents and sending him to the other end of the country so that he is no longer under their influence.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. It is still open to the courts to send the child to a secure training centre as far away from his home as they like. That discretion has not been lost.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is perfectly true. I accept that. But if in its wisdom the court believes that it is in the child's best interests that he should be detained in a local authority centre, it does not have the additional discretion to name a local authority which is a long way away from the parental home so that the child is removed from harmful influences. That situation would arise only in the circumstances of Clause 3 where, if there is no place available in the local authority area to which the court sent the child—having no discretion in the matter under Clause 1—the Secretary of State comes into the picture. He must then designate another secure place of detention to which the child can be sent. That may be a local authority home, a secure training centre or any other such place as he may designate. The powers of the Secretary of State are virtually unlimited; but only if there is no secure place within the local authority area specified in Clause 1.
I am rather disappointed by this tidying-up amendment. While I can see the necessity for it in view of the wording of the Bill as it was left at Report stage, I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, would persuade the Home Office to give the courts an absolute discretion to send the child offender to whatever local authority secure accommodation was best suited to the child's needs.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it just shows the trouble one gets into when one tries to be helpful. We have a responsibility both in your Lordships' House and the Government to ensure that the Bill makes legal sense when it leaves this Chamber. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Carr are necessary for that purpose. I

147
am bound to say that I would be happy to accept them on that basis. However, when my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that this discussion should have taken place in Committee and at Report stage, he is absolutely right. But your Lordships—ill-advisedly in the Government's view—accepted a number of amendments on Report. We looked at that position and parliamentary counsel advised us that the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend are necessary to give the Bill some rational sense.
They are essentially technical amendments which are consequential upon changes to Clause 1 which your Lordships introduced at Report stage on 5th July. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asks succinctly why the Government did not inform their pernickety—his word—Back-Benchers what the amendments were doing. All I can say to him is that, when we advised our "pernickety" Back-Benchers not to accept the amendment that they did accept, it did not make much difference. So the noble Lord can forget that argument.
I should inform your Lordships that the Government's acceptance of these amendments does not necessarily signify a change of view in regard to the substance of the policy to which they refer. Your Lordships expressed views on this matter at Report stage and it will be for another place to consider matters further.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 8:
Page 2, line 8, after second ("a") insert ("relevant").
Page 2, line 9, after second ("the") insert ("designated").
Page 2, line 13, after ("accommodation") insert ("provided by or on behalf of the designated local authority").
Page 2, line 18, after ("a") insert ("relevant").
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("relevant").
Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("by") to end of line 24 and insert ("or on behalf of the designated local authority;").
Page 2, line 26, after ("accommodation") insert ("provided by or on behalf of the designated local authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I wish to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 34, after ("offences") insert:
("bb) that the offender has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that Amendment No. 9 was not drafted by parliamentary counsel. Nevertheless, I commend it to the House. It has the effect of giving substance to the consistent—I might almost say persistent—statements of Ministers in this House and in another place as to the intention of secure training orders.
From the first introduction of the Bill in another place, when the Home Secretary talked of a small hard core of young tearaways who commit crime after crime and said that the courts are unable to deal adequately with persistent juvenile offenders, especially those aged between 12 and 14, right up to the Second Reading of the Bill on 25th April when the Minister said that the offenders sentenced to secure training orders would have failed not once but consistently to respond to other forms of remedial help, and throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have insisted that the secure training order will be a rare and extreme sentence. That is borne out by the fact that they are proposing to provide only 200 places nationwide in five centres.
When we look at Clause 1(8), which deals with the conditions under which a court should make a secure training order, the House will agree that it does not entirely add up to the statements Ministers made as the Bill proceeded. In particular, I suggest that the Bill makes certain provision for the number of convictions for imprisonable offences, and in Clause 1(8) (c) it talks about one specific form of non-custodial sentence; that is, a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act. But it does not talk adequately about the whole range of non-custodial penalties which are available.
It would be a helpful addition to the Bill if one of the conditions for making a secure training order was that the offender should have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and was unable or unwilling to respond to them, as the amendment suggests. A supervision order is a fine thing. I am not knocking it. The clause provides that the offender must at some time have breached a supervision order or committed an offence while subject to a supervision order. A first supervision order is often limited to one-to-one supervision by a social worker, but such one-to-one supervision could follow a requirement by a court to participate in an intermediate treatment or supervised activities programme. The intention of all these non-custodial sentences is to require young people to face up to the consequences of their offence both for themselves and for society as a whole.
Perhaps I may take intensive supervised activities schemes as an example. They were established in the 1980s with pump-priming finance from the then DHSS. They are sentences which are given to those who would otherwise receive custodial sentences, and they work. Most of the young people who are subject to intensive supervised activities schemes complete their courses and the extent of recidivism —those who reoffend—is only about 15 per cent. The House will recognise, after the discussion we have had, that the reconviction rates for these non-custodial schemes are very much better than the reconviction rates for sentences served in custody.
I recognise that this new subsection is introduced in a series of subsections which are joined by "and" rather than "or" and that that may cause some difficulty to the Government. But I insist that a supervision order is only part of the range of non-custodial sentences and therefore the amendment makes sense of the list of requirements for a secure training order. It does not add

149
impossibly to the list but it gives substance to the consistent or persistent claims of government about the purposes of the secure training order. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this amendment would produce a rather strange result which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may or may not have anticipated. Even if the offender had been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences no secure training order could be made unless he also had,
"a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them".
That creates a very strange position. Subject to what my noble friend Lord Ferrers may say, I should have thought that it would be very confusing indeed for the decision that the court had to make under Clause 1(8) if the amendment were to be accepted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is a very brief objection to the amendment apart from the one stated by my noble friend Lord Renton. This is a permissive power to make a secure training order. There is nothing mandatory about it. In making the order a court has to exercise a discretion. In exercising its discretion no court in the land could fail to take into account the matters referred to in Amendment No. 9. So it does not really go to a point of substance and, with the greatest respect, I wonder what it does go to.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with this amendment. It bears a kind of family relationship to an amendment which we unsuccessfully moved at an earlier stage designed to bring the Bill a little nearer to what the Government have always said is their intention. It has been said on more than one occasion that the Bill is designed to deal with children who have a bad record and for whom everything else has been tried. It seems to me that this amendment goes some way towards meeting the second of those objectives.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that is what disturbs me about the comments of the noble Lord, who is very experienced in these matters. We are on Third Reading. We are in a unique position in this House in that we can have amendments at Third Reading. That has a special value when something special arises. But we should not use amendments on Third Reading as an excuse to rehearse all the arguments again. The noble Lord said that amendments were moved in Committee and on Report but that they were unsuccessful. If we are not careful we shall make it impossible for us to play any part in legislating on matters requiring legislation. It is unique that we have amendments on Third Reading as compared with another place. When one sees the size of the Marshalled List one wonders how unique that can be. I hope that in our own future interests we can desist from raising on Third Reading all the Committee and Report stage arguments which, as the noble Lord has just said, were tried out before and did not come off
150
with this being a final attempt to try to alter the Bill. I do not think it is good from the point of view of the contribution we can make to legislation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I do not recall this paint being raised before and I think it is important enough to justify a little attention from your Lordships on Third Reading. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to ensure that the secure training order is used only as a device of last resort and that the courts employ every other strategy at their disposal for dealing with young offenders, and even with persistent young offenders, before they at last reach the conclusion that only ones of these secure training orders will meet the circumstances of the case.
This amendment forces the court to look at the additional factor, which I do not recall being discussed at an earlier stage, of whether more than one of these supervision orders has been tried. It seems to me that the arguments which have been put forward are very persuasive. The experience, as the noble Lord pointed out in moving the amendment, is that the intensive supervision orders have led to very low reconviction rates, but they they have been to some extern experimental. One hundred intensive activities schemes were established in the 1980s as part of the Government's policy then which was under the aegis of the Department of Health and Social Security. If reconviction rates from those experiments were as low as 15 per cent., whereas in the case of custodial penalties the reconviction rates were around 85 per cent., it certainly should be enjoined on the courts to use the intensive supervision orders whenever it is practicable.
The courts have interpreted a history as meaning at least two failures to respond to a non-custodial penalty. Therefore, if the amendment were carried, it would say that one supervision order is not enough—it would have to be two—and that the courts should look very carefully at the experience of supervision orders where they have been tried and use them as an alternative to the last resort of the secure training order. This will save public money. It will add an extra weapon to the armoury of the courts and prevent some young people from becoming recidivists as a result of being incarcerated in child prisons.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just said. The evidence in favour of the effectiveness of the supervision orders comes from areas as different as Nottinghamshire, Surrey and Newcastle upon Tyne. I would have thought that that should commend itself to the Government on grounds of both cost and effectiveness.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, some weeks ago I visited a supervised community project. There were 15 boys who had committed more than three offences for which they could have been sent to a secure training unit under the Bill as it now stands. There was a large garage. Each boy had stolen a car. They were having supervised activity with a very highly trained mechanic as to how to put a car together and to work with it. There was also a social worker who gave them counselling sessions. The parents also came to the centre

151
so that they could help their children. I believe that 13 of the boys followed the course. I telephoned yesterday and I understand that their orders are over and so far they have not committed any further offences. I spoke to the boys and they said that they never would. But there were two boys who committed further offences. They went back to court and a secure training order was made for them. This amendment would deal with the type of boy who need not be sent away but, if it is absolutely necessary, a boy who does need to be sent away can be sent away.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made one profound observation. He said that his amendment was not drafted by the parliamentary draftsman. He was quite right. Therefore it is full of flaws and the major one is the principle of the amendment. My noble friend Lord Renton was quite right in pointing out that the amendment would add an additional hurdle before a secure training order can be made—that the offender must have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial sentences and he must have shown himself unable or unwilling to respond to them. The Bill, as it stands, already requires an offender to have failed to respond to a specific non-custodial penalty, which is the supervision order. On top of this he will have to have committed three imprisonable offences. So he would have got a fair old record already without the noble Lord's amendment suggesting that there should be more.
What the amendment says is that the person would have to have a history of failure to respond—in other words, he must have done it time and time again before he can be eligible for a secure training order. The whole point of a secure training order is to stop him from doing it time and time again in order to protect the community from the misery which results when it does happen time and time again.
The chances are that the offender may have a history of previous offences, but it is quite another thing to say that, not only must he have a history of previous offences, but he must also have a history of failing to respond to sentences on top of that. It really is going too far to limit the court's discretion in this way.
The court will not have a totally free hand. The criterion which is suggested in the amendment originally applied in Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. But that has been replaced by new wording in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The new criteria for sentencing, which appear in the 1991 Act, apply to all custodial sentences, including the secure training order.
Together with the specific requirements, to have been convicted of at least three imprisonable offences and to have failed on a supervision order, the Bill already provides substantial, and I would suggest, sufficient restriction on the use of the secure training order. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the formulation in the Bill is a satisfactory one and should remain.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister described our drafting as flawed. Since he has
152
not criticised the drafting, what he really means is that he does not agree with it, which is not the same thing at all The principle of the amendment is to give effect to constant, persistent references by Ministers themselves to persistent juvenile offenders committing crime after crime and many other comparable phrases. When the Minister says now that the criterion is that they should have committed crimes time and time again, he is simply adding to the argument for the amendment. Subsection (8) (a) specifies the ages Then paragraph (b) states:
"that the offender has been convicted of three or more impnsonable offences".
The clause does not say what has happened as the result of those imprisonable offences. I suggest to your Lordships that, if the person has been convicted of three or more imprisonable offences and imprisonment has not been imposed and there have been non-custodial sentences which have been complied with, that weakens the argument for a secure training order in those cases. Paragraph (c) refers to a particular form of non-custodial sentence, namely, the supervision order, which is quite rightly referred to but which deserves and needs to be added to by the more general wording proposed in the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that we were adding to the three imprisonable offences criterion. We were doing so deliberately because we believe that the criterion is not adequate to the purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that these were permissive powers for the court. They are not quite permissive powers They are saying that a secure training order shall not be made unless certain criteria exist We are giving effect to the criteria which Ministers themselves have stated.
This is a rational and coherent improvement to the conditions set down in subsection (8) of the clause. I wish to take the opinion of the House on this issue.
3. 47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 90, Not-Contents, 170.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

David, B.

Addington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Airedale, L.

Diamond, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ampthill, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Eatwell, L.

Avebury, L.

Erroll, E.

Barnett, L.

Falkland, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brain, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Dornington, L.

Grey, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Chappie, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Clinton Davis, L.

Howell, L.

153

Hughes, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hunt, L.

Rea, L.,

Hylton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Richard, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rochester, L.

Jay, L.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Judd, L.

Seear, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Shannon, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stedman, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Strafford, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tenby, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Varley, L.

Mulley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Walpole, L.

Nicol, B.

Warnock, B.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Downshire, M.

Addison, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Elibank, L.

Ailsa, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Elles, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Alport, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Annaly, L.

Elton, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Arran, E.

Flather, B.

Astor, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Balfour, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bancroft, L.

Gainford, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Geddes, L.

Beloff, L.

Goschen, V.

Blatch, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blyth, L.

Gray, L.

Boardman, L.

Greenway, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hampden, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Hanworth, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Butterfield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caldecote, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Haslam, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hayter, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Henley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hives, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Holderness, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hood, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Hooper, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hothfield, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Howe, E.

Courtown, E.

Huntly, M.

Cox, B.

Hylton-Foster. B.

Craigavon, V.

Inchyra, L.

Cranborne, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Croham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cross, V.

Kenyon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Keyes, L.

Davidson, V.

Kimball, L.

De Freyne, L.

Knollys, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Knutsford, V.

Digby, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Donegall, M.

Lindsay, E.

Dormer, L.

Long, V.

154

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lucas, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Richardson, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Marlesford, L.

Romney, E.

Marsh, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Merrivale, L.

Savile, L.

Mersey, V.

Seccombe, B.

Middleton, L.

Sharplfes, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Simon of Glaidale, L.

Milverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Morris, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strange, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Straclyde, L.

Moyne, L

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Munster. E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

[Tellar]

Nelson, E.

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Swinfen, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing,L.

Tryon, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth,B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Peel, E.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Westbury, L.

Pike, B.

Wharton, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wise, L.

Prentice, L.

Wynford, L.

Quinton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

3.56 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 10:
page 2, line 49, at end insert (";
"local authority", "voluntary organisation" and "registered childrens' home" have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
"local authority accommodation" means accommodation provided by a local authority or on its behalf by voluntary organisations or persons carrying on a registered childrens' home with whom the local authority has made arrangements for its provision;
"relevant court" means—

(a) a youth court acting for the petty sessions area in which the secure accommodation or, as the case may be, secure training centre, is situated; or

(b) a youth court acting for the same petty sessions area as the court which made the secure training order, and

"secure accommodation" means local authority accommodation which is provided in a community home, a voluntary home or a registered childrens' home for the purpose of restricting liberty, and is approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State.").
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause
("Defrayment of costs
—(1) The Secretary of State may, in relation to any costs incurred by a local authority in complying with such a specification as is mentioned in section 1(3) above—

155

(a) defray such costs to such extent as he considers appropriate in any particular case;

(b) defray a proportion to be determined by him from time to time of such costs; and

(c) defray or contribute to such costs in accordance with a tariff to be determined by him from time to time.

(2) The Secretary of State may require any person providing secure accommodation to transmit to him, at such times and in such form as he may direct, such particulars as he may require with respect to any costs to which this section applies.
(3) Payments under this section shall be made out of money provided by Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is not in his place so I shall not attempt to justify this amendment. Indeed, I do not need to do so. Although it was not tabled on Report and is perhaps not strictly consequential, it is, in my view, necessary because of the amendments that were carried on Report. Your Lordships will recall that we agreed on Report that in making a secure training order the courts should have the option of saying that the order should be served in local authority secure accommodation.
In Clause 21 the Secretary of State is given powers to reimburse local authorities for the costs of holding young people who are remanded to local authority secure accommodation. Our amendments to Clause 1 and the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, which were carried on Report, now make it possible for a sentence in local authority secure accommodation to follow a secure training order. It seems logical, therefore, that the same power which is given to the Secretary of State to contribute to the cost of holding young people on remand should also be given to him to contribute to the cost of holding young people upon sentence.
There is already capital funding from central government for the capital costs of local authority secure accommodation. The increase in local authority secure accommodation, which has been announced by the Government is, of course, welcome. It seems rational for the funding to extend also to the running costs on sentence as it does to meeting the costs of such accommodation at remand stage.
I hope that the Minister will feel that, like the amendments we debated earlier of the noble Lords, Lord Carr and Lord Elton, this amendment follows logically from the position which was taken by the House on Report and that he will be able to recommend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord's words take me back to Report where I seem to remember that he said that each amendment put forward was almost consequential upon the previous one or purely drafting. The noble Lord suggests that this amendment is almost consequential. I am bound to say that it is not. Unlike the previous amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Carr and Lord Elton, this amendment is not required to make the Bill make legal sense. It is a matter of policy. It is a policy which I am bound to tell the noble Lord the Government do not favour.
156
The amendment would give central government the power to reimburse local authorities, in whole or in part, for the costs that they will incur in accommodating juveniles who are subject to a secure training order if the sentence were to be carried out in local authority secure accommodation. As your Lordships are aware, the Government have consistently taken the view that juveniles subject to a secure training order should serve the secure part of the order in the special secure training centres which will be dedicated to tackling offending behaviour and not in local authority secure accommodation.
Your Lordships agreed to amendments on Report which would allow the courts to specify that the secure part of the sentence can be served in local authority secure accommodation. If a type of scheme which involved local authority secure accommodation were to be introduced, the question of the best way of financing such a scheme would have to be investigated carefully. Your Lordships may take the view that the amendment is similar to the essentially technical amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Carr and think, as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Government should accept it. I could not advise your Lordships to accept the amendment because the Government do not agree with the policy that lies behind it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is left in a curious situation. The Government have inserted into the Bill Clause 21 which provides for a contribution to or reimbursement of the costs of holding young people remanded into local authority secure accommodation, but the Minister is now refusing to allow it to happen to those sentenced to secure accommodation. I did not expect anything different. I expected the Minister to resist such an amendment. That is why I did not say that it was strictly consequential. I disagree with the Government, not for drafting reasons but because they are failing to accept the full implications of the policy which the House supported on Report. With regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, Clause 2, Amendment No. 12. I call the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. Is it the noble Lord's intention to move Amendments Nos. 12 to 23 formally?
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, if it is in order, as it clearly is, I should like to move formally Amendments Nos. 12 to 23.
Clause 2 [Secure training orders: supplementary provisions as to detention]:
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment Nos. 12 to 19:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention").
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("the place of detention").
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("in the secure training centre").
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("such a place") and insert ("the place to which he is committed under paragraph (a) above").
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention").
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("in the secure training centre").
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("the secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention").
Page 4, line 10, at end insert (";
"place of detention" means the secure training centre, secure accommodation or other local authority accommodation in which a court has ordered the offender to be detained for the time being; and
"secure accommodation" and "local authority accommodation" have the same meaning as in section 1 above.").
Clause 3 [Supervision under secure training order]:
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 11, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any").
Clause 4 [Breaches of requirements of supervision of persons subject to secure training orders]:
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("secure training centre") and insert ("place of detention").
Page 5, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) In this section, "place of detention" has the same meaning as in section 2 above.").
Clause 8 [Officers of contracted out secure training centres]:
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 23, after ("by") insert ("section 1 of this Act,").
Clause 24 [Detention of arrested juveniles after charge]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 15, line 33, leave out ("in paragraph (b), for the words "age of 15 years" there shall be substituted the words "age of 12 years".") and insert:
("after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"or (c) in the case of an arrested juvenile who is not less than 12 but under 15 years of age, that—

(i) he is charged with a violent or sexual offence, or an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more; or

(ii) he has a recent history of absconding while remanded to local authority accommodation,

and (in either case) no secure accommodation is available and keeping him in other local authority accommodation would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report my noble friend and I had an exchange of views on the subject of this amendment which relates to the incarceration by the police of juveniles overnight under certain circumstances. I shall not recapitulate the reasons why your Lordships should deal with great care with the treatment of children in that way because I believe that that point was well taken at the last stage.
At that stage my noble friend referred to the power as though it would be used in a somewhat routine manner. I was greatly disturbed by that and said that I would give him an opportunity on Third Reading to
158
reconsider the circumstances under which the power might be used. The amendment provides that opportunity. I do not intend to press it, and so it is not necessary to decide whether it would work. I can save my noble friend the labour of saying that. I want my noble friend to cast his mind back to the occasion in 1991 when we changed Section 38(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which is the passage at which we are now looking, which gave these powers originally to the police in respect of older and tougher children.
The response to that was to issue Home Office Circular No. 78/1992 called Criminal Justice Act 1991: Detention Etc of Juveniles. Perhaps I can extract from it a relevant phrase or two:
"The circumstances in which a transfer would be impracticable are those, and only those, in which it is physically impossible to place the juvenile in local authority accommodation. These might include extreme weather conditions (eg floods or blizzards), or the impossibility, despite repeated efforts, of contacting the local authority. The Codes of Practice issued under the 1984 Act make clear that neither a juvenile's behaviour nor the nature of the offence with which he is charged provides grounds for the custody officer to retain him in police custody rather than seek to arrange for his transfer to local authority accommodation on the ground of impracticability".
I take it that that advice will have to be changed because the nature of the offence is now clearly germane to the decision whether to hold a child in custody because of the passage of this Act, as it will be. I am asking my noble friend whether he will be kind enough to give some indication of the advice to which the police will be subject and about which they will be circulated when it comes to implementing this important and sensitive piece of legislation. The people to whom it will apply are also important and sensitive. They are children of 12 to 14. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give suitable assurances. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern about children who are being detained in police cells. It is only right that the need to protect the public should be considered, whatever the nature of the offence with which the young person has been charged. In practice, the kinds of cases in which the police will want to detain juveniles are likely to meet the criteria set out in the amendment. I am not convinced that restricting the discretion of the police to the extent that the amendment suggests is desirable or necessary. The criteria in the amendment are those which apply when a court is deciding whether to remand a juvenile in security. However, the decision of the police to detain a juvenile overnight, or at most over a weekend, before a first court appearance is very different from that taken by a court when it remands a juvenile.
When deciding whether to remand a juvenile into security a wide range of options is available to the court, and more information about the juvenile will usually have to be obtained. In reaching a decision on whether to detain a juvenile in police cells, where there is no secure accommodation available, the police must be concerned primarily with the immediate risk to the public. The police carry the responsibility for protecting the public and for ensuring that arrested youngsters appear before the court. It is only right, if the

159
responsibility rests with the police, that they should have the necessary powers to detain an arrested juvenile where they think that there is a risk of serious harm to the public. That power should be available whatever the nature of the offence or whatever the nature of his past history of offending. But I do understand and agree with the concern which lies behind this amendment, which is that arrested juveniles should be kept in police cells after charge only where it is absolutely necessary.
I should like to assure my noble friend that that will be the case, and I would draw his attention to the existing Home Office guidance to chief officers of police on the detention of juveniles (Home Office circular 78/1992), to which he referred.
This guidance makes clear that, when a custody officer is considering whether to detain a 15 or 16 year-old who has been charged with a violent or sexual offence and where there is no local authority secure accommodation available, the definition for serious harm which is given in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 must be met before the juvenile can be detained.
The Act defines serious harm as:
"where there is death or serious personal injury whether physical or psychological".
The guidance also makes clear that, where an arrested juvenile has been charged with an offence which is not violent or sexual, and where there is no local authority secure accommodation available, the definition of serious harm in the 1991 Act should be used as a bench-mark for the gravity of the harm to which the public must be exposed before the officer can be satisfied that the serious harm test has been met.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that the criteria for detaining arrested juveniles already provide an appropriate amount of restriction. The Home Office guidance, to which I have referred, will be extended to cover 12, 13 and 14 year-olds. In addition, we will be considering whether the police should be given supplementary guidance in relation to this younger age group in particular.
I hope that I have given my noble friend the assurance that he requires and that he will be content with that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to my noble friend for that reassuring advice, in particular that paragraph 10 of circular No. 78/92 will be maintained in force. Particular advice may be added to that for the treatment of children of the new and younger age groups who are brought into the scope of this power by the legislation. No doubt, in due course we shall see that circular and discuss it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Reconsideration of decisions granting bail]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 7, after ("for") insert ("such").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 76. They are both drafting amendments. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 32 [Abolition of corroboration rules]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 21, line 41, at end insert:
("(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent the court from warning the jury of a special need for caution in relation to a witness where the court considers such a warning to be desirable in the interests of justice.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am conscious that this is the Third Reading of the Bill and therefore the amendment does not raise again the issues in relation to corroboration, which were fully debated in this House at earlier stages of the Bill. The two clauses which relate to the changes in the law in relation to corroboration are, for various reasons which have been aired, unhappy to a number of Members on all sides of the House. But the purpose of Amendment No. 26 is to clarify an uncertainty that remains in relation to the effects in practice of the two new clauses, Nos. 32 and 33.
Perhaps I may briefly remind the House that those two clauses come about as a result of the 1991 Law Commission Report, Corroboration of Evidence in Criminal Trials. Under this Bill, the package of recommendations made by the Law Commission in this respect is incomplete. The Law Commission made five recommendations, of which four are incorporated in those two clauses. They relate to the repeal of the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which required statutory corroboration in relation to certain offences. That is now Clause 33. Clause 32 removes the automatic requirement for a judge to warn a jury about uncorroborated evidence in a case involving either an accomplice or a complainant in a sexual case. Clause 32 also extends that abolition to summary trials and extends the provisions to deal with children's evidence in summary trials.
What is missing from the package is the fifth recommendation of the Law Commission: that there should be a practice direction whereby in a case involving issues that might need special treatment by the judge when summing up, before closing speeches the judge and counsel should discuss those issues with counsel in the absence of the jury. It was clear from the report that it was envisaged that the need for warnings in certain cases was one of the issues which would be discussed and determined in that way.
On Report the Minister indicated that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice had expressed a reluctance to give such a practice direction. Indeed, subsequently and prior to today's hearing he has expressed that reluctance to me. Therefore, my concern is that an important safeguard which was part of the reform package is currently missing from these provisions. The Bill takes no account of the conclusion of the Law Commission, which was set out clearly following those recommendations in these terms:
"The judge should not be prohibited from giving the jury a warning, or a warning in any particular terms, about the evidence of any particular type or category of witness".
As it stands, there is nothing on the face of the Bill, other than an indication that a warning need not be given, to indicate to a judge that he may, if he believes it appropriate, give such a warning in whatever way he thinks fit. It may be said that that will be obvious to any judge; but it is apparent that a judge must sum up as he thinks right, put the matters before the jury as he thinks fit and give warnings where he thinks that to be appropriate.
But I am concerned that that may not be the interpretation which is generally put upon these clauses and that, as a result, judges who must sum up in some of these sensitive cases may find themselves in some difficulty. Perhaps I may explain briefly what I mean. When these provisions were foreshadowed in the Home Secretary's speech at the Blackpool Conference he indicated that one of the reasons for removing the corroboration rule was that it was insulting for a woman judge to have to give a warning in a sex case. When in Committee I introduced the first amendment to this matter there was a certain amount of publicity, in particular from a group of women barristers who indicated their determination that the Government should stand firm in their position on this matter because warnings in relation to cases involving sexual complaint must go.
That was not what the Law Commission had in mind. Certainly, there was the abolition of the compulsory warning in every case but it was abundantly clear both from the Law Commission's Report and from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said in the Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture earlier this year; that it was envisaged that judges should feel free to give a warning where they felt it necessary. Many of the cases, where a sexual complaint is involved or where an accomplice is involved and where the case rests on only that evidence, are surely those in which a warning may be required.
I am also particularly concerned that once these provisions are enacted a judge trying what may be, for example, a sensitive sex case in which there is a great deal of media attention, and who in the past would have had to give a warning to the jury about the dangers of convicting on that evidence because he was required by law to do so, will have no such legal requirement to draw to its attention. He may well feel intimidated from giving a warning in a case where he believes it to be appropriate because he knows that the end result will be a great deal of adverse publicity for the remarks that he has made in court.
I am anxious that it needs spelling out somewhere to judges and to others that where there are dangers in a case a judge should not be inhibited from giving such a warning. For that reason I have drafted the amendment in terms which I hope cover what the Law Commission had in mind:
"Nothing in this section shall prevent the court from warning the jury of a special need for caution in relation to a witness where the court considers such a warning to be desirable in the interests of justice".
I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a privilege to support the amendment. As was said by the
162
noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, there is cause for concern and this amendment is designed for clarification. No one who cares to read Hansard for all stages of the Bill—not even my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who is not in his place—would believe that this is an attempt to abuse Third Reading procedure.
The Law Commission's proposals require no repetition because they have been explained succinctly by the noble Baroness. The gap, the lacuna, is that Clause 32 as it stands means that without a practice direction an integral part of the Law Commission's proposals is excluded.
On Report the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, moved an amendment, which I supported, which required a modified form of warning to fill the gap in an accomplice case or in a sex case depending solely on a witness but for whose evidence there would be no case to answer. I supported that amendment but I accept with reluctance that, as it relates to only two types of cases, the Government considered that to be too restrictive.
But whatever one accepts and says, the fact is that the courts have a problem and we must ask how they will face it. Perhaps I may describe the problem as expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in his Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture. He said:
"The problem the courts will now have to face is what approach should be adopted in future where corroboration would in the past have been required There will be cases in which some warning of a special need for care may be needed That will be for the discretion of the judge No doubt there will be appeals complaining of the absence or inadequacy of such warning. It will not be easy for the Court of Appeal to give guidance to judges as to when and how strong a warning is required without introducing a new form of corroboration as rigid as the last".
That is the problem. That is the problem as it is seen by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. That is the problem with which this amendment, tabled and devised by the noble Baroness, seeks to grapple.
Having regard to the absence of the corroboration warning, it is surely requisite to put on the face of the statute some discretionary power of the judge to warn in any appropriate case and to affirm that power pending the giving of guidance, albeit by the Court of Appeal and albeit by practice direction, to fill the gap.
I do not know whether your Lordships know, but in Canada where a similar situation arose—the mandatory warning was abolished—a judge gave a warning in a rape case and he was most severely criticised. Indeed the case was taken to appeal and I believe that the appellate court upheld the decision of the judge.
That is the kind of territory into which one moves, pending practice directions and guidance from the Court of Appeal. I am not being technical and I am trying to be straightforward. I entreat the Minister to recognise that this is a problem which requires attention.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, perhaps I may support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I am afraid that I was unable to be present in Committee to take part in your Lordships' debates at that time. But there is a world of difference between removing the obligation in all cases on a judge to give a corroboration warning as against

163
the continuing need that such a warning should be given in many, many of those cases. I hope that the fact that we are removing the obligation in all cases to give a corroboration warning will not mean that judges will feel that the interests of justice do not require that in many cases such a warning should nevertheless be given, particularly in cases where there is little or no corroboration at all.
I was sorry to hear the noble Baroness say that apparently the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice does not feel that this is an appropriate matter on which to give a practice direction. I doubt whether it is an appropriate matter for statute. I should have thought that it would be more appropriate for a practice direction. I hope that the Court of Appeal will feel able to give guidance on this matter.
Perhaps I may leave the sexual side and deal with the matter of accomplices. I hope that judges will be reminded of their duty to point out to juries in their summing-up speeches the many motives which accomplices may have for giving the evidence which they have given which requires that it should be treated with great care. I hope that we have done nothing in this Bill to diminish the belief of judges that in the course of summing up they should, in the interests of justice and of the defendant, give, where appropriate, a warning on the need to look with caution at the evidence of such witnesses.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too support the amendment for the reasons given by my noble friends and by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I believe that she has performed a most valuable public duty in drawing the attention of your Lordships to the problem which arises. To those who are not lawyers it may seem to be a somewhat technical problem but, believe me, in the interests of justice this amendment is necessary.
Also, in view of what my noble friend Lord Carlisle said just now about the doubt as to whether this matter would be covered by the rules of court or whether it would be the subject eventually of a direction by the Court of Appeal, I suggest that, if we remove the doubt now by accepting the amendment and covering the matter by statute, we should save the time of the courts and save expense. We would remove uncertainty and we would achieve justice.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has been extremely patient. He has listened to us not only on the Floor of the House but also when we went to see him. I hope that at this last stage, on Third Reading, he will agree that this point should be covered and I believe that it will best be covered in the way proposed by the noble Baroness.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness has returned to this subject about which I know she feels strongly because she has seen me about it and is now raising it for the third time. I am sorry that the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway were not reassured sufficiently by what I said on corroboration evidence on Report. Of course, it is their prerogative not to be satisfied.
164
I had hoped that the unusual sight of a united front between the Government and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on Report might have had a rather greater effect. I had hoped that the noble Baroness would be persuaded by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who said that he was not keen on issuing practice directions.
The arguments have been well rehearsed. At present a judge must warn a jury of the dangers of convicting a person solely on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of a victim of a sexual offence or of an accomplice. Clause 32 abolishes the requirement to give a mandatory corroboration warning, leaving the judge free to exercise his discretion and to decide whether to issue a warning. He should do that only when it is necessary to do so.
The noble Baroness's amendment seeks to underline the point that a judge still has a discretion to issue a warning of some sort. At Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, lucidly described that the law required a judge to sum up fairly and in a way which assisted the jury. I shall not repeat what he said and I restrain myself from reading out the relevant parts of the Law Commission's excellent report, which is the justification for this part of the Bill. However, I am not persuaded that what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friend propose in their amendment is necessary in the context of a clause which specifically abolishes warnings that are tied to certain categories of witness. It may even serve to confuse matters if a statement is added that refers to all types of cases and all types of witnesses. It is feared that judges may feel pressurised into not giving warnings by the possible reaction of the press if they do so. I believe that that is to under-estimate the capacity of judges to see such reaction for what it is. It also over-estimates the nature of the pressure.
The effects of the clause will benefit both male and female victims of sexual offences. If there were some kind of politically correct lobby waiting to criticise judges who give warnings, those judges have a great deal of law and a wealth of precedents on which to defend summings-up that put the defence case squarely before the jury. A judge would certainly need a purely declaratory statement tucked into what is at present Clause 32 of the Bill.
I believe that there is no room for doubt about practice directions. The judge in these, as in any other cases, may give warnings to the jury about any witness as he sees fit. No judge needs a declaratory statement that he has a duty to put the defence case to the jury. Whether or not a practice direction is needed is a matter for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. As the noble Baroness said, the noble and learned Lord did not consider that to be necessary. Whether or not the law needs restatement at any time in future will be a matter for the Court of Appeal. I am confident that the law remains clear.
Although it may be a vain hope, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness sufficiently. Reassurance has been given by wiser heads than mine. Virtually the whole response to the Law Commission amounts to a reassurance that Clause 32 does not

165
undermine the defendant's rights. We believe that that is so, and we hope that the noble Baroness will conclude likewise.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may ask him whether, for the sake of the record, he will endorse the recommendation made by the Law Commission that a judge should not be prohibited from giving a warning in any particular terms about the evidence of any type or category of witness. Perhaps he can give the House that assurance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. There is nothing to prevent the judge from giving that warning, whether or not he wants to, on any occasion. We believe that it is wrong specifically to put that matter in the Bill.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their support in this matter. I am particularly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his use of the word "lacuna". There remains a lacuna in the legislation as it passes from this House to the other place. A safeguard was advised by the Law Commission. It is not there, because there will not be a practice direction. There has not been a successful attempt to put something in its place. It seems to me that the noble Earl's acceptance of the final recommendation of the Law Commission goes some way at least to enable counsel, when trying to persuade a judge as to whether he should or should not give a warning in a particular case, to have recourse to Hansard for a clear expression of what: the Government intend in enacting these clauses. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that and for the trouble and care he has taken to consider the representations of those of us concerned about the matter.
It appears that it will not be possible to persuade the Government to make a change on the face of the Bill and that there will be a lacuna in this area at least until the Court of Appeal has an opportunity to fill it, which I suspect may not be very far away. In those circumstances, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Effect of accused's silence at trial]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 23, line 21, leave out ("(other than a child)") and insert ("who has attained the age of fourteen years").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27 and speak also to Amendment No. 28. These technical amendments are necessary to clarify the definition of "child" in the clauses of the Bill that deal with inferences from silence.
Clause 38 [Interpretation and savings for sections 34, 35, 36 and 37]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 28, leave out line 25.
Clause 68 [Offence of aggravated trespass]:
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 50, line 13, leave out ("or adjoining land in the open air") and insert ("land or on any land in the open air within 5 miles of the boundary of that land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29 I wish to speak also to the other amendments in my name. In Amendment No. 29 we return to an issue discussed in Committee and on Report in your Lordships' House. To refresh your Lordships' minds, the offence of aggravated trespass as laid down in the Bill can be committed only if the trespasser seeks to disrupt a lawful activity that is taking place on that land or on adjoining land. The problem we still face today is what "adjoining" means? It is suspected that unless one makes very clear what "adjoining" means, there will be a degree of confusion.
First and foremost, police officers and others at the scene of where crimes may or may not be taking place will not be aware of where one piece of land begins and another ends. Secondly, if people come before courts charged with these offences they may well use the loophole that they have not been on the adjoining land, because it will not be clear to the courts what that adjoining land is.
At an earlier stage in the Bill my noble friend made clear that by the words "adjoining land" "the Government did not mean that the land should be contiguous, that is, touching, but that it could be a little further away than that. However, it seems to some of your Lordships that that is exactly what "adjoining" means. That was why we suggested the use of the word "neighbouring" as a better description of what was intended. I emphasise that there is no intention in these amendments either to broaden or narrow the scope of the offence. They leave the offence exactly the same. The intention is merely to clarify the precise geographical spot where the offence may take place.
Following the very full answer of my noble friend at Report stage, I said that I felt that he had confused me further. That was slightly unfair. Upon reading his answer the following morning in Hansard, I was not confused. I was, however, absolutely convinced that there was a very serious problem. My noble friend said that it would be for the courts to sort out exactly what was meant. I would have thought that it would be far better for Parliament to sort it out before it goes to the courts so that the courts have no difficulty knowing what Parliament meant in creating the offence. For that reason, I have brought forward five different options so that the Government can decide which one they like.
I have brought back again the word which I used on Report, "neighbouring". But in case it is loo precise I have suggested the word "nearby". In the first two amendments I have borrowed a principle which we used earlier in the Bill —on the New Age travellers part of the Bill—of setting up a boundary or a radius in terms of miles. I would emphasise to your Lordships that the major difference is that the other part of the Bill referred to an exclusion zone for want of a better phrase. In this case it is not an exclusion zone: it is an inclusion zone,

167
and the act of being in that inclusion zone does not in itself mean that the offence is committed. There must still be trespass and there must still be an intention to disrupt.
I accept that that may be a furtherance of the idea, but at least it fulfils my noble friend's requirement in that it is precise. In the earlier part of the Bill it is a five-mile exclusion zone: in this part of the Bill I have put that in. I have also suggested that your Lordships may prefer a 10-mile exclusion zone for two reasons: first, that is the approximate area outside of which no hunt is likely very often to move within the course of one day; and, secondly, because of the extensive area over which grouse shooting takes place, where one of the most serious problems has existed. I accept that neither of those measures may be perfect but at least they are precise.
As I said when I first stood up, this is a confusing area. I can see confusion arising in the courts over what exactly "adjoining land" means and whether it means on the next piece of land or one piece over. We must bear in mind that sometimes one piece of land may be only the width of a few yards or one field. Clearly there is concern about this provision being too wide and I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has voiced this seriously at an earlier stage. I say to him and to others who are worried about the geographical breadth over which this offence could be committed that it would be virtually impossible to intend to disrupt, or for it to be proven that someone was intending to disrupt, if he was out of sight or earshot as it would be impossible to disrupt an activity at that length. Therefore it is unlikely that anyone would be charged over that considerable distance. I hope that that is clear to your Lordships and that your Lordships and my noble friend will look with favour on this amendment. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, at Report stage I think it would be fair for me to say that I had the distinct impression that my noble friend the Minister showed some degree of sympathy for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and myself in which we took out, or attempted to take out, the word "adjoining". I think he perhaps accepted that "adjoining" may not have been necessarily the most appropriate word to have used in the circumstances. But my noble friend made it quite clear that some description of the land was necessary so that the new offences of aggravated trespass should be tied to land of a specific geographical nature.
However, as my noble friend has said, I think that the word "adjoining" would prove too restrictive. We may well indeed find cases where the police could end up not prosecuting individuals clearly involved in aggravated trespass simply because the legal activity which they, the saboteurs, sought to prevent was to take place on land which was some distance away and not actually on adjoining land. I do not believe that this is the intention behind the two clauses in the Bill relating to aggravated trespass.
168
As my noble friend said, at the previous stage your Lordships discussed a whole range of possibilities. That is why this wide range of measures is in front of us for discussion this afternoon, as my noble friend said. But from my own point of view I am bound to say that, having reflected carefully on the options open to us, I believe that "neighbouring" would be the most appropriate word to use. I think my noble friend Lord Mancroft said that my noble friend the Minister indicated that "adjoining" did not necessarily mean contiguous but the interpretation would be a matter for the courts. I agreed with him when he said that surely it would be more appropriate if we could get this matter cleared up now and put on the face of the Bill.
Before I entered the Chamber I had a look at the Oxford English Dictionary to look up various interpretations. "Adjoining" certainly means contiguous. That was clearly mentioned, as indeed was the word "neighbouring". However, the definition of "neighbouring" does not mention contiguous. Lying or living near were the expressions that were most used but contiguous was not mentioned. I think that that clearly indicates that "adjoining" will prove too restrictive in this case and that "neighbouring" would be a more appropriate word. I hope that your Lordships will support this proposal, and particularly of course my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a most extraordinary procedure. We are playing Russian roulette with the Bill now. The proposers of this amendment cannot decide what words they want to propose so they suggest five different alternatives. I suggest to the House that there is only one word which is unambiguous and has a clear meaning and that is the word "adjoining". "Adjoining" means contiguous. I do not have the benefit of the full Oxford Dictionary but I have the concise form which, through the courtesy of the Table, is in front of me. The dictionary states that "adjoining" means contiguous. It means having a common boundary presumably—what the French call mitoyen. It is absolutely clear what it means and if there is any doubt about it the clause also states that land does not include,
"the highways and roads excluded from the application of section 61".
Therefore we have two proposers who are proposing a range of different amendments for the House presumably to choose among. However, it is much worse than that because they do not agree as regards what their intention is in moving these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says it is not his intention to widen the definition of what land should be covered. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, was quite clear about this. He said twice that "adjoining" was too restrictive. I think that they should make up their minds what their intention is, as well as what words they wish to use, before they bring amendments before this House.
It is no secret that we are bitterly opposed to the provisions of Clauses 68 and 69 which introduce the offence of aggravated trespass. It is no secret that in our view the use of the phrase "intimidation, obstruction and disruption" combined with the phrase "lawful activity" means that what on the face of it appears to be quite

169
inoffensive protection against, for example, hunt saboteurs can, and unfortunately probably will, be used on a much wider basis to stop people from peaceful protest against such lawful activities as driving roads through sites of special scientific interest. There are profound political implications and profound civil liberties implications in Clauses 68 and 69 which we have expressed in amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. But to extend the measure in the way that the proposers suggest in these amendments would be to make matters much worse.
As regards the preferred option of "neighbouring" of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, my Concise Oxford Dictionary gives examples of the use of "neighbouring", for example, "his nearest neighbour is 12 miles away", or "our neighbours across the Channel". It clearly means nothing precise which could be implemented in law. The provision is bad enough as it is but the only thing which makes any sense at all is to use the word "adjoining" and to reject all of these amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend Lord Mancroft can help us. I shall give way to him if he cares to explain the matter. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 appear to overlap.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all of the amendments overlap. They are all different ways of doing the same thing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is not quite the point that I am making. Each of the amendments proposes to replace the words on line 13 of page 50:
"or adjoining land in the open air".
Amendment No. 29 proposes that they should be replaced with the words:
"land or on any land in the open air within 5 miles of the boundary of that land".
Amendment No. 30, which could not be an alternative but overlaps, proposes 10 miles instead of 5 miles. We must have the matter clarified, otherwise we do not know what we are being asked to do.
Perhaps I may say in passing that although I was sympathetic to amendments of a similar kind which were moved at Report stage I think that 10 miles is going too far.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thoroughly enjoy chasing foxes and I quite enjoy shooting pheasants. I believe that the Government have gone an immensely long way to assuage the fears of those of us who carry out such lawful activity. I believe that they have got the wording right. I hate agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but he summed it up rightly. "Adjoining" seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. I do not think that we should go any further than that.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I think that my noble friends have been treated rather unfairly. The whole object of putting forward their amendments— which one might call a pot-pourri—is in order to have some indication from my noble friend the Minister as to which, if any, of the suggestions might be acceptable to the Government. I agree that it is difficult for your Lordships to come to a decision on the matter.
170
I feel that it is almost as if one were at an ice skating tournament where one might award "nul point" or "six points" to the six choices. Starting at the bottom, which I believe is the order in which they take these things: at such competitions, my sixth choice is "adjoining". It is ambiguous. I do not think that it is clear. It would be a lawyer's paradise. My fifth option would be "nearby". It is equally ambiguous and there is not much difference between choices five and six. My fourth choice would be "neighbouring", which is the favourite option of my noble friend. I hope that that will find some merit with my noble friend the Minister. The remaining choices include the definitive areas of "5 miles" and "10 miles". Those are definitive and distinct. I would prefer to see something which is clear and distinct. In my view "10 miles" would be the best option. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not begin to agree, but his arguments were probably slightly biased because he and his supporters do not like the principle anyway, and I accept that. Therefore, his arguments must be somewhat biased in that way.
I hope that my noble friend will be kind enough to give some indication as to whether he can do something or can suggest to his colleagues in another place that the word "adjoining" is not particularly attractive and that we should try to find another way around the problem.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, whatever views are taken by your Lordships on the merits.or demerits of Clauses 68 and 69—and there are differing views throughout the House—it would be a great pity if this clause were to leave this House in a form which makes it, in effect, a lawyer's benefit.
The word "adjoining" seems to me to be one which is likely to occupy a great deal of time in magistrates' courts throughout the country if the Bill goes through in its present form. I think I know who my neighbours are, but I would have great difficulty in determining who lived in an area contiguous to where I live. I speak only for myself, but the word "neighbouring" seems to be clear and readily understandable. I give rny support to Amendment No. 33 which substitutes that word for "adjoining".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, so we come back to the word "adjoining". We have had this discussion before. My noble friends have suggested five different words to "adjoining". They have been given short shrift by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for not being able to make up their minds. However, I realise that they were trying to be helpful to the Government so that the Government could pick and choose.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft said that he did not want to extend the effect of the Bill but merely to clarify it. He hoped that I would look with favour on all of the amendments. I have looked at the matter a great deal. Of all the words of this compendious Bill not one has received more of my personal attention than the wretched word "adjoining", because I have understood my noble friends' concern and had a certain amount of sympathy with them.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret said that he thought that the word "adjoining" was not clear and was too vague. It seems to me to be crystal clear. In Latin

171
"at" means "to" and "join" is the English, so you join something to something else. That seems to me to be pretty clear. It seems to me to mean contiguous, abutting, bordering and so forth. If my noble friends were confused by what I said at the earlier stage of the Bill I apologise. The only exception which I mentioned was where a piece of land was separated by a small river or track, which might nevertheless be said to be adjoining.
My noble friends have suggested other words such as "other", "nearby" or "neighbouring". I have looked very hard at those words but I am bound to tell them that my advice is that they are, believe it or not, too imprecise and too vague for the criminal law. They would also make the offence too wide. We have to keep the idea of proximity in mind. It would be wrong to draw the offence so widely that all land or any land in the same locality would necessarily be included.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret said stoutly that he would like something which is perfectly clear and precise and that 10 miles is precise and you know where you are. I should think that you do. But that conflicts with my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who said that he did not want to extend the area of the Bill. If the provision is extended from land which is adjoining to land which is 10 miles away my noble friends will realise that the Bill will be extended substantially by the use of those words.
I do not think that it can be right that behaviour five or 10 miles away from the activity which is intended to be disrupted, however unacceptable the behaviour may be, should automatically render the person concerned liable to arrest for a criminal offence or to a direction to leave land. There may be cases where activity on a corner of a moor may be intended to disrupt activity which may be some miles away and which may be on the same moor on adjoining land. However, the clause allows for that. I do not think that we could make it a general rule of this sort, which would apply on anyone's land.
The whole idea was that it should be an offence to create trouble when you are on the same land as a person carrying out a lawful activity and that it should not be permissible for someone to jump over a fence and say "I am now on someone else's land and so I can continue to be disruptive". That is why the word "adjoining" was incorporated into the Bill.
I do not think that it would be reasonable to extend the provision to such lengths as my noble friend's amendment might allow. It will be for the courts to determine the matter. However, in practice any behaviour which is capable of disrupting or obstructing lawful activity, or intimidating those engaging or about to engage in it, is likely to be caught by the new provision, provided that behaviour involves trespass. The offence could be committed by trespassers who did something in the morning which affected the use of land for a lawful activity in the afternoon.
I can only say that I have considered, unbelievably carefully, the points that my noble friend raised—almost I would say ad nauseam, at least to myself. However, I do not believe that the clause as drafted will cause the
172
problems that my noble friends suggest If we were to make the changes which my noble friends propose— they are not quite certain which changes they wish to make—I believe that we would be widening the provisions of the Bill too far. I only hope that my noble friends will realise that I have gone into the matter in as much detail as I possibly could. I really believe that I have given them the best advice.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am certain of one matter: that my noble friend has indeed given his very closest attention to the word. I agree with him on one factor: it is a wretched word. Nevertheless, he has considered the matter carefully and I thank him for that and for the care of his answer today.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, argued well, as he always does, on the case about which I worry: that "adjoining" means contiguous. We were worried that where the land was separated by a small area of other land it would not be contiguous. During the early stages of the Bill my noble friend told us that it was not his intention that the offence should take place only on contiguous land. It has been well demonstrated this afternoon that my noble friends and I were right to be concerned about the issue.
Nevertheless, it is a late stage of the Bill and my noble friend has considered the matter carefully. Reluctantly, I shall not push the matter any further. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 80 [Repeal of certain conditions relating to gipsy sites]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 63, line 20, leave out ("170") and insert ("171").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have Amendment No. 34 grouped with Amendments Nos. 52, 57 to 60, and 78 to 80, which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. That at least brings the business forward and may enable the noble Lord to catch a train before the trains stop running tonight.
We need waste no time on Amendment No. 34. It is a drafting amendment to correct a rather simple error in the numbering of clauses.
As to the merits of the other amendments, I shall not make the general case which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will wish to make himself. However, I make one point relating to the interests of children. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, believes that it is improper for us to make special legislation for children. Yet one of the reasons why we supported his amendments at Report stage was to provide so far as possible for the protection of the children of travellers, whether gypsies or other travellers.
I make a point that the noble Lord might not feel compelled to make in defending the subsequent amendments. It might help the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others if I say straight away that the amendments

173
have been drafted by parliamentary counsel and have been offered to us by the Minister. That might prevent some otherwise unnecessary interventions in the debate.
Despite the tidying up which is proposed in the amendments, concern still exists in regard to the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act that the general powers introduced for all authorities under Clause 77 (it used to be Clause 72) enables authorities not using the powers of the Caravan Sites Act—they have been removed by the amendment agreed at Report—to use more general powers to remove unauthorised campers. At Report stage on 7th June, at col. 1169 of the Official Report, the Minister stated that local authorities would have to take into account a number of factors including the needs of the travellers themselves.
On a number of occasions Ministers have said that the powers under what is now Clause 77 ought to be used responsibly. Ministers have spoken of the duties of local authorities under the Housing Act 1985 and the Children Act 1989.
All I seek from the Minister's response to the amendment is his renewed assurance that he expects local authorities to exercise the powers under Clause 77 reasonably and with toleration—not removing unauthorised campers just because they are there, but taking into account the needs of the travellers.
When the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and other noble Lords carried the amendment against the Government we believed that we were protecting absolutely the gypsies. We did not fully realise the implications of the powers of removal under Clause 77. Carrying the amendment was worthwhile, and will be shown to be worthwhile. It is a pity that we did not have a consequential amendment to restrict the more general powers in Clause 77 to those cases which would have been covered if the Caravan Sites Act had been retained in its entirety. The measure was worth doing. We have not done everything that we wished to do. Without suggesting that there should be further amendments, I hope that the Minister will give some indication that he agrees that local authorities exercising those powers should do so with proper concern for the interests of the children of the travellers. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps it is correct for me to make a brief contribution. At Report stage, and indeed before, I made my position clear so far as concerns illegal campers. I believe sincerely that we have the balance right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, thinks so too.
As the noble Lord said, these are drafting amendments suggested by the government draftsmen, for which I am grateful. They achieve the objective of the amendment to Clause 75 on which your Lordships voted in favour at Report stage.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words and congratulate my noble kinsman on the success of the amendments, with the improvements that have now been made in the drafting. The duplication which existed at Report stage between the powers of Sections 10 to 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and those of Clause 72 of the Bill has now been eliminated. I am glad that that untidiness has been removed. We
174
now have only one set of powers for removing gypsies from unauthorised land. I agree with the anxieties that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed about the way in which those powers have been used.
At Report stage there was somewhat of a compromise between those who would have liked to see the Caravan Sites Act retained in its entirety and those noble Lords who, like my noble kinsman, wanted the stronger powers contained in Clause 72 and who now have them in the Bill. However, that redoubles the necessity to watch vigilantly to ensure that the guidelines reflect the assurances that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has given at a number of stages during the course of our proceedings.
I echo warmly what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about children. I add to that the situation of pregnant women. Recently I sent a letter to the Minister with representations from an organisation which looks after their interests.
I know that, as the Minister said, local authorities or the police, as the case may be, if we are talking about Clauses 61 and 62, will not evict from unauthorised sites women who are about to give birth. But the way that this is expressed in the guidelines is of some importance. It may influence the conduct of local authorities and the police when they come to exercise the powers. Therefore it is a pity that we have not had sight of the guidelines which are to be issued by the department before we take leave of the Bill. I hope that there is some way in which there can be full consultation between the department and the organisations that represent the interests of women and children before the guidelines are finally agreed. It would be useful to have the Minister's assurances on that point.
The other important question that occurs to me—and I put this to the Minister—is: how are we. going to tell local authorities of the remarkable change in direction that has been secured by noble Lords during the course of our proceedings on this Bill? So far as they were concerned, the chopper had come down on all stage 1 applications as from 1st March, and stage 2 applications would have had to be completed by the time of the Bill's passage, which all had assumed meant the: end of July. Not every local authority will immediately be seized of the fact that they now have a reprieve of five years during which time your Lordships have expressed the hope that they will complete the task of providing adequate accommodation for gypsies residing in or resorting to their areas.
I therefore ask the Minister: does he intend to write to local authorities setting out the changes that have been inserted in the Bill by this House and informing them that, as of now, they can resume putting in stage 1 applications, which are applications in principle, instead of having to rush to complete stage 2 applications, as they would need to do if they intended to put down any more schemes for consideration by the department if the former timetable had continued? Now, of course, they have another five years. They should not be compelled or persuaded to spend a great deal of scarce officers' time and other resources in putting in stage 2 applications between now and Royal Assent when that will not be necessary if the Bill remains in its present form. They would have another five years in which to

175
formulate applications in principle and to proceed at their leisure to clothe them in the detail that is required before the department finally approves them. It would be very useful if the Minister would agree to notify the local authorities of the changes that have been effected so that they can organise their work in an effective manner for completion of the task within the next five years.
I warmly congratulate my noble kinsman on the success of his amendment, and I congratulate the department on its good sense in accepting it and proceeding along the lines of another five years of effort by the local authorities in conjunction with the private sector. At the end of that time, if we have not completed the task we shall at least be in sight of the point where all the gypsies at present on unauthorised sites are accommodated in places where they can lawfully remain forever; and we shall have eliminated the bane of the gypsies for the settled population in whose neighbourhood they have to exist and of the unauthorised camps which have caused so much trouble for the past 20 years.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, here we come to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which is of course of impeccable drafting, and I congratulate the noble Lord on that. He says that the amendments were drafted by the parliamentary draftsman and that they are technical amendments necessary as a result of the amendments your Lordships made to the Bill on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. My amendment was not drafted by anyone else; it was drafted by me.
Earl Ferrers: Good gracious. Goodness me. Well then, I withdraw the compliment. The noble Lord really should not look a gift-horse in the mouth. It was probably a rotten amendment, I dare say—yes, it was a bad one!
The amendments were necessary following upon what your Lordships did at Report stage. I made the Government's views on the amendments clear at that time: those views remain the same. The only difference is Amendment No. 52, which is not strictly a drafting amendment. The amendment would repeal Sections 10 to 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 on Royal Assent. The reason for that is that Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill would give all local authorities in England and Wales new powers to tackle unauthorised camping. Unless Sections 10 to 12 of the 1968 Act are repealed, there will be two parallel enforcement regimes operating against unauthorised camping in areas which are designated by the Secretary of State under the 1968 Act once the Bill receives Royal Assent. That would obviously be wrong.
We accept these amendments because we do not believe that it is sensible or necessary to expect local authorities to administer concurrent and different regimes for the control of unauthorised camping in their areas.
176
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked me to give some reassurance that the local authorities would exercise their powers under Clause 77 reasonably and with tolerance. I am happy to do so. I said at previous stages of the Bill that the local authorities will be expected to use good sense and understanding when they exercise the powers. The Department of the Environment will be issuing advice to that effect in a circular to local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked how we can tell the local authorities about the changes in the Bill that your Lordships have made. I do not think that we propose at the moment to tell the local authorities about the changes. The right moment at which to do so is when the Bill becomes an Act and when we know exactly what are the changes about which they should be notified.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances he has given. I do not need to repeat the arguments on the more general issues, but I am grateful immediately for his acceptance of my Amendment No. 34.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause:
Video recordings restriction of exemptions
(".—(1) Section 2 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (exempted works) shall be amended as follows
(2) In subsection (1), after the words "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted the words "or (3)"
(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) after paragraph (c), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(d) techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences;" and

(b) for the word "designed" (in both places) there shall be substituted the word "likely".

(4) After subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3) A video work is not an exempted work for those purposes if, to any significant extent, it depicts criminal activity which is likely to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage the commission of offences. " ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 66. Noble Lords will recall that on Report the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, tabled two amendments which sought, first, to protect children from unsuitable or harmful material by removing some works from the category of exempt videos, and, secondly, to enable the British Board of Film Classification to draw attention to those videos which are particularly suitable for young children.
I explained at the time that the Government had considerable sympathy with those objectives, but that we had misgivings about the new legal tests which the noble Lord had proposed for the loss of exemption from classification. I undertook to take the amendments away with a view to tabling some amendments at Third Reading. That is what I have done, and these are the amendments. The House will owe a debt of gratitude to

177
the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, for having raised this very important matter, and I am grateful to him personally for having done so.
The first, and perhaps most important, point is that the intention of these amendments is not to ban anything. Their effect is simply that certain videos which previously escaped examination will now have to be submitted for classification before they can be supplied. The aim is to address the situation whereby a cartoon film such as "Bambi" requires classification, whereas a film which teaches assassination techniques does not.
The first of the amendments will strengthen the Video Recordings Act 1984 by narrowing the categories of video works which are exempt from classification by the British Board of Film Classification. At present pop music videos, for example, may include references to and depictions of the illegal use of drugs or other matters which are blatantly unsuitable for children; but because they are music videos they remain exempt from our video controls, provided that they do not depict human genitalia or depict or encourage sexual activity or gross violence. Similarly, so called "educational" videos may include instructions in martial arts or they may explain ways in which to manufacture explosives. Again, these are at present exempt provided that they are designed to inform and they do not actually depict gross violence and cannot be shown to be designed to encourage it.
Our amendment will therefore add,
"techniques likely to be useful in the commission of criminal offences",
to the list of matters which cannot be depicted to any significant extent in an exempted work. This will mean that in the future video works containing instructions on bomb-making, on violent unarmed combat or methods of breaking into cars or houses will no longer be exempt and will require classification by the British Board of Film Classification.
The amendment will also exclude from the exempt status those videos which do not actually illustrate criminal "techniques" but which depict criminal activity which is likely to encourage the commission of criminal offences. For example, pop videos or those dealing with car chases which portray the commission of crimes in a way which makes the idea of crime attractive and which are likely to lead to emulation, possibly by young people, will no longer be exempt from classification.
When we last discussed this subject some of your Lordships were concerned that we should not end the exemption of serious works which provide factual accounts of Nazi atrocities during the last war, for example. I do not think that such works will be covered by these amendments, as they could not be held to encourage the commission of crime to a significant degree. In fact, the opposite will be the case. Also they do not depict criminal techniques as such, although of course they may illustrate the appalling consequences of crimes. But if a documentary were to provide detailed instructions on how to murder people, or if it really were likely to encourage viewers to emulate Nazi war crimes,
178
there is a real social danger and I see no reason why it should be exempt from controls and I think that there is every reason why it should not be exempt.
The amendments do not include any specific reference to drug taking, but that is subsumed within the general category of crime. A video which illustrated how to make crack cocaine, for example, would be caught as showing a criminal technique, while a video which depicted drug abuse less specifically but in a way which was likely to encourage the young, or indeed the old, to adopt that lifestyle would be caught as being likely to encourage the commission of offences.
The amendment will also change the current objective test of whether a work is designed to stimulate or to encourage certain activities, for instance, human sexual activity or the infliction of gross violence, which may not be shown to a new objective test of whether the video work was likely to do so.
The second of the amendments will make a minor change to Section 7 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, which is the section that describes the broad categories of video classification certificate which the British Board of Film Classification may issue. The clause is designed to enable additional guidance to be given to parents on the tape itself that a work is particularly suitable for young children.
The third amendment simply ensures that the first of the amendments applies throughout the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am immensely obliged to the noble Earl for bringing back the amendments in this form. I have to admit that they are more cogently and tightly drafted than were my own. I noticed, as did the noble Earl, that the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord McIntosh, thought that the phrasing that I had adopted was wide and vague enough to have caught by mistake perhaps certain entirely innocent documentaries which it was never intended to catch. This drafting clears up the possibility of an anomaly there. I have nothing but welcome for the amendments and recommend them unreservedly to the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend use this opportunity to tell the House whether this or any other of our amendments to the Video Recordings Act has the additional benefit of allowing the other place to introduce further amendments? I believe that the rules of another place allow its Members to address only those parts of the Bill that we have altered in this House when the Bill returns to them.
I ask that question in the context of the discussion that we had at the last stage of a proposal which I made and which was dismissed somewhat lightly by some noble Lords; namely, that it should be possible to apply the new criteria in the Bill not only to the classification of new video recordings but also retrospectively to video recordings of a truly disturbing or upsetting nature such as those which gave rise to the current batch of amendments and which would not be caught by them.
At that stage I said that, notwithstanding your Lordships' cool welcome for what I proposed, I believed that the matter was under review by the Home Affairs

179
Committee in another place and that that committee might have it in mind to have such a provision. The committee report published on Wednesday last week states on page x:
"We recognise that to re-assess all 25,000 titles would be impossible, but we recommend that a transitional period of perhaps six months could be used to collect complaints from the public about specific videos. Those which attracted a significant number of complaints could then be re-assessed by the BBFC and, if necessary, reclassified. This proposal was not regarded as impractical by Mr. Ferman. We therefore recommend that the Government should re-consider its decision not to put in place a transitional scheme whereby a small number of videos which cause great public anxiety could be reclassified under the new criteria".
When I brought my proposal to the House last week, my noble friend mentioned the sympathy with which his right honourable friend had looked at the principle of retrospection and the reluctance with which he concluded that it was not practicable to pursue it. We now have the advice of a Select Committee of another place, based on the evidence of those who would have to do the work, to the effect that it is practicable. Can my noble friend say whether what we have done to the Bill will give the other place an opportunity to take that advice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was right to say that I regarded his previous amendments as much too wide and that the drafting of the current amendments is very much narrower. But I am still very unhappy about them. We are removing the exemption from videos which show how to commit a crime. If that principle is applied not just to videos but to books, which are much more effective for many of us who prefer hot media to cool media, it would outlaw the entire crime fiction profession. Are we seriously to say to the noble Baroness, Lady James of Holland Park, that because she can show how to commit a crime her books should be regulated by a regulatory authority comparable to the British Board of Film Classification?
The fundamental objection to all these amendments and to the whole principle is that one is telling people what to do in their own homes. I do not like it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton on whether anything can be done retrospectively about classification, I indicated at Report stage that there were considerable practical problems as well as other difficulties which lie in the way of any review of past video classifications, which in practice could relate to any of the 25,000 titles at present in circulation.
My noble friend referred to the report of the Home Affairs Committee. He will realise that it appeared only in the past week and we must have time to consider it. However, I can say to my noble friend that the report does not address the practical difficulties that will arise, even with the limited review exercise to which it refers. A six-month period was suggested during which those works which cause particular public concern could be the subject of a classification review. Of course we shall consider the report. But I am not aware that anything in the Bill will prevent any alteration in another place in
180
the way my noble friend had in mind should that be considered the right thing to do. But that will be a matter for another place.
Clause 89 [Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be had]:
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 75, line 14 at end insert:
("(2) In section 7(2) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (contents of classification certificates), in paragraph (a), after the words "viewing by children", there shall be inserted the words "or young children".").
Clause 100 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 83, line 12, after ("84") insert ("(4)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 is a technical amendment and merely alters a reference in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to the numbering of one of its sections. It is consequential upon changes which arise from other provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 38.
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause:
("Sexual offences revised penalties
("Sexual offences revised penalties
—(1) The following paragraphs of the Second Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (which prescribe the punishments for offences of buggery and indecency between men) shall be amended as follows
(2) In paragraph 3—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) (buggery), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "If with a person under the age of sixteen or with an animal, life; otherwise two years ", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b) (attempted buggery), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "If with a person under the age of sixteen or with an animal, life; otherwise two years "

(3) In paragraph 16—

(a) In sub-paragraph (a) (indecency between men), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "Two years "; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b) (attempted procurement of commission by a man of an act of gross indecency with another man), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "Two years. ". ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who was sent at short notice to Siberia—not by us but by his job—I rise to move Amendment No. 38. I welcome the suggestion that it should be taken together with government Amendments Nos. 39, 54 and 57, of which the important one is No. 39.
The purpose of these amendments, which I make no apology for moving at Third Reading, is to give effect to the changes which are now necessary to the penalties for gross indecency through the change in the age of

181
consent from 21 to 18 which was agreed by both Houses. The difference between Amendment No. 38 and government Amendment No. 39 is that in three cases the government amendment adds the phrase,
"if the accused is of or over the age of twenty-one and the other person is under the age of eighteen, five years".
That happens, first, for buggery, secondly, for attempted buggery and, thirdly, for indecency between men. Our proposal is much simpler. It retains the proposal that if the offence is with a person under 16 or with an animal, the penalty shall be life imprisonment; otherwise it imposes a penalty of two years.
There are a number of reasons why this is not only necessary and desirable but also consistent with other legislation. The first obvious reason is the comparison to be made with an offence committed with a girl aged 13 to 16, which in view of the difference in age one may think is more serious than an offence committed with somebody aged 16 to 18. In that case the penalty is two years. What we are proposing is consistent with that.
The second consideration is that the government amendment proposes a watershed at 21 in terms of the penalties, whereas the law will have been changed when the wishes of both Houses have been brought into effect so that the threshold age for homosexual activity is no longer 21 but 18. It is difficult to see why the shadow of the age of 21 should appear in this regard when dealing with penalties, when it does not exist anywhere else in dealing with what is and what is not permitted under the law. In both respects both the existing law and the government amendments are defective.
The argument used against our amendment at an earlier stage was the concept of "tainted consent". Ministers and other noble Lords talked of the possibility of undue influence and abuse of a position of authority; for example, in an institution of some kind. The Minister was kind enough to write to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby last Friday and I hope that he will not object if I quote some of the remarks made in the letter; it was clearly not a private letter. He recognised the need for legislative action and said,
"One answer might be to create some kind of statutory reference to the abuse of authority—in effect, to create a new offence. But we think that that would be too bold and too difficult an undertaking for this stage of the Bill. There would be real difficulties of definition and we suspect that there would be pressure to extend the scope of such an offence to other types of activity".
That has not been proposed by the Government and is nor. proposed by us. To that extent what is recognised as being a rational approach is not available to the House this afternoon. The Minister goes on to say:
"Another answer might be to remove the liability of the younger man—something which I know you would support".
That is the subject of Amendment No. 40, to which I shall return later.
In the absence of any intention by government or anybody else to deal with the question of abuse of authority or undue influence, we are left in an unsatisfactory situation if we allow the penalty to be different if the offence is between, as the Government suggest, a person over the age of 21 with a person under the age of 18.
The common and unpleasant conclusion drawn by the courts and by the press in cases of rape is that when a woman says no she really means yes. That is an extremely offensive comment to make about women and something which I hope we reject. However, by dint of having higher penalties, the government amendment is saying that when a young man says yes he really means no. I suggest that that is perhaps not equally offensive but a misinterpretation of the real situation and something which should not be encouraged by unreasonably high penalties which are out of line with the other provisions of the legislation.
The Bill has been substantially improved, notably in the past few weeks, by the bringing together of the sexual offences aspects of the Bill into a single part which can now been seen as a whole and as a major advance in legislation concerning sexual offences. Then; are many good things about it. I suggest that Amendment No. 38 would make further progress and help to rationalise not only what is and what is not criminal but also what the offences should be for what is and what is not criminal behaviour. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I certainly endorse the proposal that life imprisonment should remain the maximum sentence for committing these offences with somebody under the age of 16. But bearing in mind the liberalisation of the law relating to heterosexual buggery proposed by the Labour Benches last week and agreed to by the Government, "life" is perhaps a rather draconian maximum when this offence is committed with animals. Of course the offence is distasteful to think about, though it must be conceded that it forms the basis of hundreds of jokes of varying degrees of wit not only in this country but also in Europe and, as far as I know, in North America and Australasia. But the point that needs emphasising is that, as one might expect, this offence tends to be committed by lonely men living in remote parts of the country. Reluctant though many may be to acknowledge it, behaving in the way that they do may very well deflect them from committing the far more harmful crimes of incest or child abuse.
I am not suggesting for a single moment that this offence be decriminalised but merely that we—and in particular the Government—keep a sense of proportion about it. Would not a maximum of five or seven years be more appropriate?
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I support the government amendment on this clause, especially as that would keep the age at 21, which was the subject of the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and myself earlier on. To that extent it concurs with our views. I am horrified by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It can fairly be described as a blatant attempt to put 16 on to the face of the Bill so that there may be future opportunities to reduce the age to 16. If that amendment were passed, 16 would be on the face of the Bill. That is most reprehensible.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the comparison between girls and boys We must once again refute that suggestion completely. They are different people with different metabolisms. Their

183
sexual activities should not be compared in any way. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to support Amendment No. 39 and to reject Amendment No. 38.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I would also ask noble Lords to support the Government's amendment. Whatever may be said about trying to define different degrees of what is gross indecency or beastliness, the suggestion that it is okay to bring down the age of buggery is wholly unwholesome. As far as I am concerned, buggery and all those other things are wholly unwholesome. Nothing will change my mind that it is against what is natural and what is God given in us. The sooner that somehow or other minds can be brought to understand that, the better. We are doing a gross indecency to the human dignity of both man and woman by these different wretched things.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I was not able to speak when we were discussing the age of consent at 16, 18 or 21 under the amendment of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam but I have a message which will offset to some extent what the most reverend Primate himself advocated. It comes from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. He was not able to attend but he gave me authority to quote him. He said:
"The decisions on the age of consent will have such far-reaching effects on our society that it seemed right for them to be debated in your Lordships' House. A substantial body of opinion in the church and the country believes, without homophobia, that the lowering of the age of consent from 21 will result in moral damage to teenagers who are still developing to adult maturity. The argument of justice is flawed. It assumes equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual physical relationships. This is not so—either physically or Biblically".
Therefore there should be no suggestion that we come down to 16. I felt it was wrong to move away from 21 because 21 would in effect mean 18 and 18 would in effect mean 15½. I have now had assurances—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly going to quote at length, but does he realise that neither my amendment nor the government amendment has any relationship to the age of consent? The amendments are concerned only with penalties and with nothing else. The same comment applies to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I accept that. I was slightly wrong and I have now been assured by the letter of the Solicitor-General to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that 18 means 16 or 17, but not lower. I believed that 21 meant 18 in practice. I hope that I was wrong.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to me a moment ago and said that his reference to 16 was with regard to the age of consent. If this amendment
184
is accepted, the age of 16 in connection with the homosexual act will be on the face of the Bill. We should reject that at all costs.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is not in his place to move his amendment. He is, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, out in Siberia. I hope he enjoys it and that we shall see him back here again soon.
In speaking to the noble Lord's amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said quite correctly that we should consider government Amendment No. 39 as well as Amendments Nos. 54 and 77, which stand in my name and are consequential. I explained at the Report stage why the Government had reservations about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. In particular we were reluctant to remove the maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment for cases where an older man abuses a position of authority or trust in order to obtain sexual favours from a young man who is aged 16 or 17.I also said that I would be willing to consider, the matter further in the hope of producing some further proposals. I have done that. Indeed, we have considered the matter very carefully.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others have said about the differences between the law's protection of young women and young men. There is though a genuine concern about the sort of cases which I described at Report where people who are in authority can abuse their authority by taking advantage of young men. There is a feeling that the abuse of young men is more prevalent in those circumstances than is the abuse of young women. It is clear that the courts regard the abuse of authority or trust as a substantial aggravating factor. We would be worried about reducing their scope for dealing with the worst of those cases.
We have considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, urged us to do on Report, whether it might be possible to create some kind of statutory reference to the abuse of authority. In effect, that would create a new offence. But we think that that would be too bold and too difficult an undertaking at least for this stage of the Bill. I accept that there are models from other jurisdictions, although as a general rule they tend to operate across a range of sexual offences and to be geared to the abuse of children rather than adolescents. But in any event my concern is not whether that might not be an avenue worth exploring in the long term but only that it is not something which we can undertake now.
What we therefore propose is to leave the current maximum penalty of five years in place but to restrict it to acts which are committed by a man who is over 21 with a man who is under 18. That will allow the worst cases to be dealt with appropriately where there has been an abuse of trust or authority. By the same token we believe that such a penalty will not be appropriate, as the courts will well understand, for genuinely consensual acts where such aggravating features were not present.

185
I would not pretend that we have arrived at a perfect solution but our proposal remains true to the original intention of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which created these penalties. I do not think that we would be right to embark on a more ambitious reform of the kind suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, addressed himself. That amendment goes too far. I hope that your Lordships will approve the government amendment which is before the House today.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, since the noble.Earl kindly referred to me, perhaps I may say that he has decided not to try to import any formula about positions of authority or trust into his amendment. I appreciate that there might be considerable difficulties in drafting that. I believe he indicated that, in the long term and possibly in any future sexual offences Bill, the Government might have another look: at this. The effect of his amendment is that, from the tenor of his remarks, he has cast the net wider than he really intended. When the noble Earl winds up in the debate, perhaps he will be able to say that the Government will have another look at this matter if and when we next come to a sexual offences Bill.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will not mind if I remind them that this is Third Reading and normally noble Lords should not speak after the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has wound up in the debate and indicated that he is not satisfied with the state of the law. I find it helpful that there are attractions to a statutory reference to the abuse of authority argument. That is the only argument left for insisting on the government amendment as opposed to mine. In every other way my amendment is preferable.
Noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the government amendment are speaking because they regret the thrust of what has happened to the Bill. They regret the change to the age of consent. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was quite explicit about it. They regret the change to the age of consent from 21 years to 18 years. They have spoken about the age of consent rather than about the penalties.
I shall try to represent the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, more accurately than I did before. He feels that to change the penalties, as our amendment suggests, would be to open the door to a subsequent change in the age of consent to 16. I believe that that represents correctly what he said. I am pleased to see that he indicates consent. I believe that is what appears in Hansard. On the contrary, what is actually proposed by the government amendment is the reverse of that. The government amendment preserves the age of 21, which has no other legal significance in legislation about sexual offences. It is preserved in this one respect in that it increases the penalties. I find that very regrettable in that we are almost reintroducing the age of 21 by the back door.
186
I do not believe that we shall ever go back to 21 years as the age of consent because I do not believe that Parliament would permit it. I have no fears on that score. But it is very sad that the Government should feel unable to take what the Minister himself recognised to be the right course, which is to deal with the issue of tainted consent head on but to shelter behind changes in the penalties. If there are any real examples of what the Minister said; namely, that young men of the ages of 16 and 17 are more vulnerable than girls of 13 to 15 years of age—I shall gladly give way if the Minister wishes to tell me about any evidence—I would feel more constrained in my assertion that the penalties should not be different. The maximum penalty for any sexual offence against a girl between the ages of 13 and 15 is two years. It should be the same for a young man of the age of 16 or 17 years who is under the age of consent for homosexual activity.
I am not going to convince the House. This is a matter which even the Government recognise will have to be dealt with at some later stage. I am sorry that I have not succeeded in persuading them, although I had no expectation of persuading some of the Government's supporters in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
("Revised penalties for certain sexual offences
Revised penalties for buggery and indecency between men
.—(1) The following paragraphs of the Second Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (which prescribe the punishments for offences of buggery and of indecency between men) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) (buggery), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "If with a person under the age of sixteen or with an animal, life; if the accused is of or over the age of twenty-one and the other person is under the age of eighteen, five years, but otherwise two years."; and

(b)in sub-paragraph (b) (attempted buggery), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "If with a person under the age of sixteen or with an animal, life; if the accused is of or over the age of twenty-one and the other person is under the age of eighteen, five years, but otherwise two years.".

(3) In paragraph 16—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) (indecency between men), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "If by a man of or over the age of twenty-one with a man under the age of eighteen, five years; otherwise two years."; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b) (attempted procurement of commission by a man of an act of gross indecency with another man), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "If the attempt is by a man of or over the age of twenty-one to procure a man under the age of eighteen to commit an act of gross indecency with another man, five years; otherwise two years.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 143, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of law relating to homosexual acts
.—(1) In section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), the words after "and" shall be paragraph (a) of that subsection, and at the end there is inserted—
or,
(b) have attained the age of sixteen years and the period between their dates of birth is not more than two years beginning with the first of those dates;
or, where paragraph (b) does not apply, on the part of a party who has not attained the age of eighteen years, provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of sixteen years.".
(2) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the other matter to which the Minister referred in his letter to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby as regards the liability of the younger man in an offence between an older man and a younger man. I suggest—perhaps not with very great hope of progress with some noble Lords on the Government Benches—that not just common humanity, but a concern for health should say that when such an offence takes place the younger man should not be criminalised. In this amendment we are reflecting what happens with heterosexual offences where an offence with a girl under the age of consent is a criminal offence for the older person who commits the offence, but it is not for the younger girl.
I make it clear again in case there is any confusion about what I am saying, that nothing in this amendment changes, or seeks to change, the age of consent. It says that when a criminal act takes place only the older person should be criminalised by it. I say that not only because of the interests of common humanity. The argument about tainted consent and undue influence supports what I am saying now. This amendment is also tabled in the interests of health reasons because one of the fears which has been very clearly expressed to your Lordships and why many people argued for a lower age of consent was that a higher age of consent inhibits young people, because of the fear of either blackmail or of having committed a criminal offence, in going for help for either counselling or advice on health matters and in particular on HIV and AIDS.
If this minor amendment, which is consistent with the law on heterosexual behaviour, were carried, the inhibition on young men of 16 or 17 years of age from seeking help would be removed to some extent. They would still be taking part in a criminal act but they would not themselves be committing a crime. In common humanity, I ask your Lordships at least to consider that argument. I beg to move.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I very much hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might be considered more favourably by the House than his former amendment. I did not feel that I could speak in favour of that, but I certainly feel that this amendment
188
should be regarded most seriously by the House. It is simply saying that we do not intend to make criminals of people of 16 years of age who are engaged in this activity. Do not let us forget what that could mean to a young man at school. I beg the House to think carefully about this matter.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, perhaps I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He said that we must be careful about a child of the age of 16 years being involved in these activities at all. The fact that we put the age of 16 on the face of the Bill once again raises the matter to show that it has been considered by your Lordships and approved. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it is not a question of the age of consent. If a child is 16 years of age and is involved and has consented, that is involving the age of consent in this Bill.
I suggest that all your Lordships agree with me that the age of consent should not be reduced from 18 to 16 and that this amendment is a somewhat back-door method of introducing the age of 16 on to the face of the Bill in exactly the same way as was proposed in the previous amendment on this matter. I beg your Lordships not to accept the amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has moved deals essentially with the criminal liability of young men who commit consensual homosexual acts in private. The Government have always made clear that this is a matter which should be determined by the individual conscience of Members of both Houses of Parliament.
The amendments would provide effectively for an age of consent of 16 where there was a gap of two years or less between the ages of the two men. It would also provide that no one who is aged between 16 and 18 would be liable to prosecution for a consensual homosexual act in private with another person who is over 16. However, men over 18 who have sex with men under 18 would still be liable to prosecution if they were more than two years older than the younger man.
I realise that the noble Lord's amendment does not seek to go the whole way towards an age of consent of 16, but it would mean that no one who is aged between 16 and 18 could ever be liable to prosecution for a consensual homosexual act unless it were performed in public.
The law would provide a deterrent to homosexual activity by a young man under 18 only if the other man were significantly older—and then only if the younger man cared whether the older man were to be prosecuted. That is why I said in Committee that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, seems to come closer to an age of homosexual consent of 16 rather than of 18.
It may often be the case that the younger man is the less culpable. There may often be a good case for not prosecuting the younger man. But whether the law should intervene to decide that the younger man under 18 should never be held to have committed a criminal offence in the circumstances which are proposed by the

189
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is something for your Lordships to judge. Speaking personally, I would not be in favour of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has done well to remind the House that this is an issue of conscience involving a free vote. I culpably neglected to say so. I should have said right at the beginning of our consideration of this part of the Bill that I speak for myself and not for my noble friends who have the freedom to speak and vote as they wish on this matter.
I am still taken aback by the suggestion of both the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, and the Minister that what we are doing here is to influence the age of consent, if not actually to change it. After all, there are different provisions on sexual relations with girls who are under the age of consent but between the ages of 13 and 16. That does not mean that the age of 13 becomes, by implication or explicitly, the new age of consent. What we are proposing here is what happens already in cases involving girls aged 13 to 15—that is to say, that those who have sexual relations with young girls are guilty of criminal offences but the girls are not. It still seems entirely rational to say that the same provisions should apply to young men who are just under the age of consent—in other words, aged 16 or 17. They will still be engaged in what is a criminal offence for the older man but should not be for themselves.
The Minister made no attempt to answer the arguments about the health or sexual counselling issues which I raised and which have been of concern to a number of noble Lords.
I understand that in 1992 there were only 12 convictions for homosexual age of consent offences in private. It could therefore be argued that this is a relatively small issue affecting very few people. On that basis, I do not think that I shall ask your Lordships to go through the Lobbies on this issue—quite apart from the fact that it is obvious that I would lose. However, I hope that the point has been made. Indeed, the time will come—unfortunately, not in this Bill—when these matters will have to be cleared up. I hope that they will be cleared up in well considered legislation and that Parliament will consider all of the effects of what it is legislating for. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 [Extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy]:
Viscount Cranborne Viscount Cranborne moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 114, leave out lines 11 and 12.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
In Committee your Lordships supported the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Boardman to what has now become Clause 144. Your Lordships will remember that the purpose of that amendment was to put on the face of the Bill a statement to the effect
190
that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the services and the Merchant Navy would not affect their ability to discharge homosexuals.
Your Lordships may also remember that I argued in Committee that we did not need such an amendment: since the clause as it then stood did not affect our rights as employers to carry out such discharges and it would remain our clear policy that the Armed Forces would discharge homosexuals. However, my noble friend's amendment was accepted by the Committee. The Committee therefore sent a clear signal that it saw a need for our policy to be underpinned by a statement in the Bill, and, as I said in Committee, we had no difficulty—indeed, very much the reverse—with my noble friend's underlying purpose.
We have therefore had another look at Clause 144 in the light of the incorporation of my noble friend's amendment. We have also looked at Clause 145, which effectively extends the provisions of Clause 144 to Northern Ireland. My noble friend did not offer an amendment to Clause 145 in Committee —although I believe that he stated an intention to do so in due course. But clearly the two clauses should be consistent with each other.
As a result, the Government are now proposing further amendments to Clauses 144 and 145. We judge that the amendments have three principal effects. First, they seek to reflect faithfully the intentions of the amendment carried in Committee. I am delighted to note that my noble friend is indicating assent to that.
Secondly, the amendments seek to tidy up that amendment in order to remove what seemed to us to be an inexact terminology. My noble friend's amendment dealt with discharge from the Armed Forces and discharge from the Merchant Navy as if these were the same processes. They are not, as your Lordships will readily understand, and the new wording incorporates the terminology appropriate to each case. I understand that in the Merchant Navy the most suitable sanction corresponding to discharge from the services is "dismissal from the ship".
Thirdly, the amendments seek to make explicit the continuing ability of the services to prosecute in those cases where the circumstances surrounding the otherwise legal homosexual act are such that the behaviour undermines good order and discipline. Such circumstances would include an abuse of rank or sexual activity aboard one of Her Majesty's ships. These are cases where we would prosecute whether the activity was homosexual or heterosexual. Our policy on this has been as clear and consistent as it has been on the discharge of homosexuals.
The basic arguments underpinning both our policy and my noble friend's amendment were articulated clearly in Committee and, unless your Lordships particularly wish me to do so, I do not propose to rehearse them now. However, I should like to emphasise that we believe that it is critical in a disciplined hierarchical environment such as the services to embody safeguards in service law and service practice to ensure that the junior in rank, who are often the younger members of the forces, are not pressured into participating in sex by their superiors. Nor is it

191
acceptable from the point of view of maintaining discipline for sexual activity to occur on warships or in other essentially operational settings. Those prohibitions apply to all sex between women and men as much as between members of the same sex, and they need to be backed up by the services' disciplinary framework.
Amendment No. 43 extends to Clause 145 the effect of the amendment to Clause 144, thus ensuring that the legal position throughout the UK is consistent. I hope therefore that my noble friend Lord Boardman will agree that the amendments fulfil the aims that he set out in Committee. I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling the amendments which carry out, more effectively than did my amendment, the intention of the House. They put clearly on the face of the Bill the powers that the services and the Merchant Navy have to dismiss or discharge, as may be appropriate, those who commit an act which, although decriminalised, remains an offence under military order and discipline, and similarly in the other services. I am most grateful to my noble friend for the consideration that he has given to the points and for the amendments which fully carry out the intention which was contained in my amendment but do so in a much better form. I support the amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend, but as the matter is from the legislative point of view complicated and with a great deal of cross-reference to previous legislation, I wonder whether I may presume to try to summarise its effect, as I understand it. Of course, if I do not get it right, I shall be open to correction, and then it will have been of general benefit to have been corrected.
As I understand it, homosexual practices will no longer in themselves be illegal in the Armed Forces or on board ships, but if they occur, although they will not give rise to criminal offences, they can be a ground for discharge from the Armed Forces or the ship. However, they can also be regarded, so long as there are other facts which make them contrary to military or naval discipline, as disciplinary offences. That seems to summarise the position. I only hope that I have it right. The position is complicated, but if my noble friend or my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the former Lord Advocate, were prepared to confirm that, it could be of advantage.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with permission, I may be able to help my noble friend. As I understand it, the position is wholly as he describes it. I should like to emphasise that in the Armed Forces the fact of homosexuality and homosexual activity would make the homosexual subject to administrative discharge which would imply that the individual's services would no longer be required. Administrative discharge is a general reason which describes unsuitability for the Armed Forces but carries with it no sense of obloquy in that there is no stain on the character of the person discharged. That has particular practical and beneficial
192
effects for the individual because it should not interfere with his ability to obtain a job in civilian life. I hope that that is some help to my noble friend.
Viscount Cranborne Viscount Cranborne moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 114, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 30 and insert ("prevent a homosexual act (with or without other acts or circumstances) from constituting a ground for discharging a member of Her Majesty's armed forces from the service or dismissing a member of the crew of a United Kingdom merchant ship from his ship or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty's armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances, from constituting an offence under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957.
Expressions used in this subsection and any enactment repealed by this section have the same meaning in this subsection as in that enactment.").
Clause 145 [Homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland]:
Viscount Cranborne Viscount Cranborne moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 114, line 37, at end insert:
("(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent a homosexual act (with or without other acts or circumstances) from constituting a ground for discharging a member of Her Majesty's armed forces from the service or dismissing a member of the crew of a United Kingdom merchant ship from his ship or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty's armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances, from constituting an offence under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957.
Expressions used in this subsection and any enactment repealed by this section have the same meaning in this subsection as in that enactment.").
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 145, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in Scotland
.—In section 80(6) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (which defines "homosexual act" for the purposes of section 80), after "gross indecency" there is inserted "or shameless indecency".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 69. The amendments are technical. They correct drafting faults in Section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. Section 80 decriminalised consenting homosexual acts in private over the age of 21 and brought Scottish law into line with the Sexual Offences Act 1967. But because of a defect in Section 80 of the 1980 Act prosecutions were still possible for the common law offence of shameless indecency.
It has been recognised that that was inconsistent and there have been a number of academic papers on the subject. The Lord Advocate issued prosecution guidelines two years ago which recognised the problem of the inconsistency of the law. It seems sensible to deal with the matter by an amendment, even at this late stage, which removes the inconsistency between Scottish

193
common law and Scottish legislation. I am grateful for the intimation I have had that the amendment is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the need for the amendment has been postulated for some time by various academic texts on Scots law. The fear is that because acts of shameless indecency are not referred to explicitly in the definition of homosexual acts, the provisions of Section 80 that decriminalise homosexual acts may not apply to acts of shameless indecency. If that were true it would be possible to prosecute two adult men engaging in consensual homosexual activity in private, despite the existing provisions of Section 80.
While we are not wholly persuaded that those concerns are as well-founded as some believe, and the current provisions do not appear to have given rise to any real practical problems, we recognise that there is anxiety on the part of some people. We believe, as always in the criminal law, that it should be as clear as possible and that those anxieties should be allayed. Therefore, for the avoidance of future doubt, as the noble Lord has said, I am happy to recommend that the amendments be agreed to. They will confirm what we believe to be the existing position rather than in any sense extend it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that confirmation. It cannot be often that gay and lesbian rights organisations in Scotland can draft amendments which go on to the statute book, but Outright Scotland which did draft the amendment will be as grateful as I am for what the Minister has said.
Clause 146 [Criminal Injuries Compensation]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 114, line 41, leave out from ("1988") to end of line 3 on page 115 and insert:
("—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words after "any provision" there shall be substituted the words "brought into force under subsection (1) above,"; and

(b) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) Sections 108 to 117 above and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is passed.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 64. Both amendments relate to Clause 146 which concerns criminal injuries compensation. Your Lordships will recall that this clause resulted from an amendment whose purpose was to require the Government to bring into force within six months after the date upon which the Bill receives Royal Assent the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which related to putting the current compensation scheme for those injured by violent crime on a statutory basis, that scheme providing for what is known as common law damages.
I rise to speak to these two amendments as the somewhat inadequate alter ego of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who did not wish to be too associated with the merits of this excellent amendment. He has pointed out to me in the following terms the technicalities with which both amendments seek to deal. The measure is to provide for the replacing of Section 171(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 but the old Section 171(2) is not yet spent. Old subsection (2) extends the commencement order which makes powers under subsection (1) to enable transitional provisions to be made in relation to provisions to be brought into force which do not include those concerning the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
There are still a few such provisions of the 1988 Act which have not been brought into force: for example, Section 32(1) (a) and (3) which is in force in respect of some offences only; Sections 150 and 151(1) to (4), and some provisions in Schedules 15 and 16. The possibility of transitional provisions for at least some of these provisions, I am told, cannot be ruled out. Thus, Section 171 (2) ought not simply to be replaced.
It was accordingly the view of the noble Earl that it would be better to amend Section 171(2) and to add a new subsection (2) (a). He was good enough to enclose a draft, which I have followed. While leaving the underlying aim of the clause unaltered, that would clarify the point at which the statutory scheme should come into force.
Amendment No. 64 arises as a result of concern north of the Border. While Section 171 as originally enacted, so I am told, extended to Scotland as well as to England and Wales (by virtue of Section 172(2)) it does not follow that all subsequent amendments to that section will necessarily so extend. Indeed, I am told by the Scottish Office that it is not at all uncommon for amendments to sections of Acts to have a more limited territorial extent than the section as originally enacted. One example of that with close parallels to our present situation is Section 119(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That substituted for England and Wales only a new subsection (2) in Section 8 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which as originally enacted applied throughout Great Britain. Accordingly, if the amendment to Section 171 of the 1988 Act to be made by Clause 146 is to extend to Scotland as well as to England and Wales, the extent clause of the Bill should expressly provide that Clause 146 so extends. I have followed the terms of the amendment so provided. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for tabling these amendments. They overcome the small technical difficulty that exists in his Clause 146, which was added to the Bill following debates in Committee on 16th June. I am entirely content with those correcting amendments.
Your Lordships will recall that the Government were not greatly enamoured of the inclusion of the new clause. Our position on its merits remains the same but it is important that the Bill should leave here for another place in a correct state. On that basis, I am content with the amendment.
Clause 162 [Local authority powers to provide closed-circuit television]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 127, line 21, leave out ("and Wales").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. These are tidying up amendments to Clause 162, which gives local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland specific powers to spend money on the installation of closed-circuit television systems in their areas for the purpose of crime prevention. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 127, line 22, after ("council;") insert:
("( ) in Wales, a county council or county borough council;").
Page 127, line 27, at end insert:
("(5) Until 1st April 1996, in this section "local authority" means, in Wales, a county council or district council.").
6.30 p.m.
Clause 165 [Sale of tickets for designated football matches by unauthorised persons]:
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 131, line 43, at end insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the provisions of this section so that they apply to any sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say for the record that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has been omitted from the amendment. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61.
At various stages of the Bill the amendment has been supported by noble Lords on all sides. It is also supported by those involved in the major sports which suffer the problem of ticket touting, with which we are here concerned. Representatives of tennis, cricket, rugby and professional golf have expressed their support for this amendment.
At an earlier stage, and in the middle of the night, we had an opening skirmish. It was clear then, as now, that the difference between the Minister and myself did not relate to the Bill's existing proposals to stop ticket touting at football matches. I support the Bill's proposals relating to football. In Committee, I considered that our arguments failed ever to meet because the Minister was dealing with other important points which on the whole were not the points that I was making. However, we differ in that the Government refuse to recognise that there is a law and order problem in respect of sports other than football.
It is not the same problem as in relation to football. There is not what at an earlier stage the Minister called the mayhem which arises when ticket touts sell to football supporters of opposing teams tickets for adjacent seats and so prevent the separation that is
196
necessary for a peaceful game. The Taylor Report addressed that problem and the Government have followed the recommendation and proposed a remedy.
The fact that that particular problem does not exist in other sports does not mean that there is not a serious ticket touting problem. There is a serious problem but it is different. It is described in a letter that I received from the chairman of the National Arenas Association. The association represents all the venues which host sporting events in the 8,000 to 13,000-spectator category. He stated:
"We have all been plagued for years by the growing boldness of the ticket tout in exploiting particularly our concert clientele",
but the problem also relates to sports,
"and, unless their activities lead to a breach of the peace the police are powerless to intervene".
The chairman states that the national venues,
"have all seen at first hand the harassment, exploitation and confusion of the consumer in these circumstances and believe that the legislation should be applied to all forms of entertainment involving audiences over 6,000".
I propose to be practical, and the amendment applies only to sport.
The problem exists in vivid form at Wimbledon. Officials of the All England Lawn Tennis Club have made public their concern. They describe the various criminal activities in which the ticket touts at Wimbledon are involved, including intimidation, theft and fraud. Wimbledon officials have been threatened with violence. One official was visited at home by the touts in the middle of the night and was warned to lay off attempting to interfere with the touts' activities.
Some of the hospitality businesses which link with the touts are organised:
"upon criminal lines with people hiding behind nominee directors, accommodation addresses and anonymous addresses".
The Minister will have seen, because I showed it to him—and I recommend it to all noble Lords, although I do not normally recommend the gutter press—the News of the World of 26th June. There is a full-page article about this year's Wimbledon which describes in very exciting fashion touts offering packages of tickets, illegal drugs and prostitutes. Ministers should be aware of that and the problems which arise from touts intimidating young people. The touts snatch tickets from their young hands and threaten them.
Ministers should be aware of the unsavoury situation which arose around Southfields Station or in the car parks. According to an official witness, there was persistent harassment of spectators as they left the station. They had to run the gauntlet of that vicious group of runners who were determined to frighten as many of the general public as possible into parting with their tickets.
I know that some noble Lords from a previous better age have in their minds a romantic picture of individual entrepreneurs who are sufficiently clever and bold to buy a ticket for £10 and to sell it on for £15. They believe that that is a good market operation which should not be deterred. I wholly sympathise with that approach but that is a romantic view from a better past.

197
It bears no relationship whatever to the seedy and vicious activities which are carried on today by the touts.
The Wimbledon club has received countless complaints from members of the public who have been insulted, threatened and spat upon when they refused to part with tickets to those vicious touts. Threatening behaviour is rife.
Many of the customers are foreign tourists who do not realise and cannot be expected to realise that the tickets for which they pay large sums of money become worthless when transferred to them. They are forbidden entry to the event and have been defrauded. This year, club security men who tried to warn visitors were subjected to insults and threats of violence by the touts. A club official who attempted to photograph the touts in operation was attacked physically and his camera was grabbed and smashed. I plead with the Minister not to say in his reply that there is no problem and that it is merely the market operating. That is a very nasty market and we do not want it to operate.
I have many more examples with which I shall not detain your Lordships. I was tempted to say that it defies belief that the Home Office should still insist that there is no problem except with regard to football. But anyone who knows the tower bunker where the Home Office hides opposite St. James's Park—I know it well—will not be in any way surprised to learn that the Home Office may be a trifle ignorant of what is happening in the murky real world outside.
At an earlier stage the Minister argued that those offences are covered under existing law—that is one of the main approaches—and therefore, there is no need for any action to be taken. Although that is strictly true, in reality and in practice it is irrelevant. The reality in the real world is that those technical offences are not pursued by the police because they believe that there is no opportunity to secure convictions under existing law. The police have made that clear. The police at Wimbledon have made it clear that they would like the amendment to be passed because it would enable them to control those disreputable activities.
The existing law does not protect the public. Nor can the clubs provide sufficient private security to protect the public. The clubs know that and they have said it. The police know that and the public know that. Apparently, only the Home Office does not know it.
Wimbledon has stated that it is:
"faced with an ongoing problem and it is being forced to expend many tens of thousands of pounds on security and back-up every year in order to protect its customers from the touts' operations. It goes without saying that all that money would go straight into the development of lawn tennis in this country if the touting problem and their harassment of the general public could be avoided".
The club goes on to say:
"This would be simply achieved by making it an offence under the new section of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill".
That is precisely what I propose.
The amendment on the Marshalled List has been changed since the Committee stage in one significant way; we now merely ask the Government to take the powers to deal with this problem by statutory instrument should they wish to. If they continue to believe that
198
there is no problem, then they need not activate it. But, if the touting problem continues to grow worse as it has done in recent years, then this Government or a future government will have the power to deal with it and there will be no need to take up the time of Parliament with primary legislation to secure that.
The change is very reasonable. I cannot see on what basis the Government could refuse to accept the amendment. It simply gives the Government the power to take action if they wish to do so. Should the; amendment be rejected and the rest of the Bill go through, the ludicrous situation will arise that in early September a Mafia tout will quite legally have a ticket for the NatWest cup final at Lord's in his left hand while he can be arrested for touting the Arsenal tickets which he has in his right hand. To me, that typifies how illogical and almost ludicrous the situation will be without our amendment.
I believe that the amendment is modest, constructive and helpful and is supported by the sports concerned. It makes a logical, reasonable and practical improvement to the Bill and as such, I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has moved it so lucidly and convincingly that there is little for me to add.
First, I should explain that by an unfortunate oversight, my name does not appear at the top of the amendment together with that of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and two other noble Lords. However, my name does appear on Amendment No. (51. Therefore, I repeat that I warmly support the amendment. I should also perhaps declare an interest, as I am a member of the All England Lawn Tennis Club. Like the noble Lord, I have heard a great deal about the difficulties from which it suffers in relation to the touts.
I appreciate that Clause 165 was introduced originally to implement the recommendations of the Taylor Report. As chairman of the Football Trust, I am only too well aware of the difficulties of controlling hooligans and the importance of segregating fans inside football grounds. The whole of that is brought to nothing if touts are allowed to sell tickets regardless of the segregation of people in the grounds. I fully accept the necessity for the clause and applaud the Government for having introduced it.
Unfortunately, it is also true that other sports, especially tennis at Wimbledon, suffer from the activities of touts, much of it of a criminal nature. The All England Lawn Tennis Club has for many years had the settled policy of selling tickets at reasonable prices; so that the average member of a tennis club, or indeed the many fans who queue outside the club every year, should be able to afford them. But when that is combined with the fact that other people are prepared to pay very large sums for these tickets it provides an ideal hunting ground for touts. The club has had long experience of their disgraceful activities. There are countless complaints from the public of being threatened and insulted when they refuse to sell their tickets to touts who will stick at nothing to get them. They work in gangs, and the more difficult it becomes to buy or sell

199
tickets around the stadium the further afield they go. For example, they are present all round Southfields station where people arrive by underground or bus to go to the stadium. The scene there has been likened to the back streets of Calcutta where every visitor is harassed unmercifully by beggars. Those are the conditions from which the club suffers. There are complaints from people who pay touts large amounts for tickets but find that the tickets are invalid and worthless.
At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that these were criminal offences. Unfortunately, in such cases the law is impossible to enforce. However, my noble friend showed no inclination at previous stages to be willing to enlarge the clause to include other sporting venues, and so the amendment was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. That seems to me to be eminently sensible. It simply allows a future Secretary of State to apply the clause in other cases by statutory instrument should the situation so warrant. In the opinion of many, there are already enough complaints for it to be brought in now. Regardless of that, all we ask is that the Secretary of State be given the power, should it be necessary and the situation deteriorates further, to bring in other sports as well as football. It simply provides flexibility in future to deal with criminal behaviour without the need to go through the whole rigmarole of primary legislation.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, my press cutting does not come from what may be termed the gutter press, but from the Evening Standard. The item in question happened to be printed the day after Report stage. In almost capital letters it said "Punish the touts". It went on to say that the chief executive and the chief inspector, who was head of policing at Wimbledon, both wanted the anti-tout law to be changed.
I gave the impression at Report stage that I felt it wrong to buy a ticket at face value and then for it to be sold on at a highly inflated value. Although that might be helpful to a ticket tout and encourage him to make a lot of money, I agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that it is really a matter of private enterprise and it would be improper to deny somebody the opportunity to make something extra where there is a buyer prepared to pay that much more. But I should have thought that if, quite rightly, touting were to be banned from football events there would be no logical argument for a ban not to be applied to other sporting events.
At Report stage my noble friend Lord Ferrers said:
"In all the instances which have been given—whether it is tickets for … Wimbledon or any of these other places … there has been no evidence of public riot, public trouble or public mayhem, and therefore there is no point in introducing controls".—[Official Report, 20/6/94; col. 150.]
From that it appears that my noble friend is suggesting—I cannot believe that this is so—that we must wait until there is trouble, mayhem or riots before controls are brought in. I should have thought that prevention was better than cure, not only in this matter but in all others. I agree that from my noble friend's
200
point of view the amendment tabled at Report stage possibly went too far. He did not like the idea of having the Government's hands necessarily tied to a firm piece of legislation.
I believe that the amendment now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is sensible. In effect, it is primary legislation that gives the Government power, if they foresee trouble or if trouble emerges, to extend the law on football touting. Obviously, the Government recognise that there is a problem in regard to touting in one area, so what is sauce for the goose may well be sauce for the gander. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to take this on board.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, claimed that those of us who believed in the free operation of the law of supply and demand were romantics. He may or may not be right, but what cannot be denied is that if tickets for Wimbledon and similar events are priced at the market rate in the first place none of the unsavoury touting activities that he describes will take place at all, because there will be no profit in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has conceded that Wimbledon tickets are underpriced compared with what people are prepared to pay. One cannot buck the law of supply and demand in the long term. It will always win out in the end. Therefore, I cannot show any enthusiasm for the amendment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I have been a member of Wimbledon for some years. When I first played in junior Wimbledon in the 1930s the standards were much lower than they are today. I believe that I have been there every year since, but I have never seen such a change in scenario. It was a very respectable, patient and enthusiastic crowd. It has now become an event that is televised all over the world. Everyone wants to win Wimbledon. Whatever one is paid, it is Wimbledon that is the top. I believe that the way the event is televised does this country great honour. I happened to be in charge of the televising of it for the first time in 1938. I am glad that that has been built upon.
Two 13 year-old boys queued all night. As one leaves Wimbledon at seven or eight o'clock at night the queues extend all the way along the upper and lower roads. People are prepared to stay there to get tickets and, when there are Britons in the event, to cheer them on. They are now besieged by touts—and pretty tough touts they are—who prepared to knock the chaps about if they do not sell. Out of sheer fright they will pass on the tickets. Admittedly, sometimes the figure involved is near to £100 but people involved in hospitality packages are prepared to pay up to £2,500 for two tickets. It is no good saying one can deal with these people because once one has taken the tickets away the tout disappears into the crowd. He has done his business for the day and disappears. No one knows his name or address. Generally, touts would give a phoney address and it would not be possible to trace them. The present situation is not good enough.

201
Last year, I believe, £14 million was handed over from the profits at Wimbledon to help young people to learn to play tennis. That money was passed to the Lawn Tennis Association. Therefore the LTA wants order and discipline to be introduced into the matter. The staff at Wimbledon are desperately anxious to get rid of the touts, as are the police. At the moment tens of thousands of pounds are spent on police and other protection. For all the reasons I have mentioned, I ask my noble friend to accept the amendment. I do not want to go home and hear on the radio that the Government have been defeated yet again in the House of Lords. This is a good measure and it has been modified just to give the Minister the power in the future to extend the provision we are discussing beyond football to other sporting events where there is a need to impose law and order in this regard. I very much hope that my noble friend will support the amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I wish briefly to support the amendment. I must declare an interest and therefore experience of this matter. I am currently a mere vice-president of Wimbledon which is a great honour but it does not involve much experience. However, for many years I was a member of the committee. Therefore I have had to cope with this matter and I know that it has become worse.
This is much more than a free market operation. We may not be discussing the mayhem that can be experienced at a football match; nevertheless the situation is becoming pretty serious. Spectators have been mentioned. Would-be spectators are subject to intimidation and harassment as, sadly, are club officials and staff. Many more residents in and around Wimbledon are beginning to suffer from touts invading their gardens, hiding in their gardens or springing out from their gardens. We receive many complaints from local residents asking why touts cannot be dealt with. I beg the Government to realise that this is an incipient law and order problem, if not on the scale of Hillsborough, at least on a scale which amounts to disruption of good public order and the provision of decent amenity.
While I can understand the Government saying in Committee that they did not want to act now, I beg them to think again about the present amendment which does not force them to act now but gives them the power to act if the situation—as those of us who know about it, fear—becomes worse, as it has rapidly been doing year by year. To put it aside now and then to be told later that we need more primary legislation to contain a situation which has become obviously a local law and order problem on a substantial scale, would, I believe, be foolish.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, did not move his amendments to this clause at Report stage I thought, in the way one sometimes does, that he might have been persuaded by the speech I delivered in Committee during which I explained why the offence of ticket touting for football matches, which Clause 165 creates, should not be extended beyond football. I then had second thoughts. I realised that the noble Lord might have preferred to be in his bed rather
202
than at the House moving amendments because had he moved his amendments that would have occurred at about 2 o'clock in the morning. I have no doubt that that is probably the reason he did not move the amendments.
The Government are put in some difficulty. I realise how strongly the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, feels about the matter. He has expressed those feelings both in public and in private, as indeed have your Lordships. However, it makes it difficult when at the very last stage of the Bill a new proposal of a different kind is produced. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing says he hopes he will not switch on his radio and hear that the Government have been defeated in the House of Lords again. I agree with that, but I remind your Lordships that we are at the very last stage of the Bill. I must address your Lordships to the thoughts behind the Bill.
I listened carefully to what was said in support of the amendments, but before I deal with the points which have been made it may be of help if I first explain why the Government decided to take action against ticket touts in relation to football. Clause 165 is intended to implement the specific recommendations of the Taylor Report—that is why we took action—namely, that the touting of tickets for and on the day of a designated football match should be made illegal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, identified two evils brought about by ticket touts. The first was that touts did not discriminate as to whom they sold tickets The result among other things, was that their activities undermined the segregation arrangements which most if not all, clubs operate. This has been designed for the good reason of keeping rival supporters at opposite ends of the stadium so that they do not fight. The second reason was that the very presence of ticket touts outside, or in the vicinity of, a ground can act as a catalyse for disorder as it encourages those who are without tickets to travel to the ground in the hope that they may obtain one. That can sometimes result in unruly behaviour. In other words action was necessary as regards football for reasons of public order and public safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, wants the provision to be extended to tennis, cricket, rugby and golf. I can understand why there is anxiety. I think he said that at Wimbledon people were threatened with violence in the middle of the night. My noble friend Lord Aberdare also referred to that. Of course those are themselves criminal offences. My noble friend Lord Aberdare said that even though they are criminal offences they cannot be enforced. I wonder whether that is a bad reason for making yet another criminal offence.
Your Lordships have referred to the activity of ticket touts who operate at sporting events such as Wimbledon. But many of the activities described, such as touts deceiving their customers as to the type of tickets they are selling or touts who obtain tickets by theft, fraud or intimidation, can already be dealt with under the criminal law. I know that many people are deeply offended when they see tickets being sold outside an event at grossly inflated prices. However, one wonders whether it is appropriate that government should take action in this regard or whether such activity should be made a criminal offence.

203
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that one cannot buck the law of supply and demand. We have always taken the view that if an organisation is selling its tickets below the price which the market will absorb, that is a matter which the organisation might reasonably wish to address. As my noble friend Lord Aberdare said, if staff are selling tickets at a relatively low price at Wimbledon they are doing that so that people can watch tennis at a reasonable price. Equally, touts would not sell their tickets at grossly inflated prices if people were not prepared to pay for them. In other words, if people are content to pay exorbitant prices for a ticket, one wonders why it should be necessarily a criminal offence to sell the ticket. Those are the reasons why the Government have felt that the correct course is for ticket touting to be an offence where it creates public disorder. I recognise that your Lordships have been anxious about this matter, and in particular about Wimbledon, golf tournaments, Ascot, Henley and other events.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has been fairly crafty with his amendment. He said that if your Lordships accept the amendment it does not oblige the Government to bring the provision into effect straightaway. It may be brought into operation only if circumstances become so bad that it is considered appropriate, and that would have to be done by order. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that I find that an attractive argument. In fact, it is so attractive that I find it quite hard to resist. If we were to accept the amendment that would not be contrary to the Government's reasonable principle that prevention of ticket touting should be undertaken only where public disorder would result.
However, I can see the argument which was put forward by my noble friend behind me—who asked why we should wait until there was a riot or other problem before taking action—that there would be no provision on the statute book to allow such action to be taken. I find that a persuasive argument. I shall be content to accept the amendment if that is the wish of the House.
7 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not have anything prepared to say. I have to turn to older hands beside me for advice as to what one says. I asked whether I should say "Thank you" to the Minister. I was advised to say "Thank you very much". That is indeed what I say. It is very good that the Minister has listened to the arguments. We changed the amendment. I see how the earlier amendment presented the Minister with difficulties. I am very grateful. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords:No!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I commend the amendment to the House.
Clause 171 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 133, line 34, after ("instrument") insert ("not later than twelve months after the day on which this Act is passed").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises in these circumstances. In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provided for the criminal injury compensation scheme to be made statutory, it was provided that that should be brought into effect on such date as the Minister should decide. When the Minister not only refused to bring the scheme into force but decided to repudiate Parliament's will by deciding on an executive scheme which required no parliamentary discussion or consent, judicial review proceedings were taken to test whether the Minister was acting lawfully, intra vires, within his powers. As I mentioned to the House in Committee, the Divisional Court held that the Minister had acted lawfully but that decision is now pending appeal.
It was argued on behalf of the Minister in the Divisional Court proceedings that a provision which enables a Minister to bring into force sections on such date as he may decide not only gives the Minister discretion, as it clearly does, as to when to do so but also as to whether to bring it into force at all; and, in addition, not only to decide not to bring it in despite Parliament having decided that it should be brought in but, off his own bat and of his own volition, to produce in that particular case a scheme which is totally contrary to what Parliament had decreed.
In those circumstances it appeared to a number of us to be essential in future in order to avoid judicial review proceedings—which I am sure will be welcomed by the Government—that provision should be made in terms for a time limit to be placed upon when the appropriate provision should be brought in. Referring to a particular provision in a statute, the Divisional Court said that, if Parliament decreed a specific time, there would be no entitlement on the Minister, other than by coming back to Parliament for its concurrence, to do other than obey the time limit.
Accordingly we have suggested that there should be inserted after the word "instrument" in Clause 171, on line 34 of page 133, the words:
"not later than twelve months after the day on which this Act is passed".
I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, normally your Lordships leave to the Minister at his discretion when to bring an Act or a provision of an Act into force. That is convenient because he knows when administrative arrangements permit that. Therefore, normally such a provision is not subject to any parliamentary control these days, although formerly it was. My noble and learned friend has explained why it is no longer safe to leave that kind of decision to the Minister.
For a number of years there was a scheme of criminal injury compensation which was non-statutory. Parliament then decided to translate that into a statutory scheme and provided in detail for that scheme in the schedules to the 1988 Act. That Act gave the Minister the power to bring the scheme into force at his discretion. He chose to use that discretion as to the time of bringing the scheme into force not to bring it into force at all but instead to substitute a quite different scheme, again a non-statutory scheme, of his own

205
devising. That was completely at variance with what Parliament had decided, both as to the content of the scheme and as to whether the scheme should be brought into force.
As my noble and learned friend said, whether that was legal is awaiting a decision by the Court of Appeal. Whether or not it was legal, it was undoubtedly unconstitutional because in effect the Minister was cocking a snook at Parliament, doing exactly what Parliament had shown that it did not want done and not doing what Parliament had clearly enacted and obviously desired should be brought into effect.
That being so, it is no longer safe to leave to a Minister, at any rate without a general disclaimer, the former power which your Lordships and the other place always conceded; namely, when to bring an Act into force. It is now necessary to ensure that he does in fact bring the Act into force within a reasonable time and thus vindicates Parliament's intention. Without such a provision, your Lordships will be left indefinitely as regards every Act in a situation in which a Minister acts, as did the present Minister, to disregard entirely the wishes of Parliament and, instead of bringing a provision into force, uses his discretion as to the time at which it shall be brought into force not to bring the measure into force at all—in fact to ensure that it is not operative. I strongly support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will perhaps give me the opportunity of explaining to your Lordships the Government's intentions regarding the implementation of the Bill. I realise that the reason why the noble and learned Lord put the amendment down— the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale confirmed it—is because of a certain problem which we had about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—rather unfairly, I thought —said that the Government were cocking a snook at Parliament because they had not brought into effect by order that which had been provided for in a previous Criminal Justice Act.
I do not believe that we want to go over the ground very much again. There were reasons why that provision was not introduced: first, because for various reasons there was a request not to bring the provision in straight away; and, secondly, after that it was realised and determined that the scheme needed to be changed significantly. That was what was done. I therefore hope that your Lordships will not regard that as cocking a snook at Parliament; or indeed that because that happened, every Act must in future contain this kind of amendment ensuring that all parts of the Bill are brought into effect at the same time.
As your Lordships know, some of the Bill's measures will come into force immediately upon Royal Assent. These are set out in Clause 171(4), and they relate primarily to the provision by contractors of secure training centres and private contracts in the prison service; to the measures on trespass and public order; to the prohibition on ticket touting at football matches and to the homosexual age of consent. In addition, the Bill specifies that Clause 82—which refers to offences
206
relating to terrorism—is to come into force exactly two months after Royal Assent. The commencement of Clause 80—which refers to the repeal of certain provisions relating to gypsy sites—is now subject to the requirements which were inserted by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley, and which are set out in Clause 171.
It is intended that the remaining provisions—the majority of the Bill—will be brought into force on appointed days by means of commencement orders which will be made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. Can he give me any assurance that those provisions will be brought into effect; and, if so, within what measurable time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, stretches me a little too far on that. There are about 170 clauses in the Bill. I cannot tell him exactly when each one will be brought in and the circumstances required in order for them to be brought in. But it is certainly the intention to bring those clauses into effect. Otherwise we should not have put them in the Bill and incurred the wrath of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for having made the Bill as long as it is.
The provisions will be brought into operation by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor by means of commencement orders. We have to have a degree of flexibility over the precise timing of those different orders because some of the Bill's provisions will require a good deal of preparatory work before they can be implemented. Others are much simpler and can be brought into force more quickly.
Some of the Bill's measures, for example, will require changes to the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; and that is not necessarily a quick thing to do. Others will necessitate changing rules of court. Those changes in turn cannot be completed without careful and considered consultation including several procedures which may be required by statute. I think that we should be ill advised to lay down a rigid timetable for implementation of the measures.
It is the Government's intention that all the measures in the Bill shall be implemented as soon as practicable. But a wide range of factors affects the exact timing at which we can bring each one of them into force. A degree of flexibility is essential. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, realises that. That being so, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I welcome the assurance that the noble Earl has given us that the Government intend to bring in all the provisions. If they fail to do so, as they did with the Criminal Justice Act of six years earlier, we shall have their own stick with which to beat them.

207
The reason for the amendment has been explained by myself and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. It is an indication of justifiable indignation as to the way in which the Government behaved in regard to the criminal compensation situation. I do not propose to go over that ground at this stage. However, I shall have something short and relatively succinct to say a little later in the course of today's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 133, line 40, leave out ("and repeals") and insert (", repeals and revocations").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 63, 70 and 71. Those are all technical amendments. They ensure that subsections (4), (7) and (17) of Clause 171 cover not only repeals but also revocations. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 133, line 42, after ("79") insert ("80(1) so far as it repeals sections 10 to 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968,").
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 133, line 43, after ("141") insert ("142").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it might have been of assistance if Amendment No. 53 had been grouped with Amendment No. 54. The amendments display a startling similarity. If the noble Earl tells me that his amendment makes the same provision, and does so in a better way, I shall willingly withdraw my amendment.
At Report stage of the Bill, your Lordships inserted a new Clause 142 into the Bill which decriminalises heterosexual buggery between adults where both consent. It was one of a number of provisions in the Bill relating to sexual offences. All the other parts come into effect on Royal Assent. Amendment No. 53 merely adds this clause to the list.
It must be a strong argument that, where an activity is to be decriminalised, it should be done as soon as possible after Parliament has made its decision. There seem to be no administrative difficulties in doing that. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, very kindly said that, if I thought that my Amendment No. 54 achieved the same thing better than her amendment did, she would withdraw her amendment. If I may say so with some modesty, I think it does, and I should be grateful if she would take that course of action.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I shall do so with pleasure. I beg the leave of the House to withdraw Amendment No. 53.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 133, line 43, leave out from ("141,") to ("143") and insert ("142, (Revised penalties for buggery and indecency between men),").
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 133, line 44, after ("145,") insert ("(Amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in Scotland).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44.I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 60:
Page 134, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4) above,").
Page 134, line 4, at end insert ("; and the last such order may bring into force the repeals of sections 6 to 9 and the definition in section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and of section 70 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.").
Page 134, line 5, after ("unless") insert ("a draft of).
Page 134, line 6, after ("by") insert ("resolution of,").
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 134, line 6, at end insert:
("(7) No order shall be made under subsection (6) of section 165 above unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 49.I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 134, line 9, after ("paragraphs") insert ("26, 35, 36, 58,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply provides that the consequential provisions in Schedule 10 on male rape come into effect on the passing of the Act. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 134, line 11, after ("repeals") insert (" and revocations").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 51.I beg to move.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 134, line 16, after ("144(5),") insert ("146,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I spoke in regard to Amendment No. 45. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 134, line 16, leave out ("(3) and 5),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 65, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 67 as well. These are technical amendments. They simply ensure that the various subsections of Clause 156 are given, in Clause 171, a proper territorial application. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 134, line 20, after ("88,") insert ("Video recordings: restriction of exemptions").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 35.I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 134, line 21, leave out ("and (7)") and insert (", (4), (5) and (9)").
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 134, line 21, after ("158,") insert ("160,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon the addition to the Bill at Report stage of what is now Clause 160. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 134, line 32, after 144(3) insert ("(Amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in Scotland),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 70 and 71:
Page 134, line 39, leave out ("or repealed") and insert (, repealed or revoked").
Page 134, line 40, leave out ("or repeal") and insert (", repeal or revocation").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 51.
Schedule 1 [Escort Arrangements: England and Wales]:
Lord Carr of Hadley Lord Carr of Hadley moved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
Page 135, line 18, after ("centre,") insert ("secure accommodation,").
Page 136, line 38, at end insert (";
"secure accommodation" has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act, and includes any other place to which an offender may have been committed or transferred under section 2 of this Act;").
Schedule 9 [Minor Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 173, line 20, at end insert:
("Sexual offences: procurement of women
. In sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (procurement of women to have unlawful sexual intercourse by threats or false pretences), the word "unlawful" shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said : My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 74, I shall speak to Amendment No. 75 at the same time. These amendments simply ensure the survival, following the acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on male rape at Report stage, of all of the amendments on rape in marriage which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in Committee and which were accepted by the House. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 177, line 10, leave out ("woman") and insert ("person").
Schedule 10 [Consequential Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 197, line 26, at end insert:
("Searches of persons detained at police stations
. In section 54(1) (b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (searches of persons detained at police stations), for the words "under section 47(5) above" there shall be substituted the words ", as a person falling within section 34(7), under section 37 above".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 207, line 44, column 3, at end insert:
Section 3.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 38.I beg to move
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:
Page 208, line 5, column 3, leave out ("12") and insert ("9").
Page 208, line 5, column 3, at end insert ("Sections 10 to 12,").
Page 211, line 24, after ("1968") insert ("except sections 6 to 9 and in section 16, in").
7.25 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Your Lordships' consideration of this Bill has already been a lengthy one and at times—certainly for some of us—a taxing one. I would not wish, therefore, to prolong the proceedings for a minute longer than is essential— commensurate, of course, with the dignity and propriety of the House.
I doubt whether I am the only one who has been looking forward to the sense of achievement at finally having completed our consideration of this formidable document. I always remember in what one likes to call the olden days, when the corn at harvest time was cut with a binder, the sigh of exultant relief which occurred

211
when the last sheaf of corn was tossed onto the wagon and somebody exclaimed: "That was the one that we were looking for". All I can say over this Bill is that this is the speech that I have been looking for.
when the Bill started its life in another place it consisted of a modest 117 clauses and 10 schedules. By the time another place had dealt with it, it had grown to 152 clauses and 11 schedules. And now, after the gentle—but prolific —treatment which your Lordships have seen fit to accord to it, it has grown to 171 clauses and 11 schedules. I doubt whether any inflation during the past 30 years or so could hold a candle to that.
At times it has seemed to me—and I am sure that over this at least it may have occurred to your Lordships too—that there is scarcely an aspect of our national life which does not seem to have been touched upon in some way by the Bill. And that was not always, I might add, at the Government's instigation, even though the Government get the blame when they say that it will not work, or when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, says that there is too much verbosity in legislation.
I could not hope to produce now—nor would I be so cruel as to inflict upon your Lordships—a speech which attempted to encapsulate all that the Bill contains and all that has occurred during our consideration of it. That would be too much for your Lordships as well as for me. What I would like to do though is to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have taken part in our consideration of this Bill over the past weeks. I am even more grateful to those whose contributions have been what the Whips might call "constructive".
All of your Lordships' speeches are always—or at least nearly always—"constructive", but some are from the Government's point of view more constructive than others. And it is to those noble Lords who have contributed in that particular manner that I would offer the Government's especial gratitude. But, whatever the views that have been expressed, I am glad to say that, without exception, your Lordships' scrutiny of the Bill has been genuine and courteous as well as thorough and at times uncomfortably penetrating.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has, as always, kept the Government alert with his lucid speeches, usually without a note. That is a matter of considerable envy.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, brought his diagnostic legal mind to bear on many subjects and when he had had enough the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, took over with equal force. And I must confess that there have been times when I have wished that I, too, had been a lawyer. They always make the most unconvincing case seem convincing. But I had no such luck. I merely listened with admiration to others.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—and when he was not here, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—has taken us down avenues which some of us might have preferred not to have explored so thoroughly, but the result has been some significant contributions to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, could not be left out of the sport. He is always a formidable debater and sometimes, as is his wont, he just made the
212
best of some of his weaker points. It seemed to me that not one jot or comma of the Bill was able to escape his hawk-like scrutiny.
I am also grateful for the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder, Lord Avebury and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said at one point that he thought that he could be the subject of an H.E. Bateman cartoon as:
"the Peer who has had an amendment accepted by the Government".
As your Lordships will have discovered this evening, that is not such a rare occurrence. I can only hope that the warm glow of achievement felt by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will sustain him for some time to come. Who knows? It may be the last time that it happens to him for quite a while.
No consideration of a criminal justice Bill would be complete without contributions from the noble and learned Lords who sit on the Cross Benches, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. As usual, their contributions were penetrating and made even more interesting by their characteristic lack of uniformity of view.
I should also like to express my considerable gratitude to those noble Lords on our side of the House whose support, for most of the time, has been invaluable. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham placed a lifetime of both legal and political experience at the disposal of your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Renton also gave your Lordships wise counsel which was based both on his previous ministerial experience in the Home Office and as an expert on drafting. My noble friends Lady Miller of Hendon, Lady Seccombe and Lord Stewartby also came stoutly to our support. That was greatly appreciated.
For other of my noble friends, the natural desire to support the Government in all circumstances has occasionally been just too much for them. They could not control the urge to put their views forcefully and sometimes even to push them against the advice of the Government Front Bench. Naturally, I respected their independence of thought, although I wished that it did not have such a penetrating effect on their conscience.
I should like to thank my noble and learned friends Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, who have borne much of the burden and heat of the day on this Bill. Their industry and intellect have certainly helped sustain me through the Committee and Report stages as well as bringing the advantage of structured legal minds to the benefit of the Government's case. My noble friends Lady Cumberlege and Lord Cranborne found themselves unexpectedly propelled into the vortex of the Bill on some matters of extraordinary controversy on which your Lordships may not necessarily be experts but on which most of you held some strong and personal views.
A multitude of your Lordships—rather like the multitude of the heavenly host: too great to number— have participated in the Bill from all quarters of the House. They have brought to bear their wisdom and experience for the benefit of your Lordships and the future laws of the country. For that we are all grateful.

213
The Bill has been like a book of very distinct and different chapters, each of which has attracted its own readers and—in this case—its own participants. No one can say therefore that the Bill has lacked either interest or variety.
I am truly grateful to noble Lords who have participated in the debates on the Bill for the courteous, generous and good humoured way in which our discussions have been conducted. I hope that your Lordships will have found both the effort and experience to have been worth while.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
7.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister used two very interesting words when he moved the Motion that the Bill do now pass— "achievement" and "constructive". It seems to me that achievement is in the eye of the beholder. When I look at the Bills which have come from the Home Office this Session, I conclude that, with the possible exception of the Sunday Trading Bill which passed through relatively unscathed, the headline in this morning's Guardian,
"Howard package left limping by Lords onslaught",
is not a bad description. There follow two half-columns of very detailed description of the ways in which the Home Secretary's original intentions in introducing this legislation to Parliament have been frustrated.
The Minister also used the word "constructive". Admittedly he qualified it by saying that some of us have been more constructive than others. The spirit of Animal Farm lives on. I suppose that, as one who perhaps is less constructive than others, I shall allow myself to be at the tail end of that compliment.
As the Minister rightly said, this has been a very complicated and diverse Bill. Indeed, it is not a single Bill; it is a whole series of packages. It is important to remember that the original intention of the criminal justice Bill—perhaps partly foreshadowed by the Home Secretary's speech at the Conservative Party Conference—was that it should be a Bill to improve the conduct, efficiency and equity of criminal justice. The Bill has not done that at all. It has been a ragbag of measures, some introduced by the Government and some by other people, both in this House and in another place, which took advantage of the very lax Long Title (as it turned out to be) or the ability of individual Members to add to the Long Title as it was earlier to make relatively unconnected changes to our criminal justice system.
In my view, some of those measures have been almost entirely benign. The updating and reform of sexual offences legislation which is now in the new Part XI of the Bill have been almost wholly benign. Some of the other new offences which have been created—it is generally new offences to which I object rather than the revision of existing offences —in particular those related to aggravated trespass and other such matters, seemed to me to be almost wholly malign in the sense that they have been presented as being necessary to remedy very specific abuses—whether they are abuses of rave parties, the activities of hunt saboteurs or
214
whatever—but in fact they have extended police powers to deal with what they perceive to be public order offences in a way that is much wider than I wish to see.
I have a great fear of the effect on the liberty of the subject to protest peacefully or with minimal disruption—they are often very difficult to distinguish— against things which they profoundly believe to be wrong. In other words, they are people who do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. Their ability to protest will be severely restricted by the legislation that we have now passed. To that extent I very much regret both the original intentions of the Bill and some of the additions which have been made to it.
If I look back over the passage of the Bill only through your Lordships' House, in addition to the many welcome concessions that have been made by the Government (I shall not weary the House by spelling them out), I note the defeats that have been imposed on the Government in the Division Lobbies. First, there was the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to make statutory the non-tariff based scheme for criminal injuries compensation. There was the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, to make local authority secure accommodation an option for the courts when imposing secure training orders. There was the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to delay for five years the repeal of the Caravan Sites Act. Finally, I add with some reluctance the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, to outlaw the advertising of the sale of confidential financial information. That proved to me that the Government cannot even win a Division when I vote for them, which is carrying defeatism a little far.
All those amendments were ably moved by Members on other Benches, but most of them had the active support of my noble friends on the Front Bench and the Back Benches. I am grateful to all my noble friends for that. Let me express, first, my gratitude to my noble friends on the Front Bench, in particular my noble friends Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lady Mallalieu who played an active and enormously welcome part in remedying the deficiencies of a non-lawyer in leading on this Bill from the Front Bench. Many more of my noble friends took an active part in the Bill and I am grateful for that.
I enjoyed the comradeship of the shifting team on the Liberal Democrat Front Benches—the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who was sometimes on the Front Bench and sometimes not, and also the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It was particularly agreeable to work with them on the more difficult issues in the Bill.
I express my appreciation too for the work of the Government Front Bench and the way in which they listened to the arguments and gave way sometimes when the arguments were strong and sometimes when the force of numbers against them was strong, as perhaps this afternoon evidenced. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, not forgetting the noble

215
Lord, Lord Annaly, who has been backwards and forwards to the Box a number of times, deserve the thanks of the House for their work.
I pay tribute also to those who advised us and others on various parts of the Bill. We had assistance on youth offenders from the All-Party Penal Affairs Group. Though it serves both Houses as a whole, some of those working for the group provided valuable advice on the issues concerned with youth offenders. Justice and other organisations were concerned with the right to silence and other related issues; Liberty and many other organisations were concerned with civil liberties and advised us on Part V of the Bill. Many gypsy defence organisations were enormously helpful in our consideration of that part of the Bill. Stonewall and individual advisers gave help on the sexual offences sections.
There are far too many outside organisations for me to list, but noble Lords will get the gist of the fact that there was a high degree of public anxiety in regard to many of the provisions in the Bill. I pay tribute to Katherine Quarmby from the Opposition Researchers' Office, who kept admirable control of the business with which we have had to deal and maintained the liaison with outside advisers.
This is not the Bill it should have been. It should have been a Bill to improve our criminal justice system, in particular by dealing with the provisions of the Runciman Royal Commission. It should have been a Bill which dealt with miscarriages of justice in the wider sense. In so far as it moved gently in that direction, there are aspects on which it actually moved backwards—the curtailment of the effectiveness of the right to silence is a good example of where Runciman recommended one way, and even the minority report was rejected by government, so we have legislation which is in fact worse than it was before.
The Bill is a ragbag; it has been a mixture of things, some good and some bad—mostly bad I fear. We must now hope that in the next Session we bring forward an effective Criminal Justice Bill which deals with the profound issue of the efficacy of our system of justice and which will restore the faith of the British people in their judicial and justice system.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we are now coming to the end of our debates on this extraordinary Bill, consisting, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reminded us a few moments ago, of 171 clauses and 11 schedules. Quite apart from the Second Reading debate, we had nine days in Committee, four on Report and a further day today, making 15 parliamentary days in all. Having said that, it is right that I too thank my own colleagues—my noble friends Lord Wigoder, Lord Avebury, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lady Seear— for their assistance during the debates on the Bill. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for responding so graciously on most occasions to the debates on a number of highly controversial amendments. If he will allow me
216
to say so, he has done his job extraordinarily well given the fact that on some occasions the strength of his arguments were not too obvious—to some of us at least.
All Oppositions tend to describe their opponents' criminal justice Bills as a "ragbag" of ill-co-ordinated proposals; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did just that. I have often heard those words used by Conservative Opposition Members in the Commons when discussing Labour criminal justice Bills. Often there is a degree of truth in the charge. By their very nature they are miscellaneous provisions Bills, incorporating as they do a number of issues of central significance to the government of the day, but also many others which the Home Office has been waiting to place before Parliament. This Bill is no exception.
What makes the Bill so different from its predecessors is its vast scope, ranging from the treatment of young offenders and the law of bail to collective trespass or nuisance on land; from squatters and sexual offences to the prohibition on the use of cells from embryos or foetuses. Rarely, if ever, has such legislation been placed before Parliament in a single Bill. Inevitably our debates have been prolonged; indeed, quite unacceptably so. As I have indicated before, it does the reputation of Parliament as a whole no good when issues of importance in our criminal law are debated at one or two in the morning with only eight or nine Members of the House present. As I have indicated before also, many of us are not prepared to accept legislating in the early hours of the morning. I hope that the Government will listen to what is being said. If they continue with this kind of conduct in the next Session of Parliament, they will be inviting serious trouble.
It is only right to say that the Bill, deeply objectionable though it remains in many important respects, has been improved significantly. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on this matter a few moments ago. The House was right to look critically at the Government's proposal to create secure training centres. As many know, the failure of these centres is highly probable, just as their predecessors— borstals and short sharp shocks—failed. The House was right when it defeated the Government on the issue by giving the courts the power to decide whether to send an offender to local authority secure accommodation instead.
The House was right too—again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—when it adopted the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in relation to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I also welcome with rather greater enthusiasm than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—I think it was the only occasion on which we found ourselves in different Lobbies during the 15 days of the debate—the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, dealing with the advertising and sale of confidential and personal information. The House was right to insist on that amendment despite the objections of the Government.
Finally, there was the defeat of the Government on the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Of all the proposals we have debated, those dealing with gypsies were the nastiest. This was the work not of the Home Office but of Mr. Gummer. One of the tests of a civilised society

217
is the manner in which it treats powerless minorities. The gypsies are just such a minority. Given their proposals in the Bill, the Government have, in my view, signally failed that test. Although much that is deeply damaging remains in the Bill, the House at least has insisted that the statutory obligation contained in Section 2 of the Act should remain on the statute book for up to five years. By then, I hope that we shall have a very different person as Environment Secretary in this country.
After each defeat there have been immediate statements by Ministers that they would reverse the decisions of the House when the Bill returns to the House of Commons. Indeed, that was often done before Ministers had the slightest opportunity of studying anything that had been said during debates in this House, not least speeches made by their noble friends, many of whom have distinguished ministerial careers behind them. More recently, we have been told by many newspapers that the Government's supporters in the House of Commons are saying that these defeats have been caused by the deficiencies of the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip. It has not apparently occurred to any of the gentlemen making statements of this kind that the defeats were caused not by any deficiencies in the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip, still less by any deficiencies in the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The Government were defeated because a clear majority in this House thought that their views were profoundly mistaken. This House has performed its function, and has performed it well, as a revising Chamber.
My only complaint is that we did not go a great deal further in amending the Bill. Some of its proposals are both sensible and desirable, not least those—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—relating to sexual offences. It is only right at a moment like this to pay some tribute to Mrs. Currie, who raised some of these issues initially in the House of Commons. She is not a person whose activities I normally find it necessary to applaud but on this occasion I most certainly do so. It required a high degree of political courage to raise these issues and it is only right to acknowledge that on an occasion such as this.
Although a significant number of the Government's proposals in the Bill are both sensible and desirable, others owe their existence to the need for Ministers to secure standing ovations at their party conference. All that is certain is that a future parliament will be compelled to return to many of the issues dealt with in this Bill. And to deal with them in a civilised and rational manner, a style which is unhappily absent from many of the provisions of the Bill.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I should like very briefly, and above everything else, to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the way in which he has dealt with the Bill. If we were awarding a man of the match award he would not only outstandingly win the award but, if I look back over the whole of 1994 in your Lordships' House, he would land the man of the year award as well.
218
I believe that we should pay tribute to the way in which throughout this mammoth Bill, on top of other Bills—the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, the Sunday Trading Bill, and I do not think that they were the end of the story —my noble friend has produced day after day, week after week, the sustained quality of reply which he has done, never lacking the touch of good humour which makes him such a welcome contributor to this House. I feel that all those present, and large numbers of my colleagues in your Lordships' House who cannot be present, would wish to paas a hearty and very warm vote of thanks and appreciation to him. So far as I am concerned he really did become my pin-up boy when late in the day he made a concession about ticket touts at Wimbledon. It is very difficult after he has done that to say anything controversial to him. But I had better quickly and very briefly pass from his good deeds to what, anyhow in his view, are my misdeeds.
This is an omnibus Bill and I do not wish to review it in any great detail. However, I wish to express the view that, perhaps potentially at least, one of the most important parts of the Bill is Clause 1. We have never before attempted to deal with the problem of those children who are below the age at which previously we thought we ought to bring the law to bear. I am certainly among those who think that we must deal with them and that dealing with them must involve some measure of physical restraint, containment and secure imprisonment—yes, one must use the word—for limited periods; associated, of course, with constructive training.
I genuinely welcome the secure training order as a new sentence. I hope I made clear in moving my amendment last week that I support the secure training order. I also welcome the concept of secure training units, however doubtful I may be about their success. All I ask the Government to do in that respect—and I wish to leave this plea on the table with them—is to consider very carefully whether it is right to give secure training units a monopoly of treatment so far as concerns the containing part of the secure training order sentence. I beg of them to start thinking deeply from scratch about that.
I believe that we are only at the beginning of how we are going to contain the problem of severe criminality among children—not among young people but among children. I believe deeply that this will have to focus more and more on local action: local containment and local treatment within the community in which the children exist. I am not saying that there should not be national units as well, but I believe that in the coming years the emphasis will increasingly be found to be on local action. Therefore, whether within the context of the sentence of the secure training order or some broader context, it is a severe weakness if we continue to deny our courts the right to order containment in secure local authority places, something which they cannot do at the moment.
Between now and the autumn, when the Commons will be asked to reply to this amendment, I strongly urge the Government to think very deeply about this. I can assure my noble friend and all colleagues in government that it was no part of our intention in moving the

219
amendment to wreck what is being attempted through this new sentence or to wreck the new units. We simply believe deeply that a greater local power should be added to it. I hope that will be carefully thought about and not just dismissed on some grounds of prestige or fear about having second thoughts.
I must not go on any longer. I believe that the Bill will add to the security of this country. On balance, although there are things in it which some of us will never like, it is a Bill that we ought to wish well and send on its way with those wishes from this House.
8 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like to pay my tribute to the Minister. Even when seated, his presence is commanding; when speaking at the Dispatch Box he positively towers over us and it may therefore seem a little superfluous to say that his conduct of this "Christmas tree" Bill, as it has been called, has added enormously to his stature.
He has consistently shown good humour, great understanding and sensitivity and a willingness to listen to the points that have been made so frequently. I have found it a great pleasure not only occasionally to support him, but also to oppose him. I would like to make only one reference to criminal compensation. That is merely because, as has been pointed out on behalf of the Government, they propose to reverse this matter in another place.
We are entitled to expect that the issue of compensation of the victims of violent crime should be non-political and non-contentious. So it has been for the past 30 years. In the debate on this very subject on 2nd March arising out of the Unstarred Question which I put down, all who spoke, apart from the Minister, were strongly critical of the Government's conduct. Those who spoke consisted of four law Lords. In addition there was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who is a distinguished member of the Court of Session. From the Government Benches there were the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and Lord Colnbrook. From the Liberal Benches there was Lord Lester of Herne Hill and from the Labour Benches the noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Mishcon and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. In addition there was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay of Bragar and Lord Ewing of Kirkford.
On 16th June, when the House divided a significant number of government supporters either voted for the amendment or abstained, hence the majority. Perhaps it is noteworthy that no fewer than 10 law Lords voted for the amendment. I hope that the Government will prove to be a good loser on this issue. If not, they will earn deep resentment for what will be characterised as mean and shabby treatment, particularly of those who have suffered and who will suffer the most from injuries by
220
criminals. The Government's protestations of concern for the victims of crime will ring out in a mocking and hollow way.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I should like to offer a few reflections on this Bill which appear to me to be fundamental. The excuse must be that I opened the first debate in this House in 1965 on some of these issues and therefore I am in a position to put some of them in a longer perspective. I join wholeheartedly in the tributes paid to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. His stamina is one of those things which astonish me. I do not know how he does it. It is not only his stamina, but his good humour, wit and charm which are all wonderful qualities. Those are the last nice things that I shall be able to say about the Government. I join him in the generous words which he used about my noble leader, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who rivalled him in general acuteness, wit and all the other desirable human qualities.
Sir Winston Churchill once said that the last war was an unnecessary war. In my view, this is an unnecessary Bill. We all know its origins. There was a new Minister in Mr. Howard, who arrived on the scene last summer knowing nothing about prisons. There was an argument as to whether he had once been into Brixton Prison. Taking a charitable view, I believe that he once visited Brixton. He knew nothing about prisons and almost overnight he produced a 27-point programme for dealing with law and order. In a sense this Bill is the result of that well-intentioned but ludicrous initiative. He undoubtedly had considerable success at the Conservative conference and that might have been expected. The only time I went to the Conservative conference in recent years was when Mr. Clarke was Home Secretary. It was very disappointing. There was no talk about hanging and flogging at all or anything of that sort. It was all very mild. However, last year it was different because Mr. Howard stirred them up with the help of the Prime Minister. We were told that prisons were going to be much more unpleasant places, as though they were not unpleasant enough already.
No one can doubt that Mr. Howard was introducing a new approach. He was defended with great eloquence by the noble Earl, who defended exactly opposite policies with equal eloquence for some years before. Mr. Faulkner, a leading official in the Home Office concerned with these matters, indicated that it was astonishing the change which was produced by this eminent QC, Mr. Howard.
Be that as it may. He was successful at the time, but he cannot be said to have been very successful since. He is interested in public opinion and all the polls show that this is the most unpopular government within recorded memory. As far as law and order is concerned, for the first time the Labour Party is ahead of the Conservative Party in the polls.
Let us deal with the matter on its merits. I am not going to suggest for a moment that all Conservatives are reactionary on penal matters. There have been great Conservative penal reformers. Winston Churchill was perhaps the greatest, although he was not a Conservative

221
at the time but a Liberal. He introduced drastic penal reforms before the First World War. Sir Samuel Hoare, later Lord Templewood, is revered in this House. He became a dedicated president of the Howard League. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, has shown in these debates and before that he is a genuine penal reformer. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has written the two best books on modern penal history that I know. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has asked us to look at these matters in a Christian light. There have been plenty of penal reformers from the Conservative side at certain moments, but always the shadow of the Conservative conference has hung over them. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was esteemed by everybody, but he found that out to his cost when he set out on the course of penal reform.
However, we must take matters as they are today and ask: where lies the difference between the philosophy of Mr. Howard—and the present Government must be held responsible for it—and the philosophy of anybody who can loosely be called a penal reformer? I remind noble Lords of the Christian approach. We must hate the sin and love the sinner. I am certainly not saying that all penal reformers are Christians. My dear lamented friend, Lady Wootton, whom I had the honour to introduce into this House, probably did as much for penal reform as anybody in this country and she was a passionate humanist. Nevertheless, whatever the language used, on the whole penal reformers have thought in those terms; namely, hating the sin but loving the sinner.
What can we make of the Government's approach now that Mr. Howard is their champion? Perhaps we can gain some inkling about it by reference to a major article in the Mail on Sunday which appeared nine days ago, written by Mr. David Mellor, a former Home Office Minister. Mr. Mellor announced that the cries of the children should outweigh the do-gooders. Incidentally, he mentioned me as the most obnoxious of that tribe, but there is nothing personal in that. He said that the cries of the child should outweigh the do-gooders.
I am not going to go into the question of victims tonight. Mr. Mellor was an imaginative, knowledgeable and a successful Minister for the Arts. He certainly would not seek my advice on matters artistic and I am not likely to seek his guidance concerning victims. I had the pleasure of introducing the first debate on victims in this House 30 years ago and 15 years ago I introduced the first Private Member's Bill for victims. So let us leave victims out of it for the moment.
Let us just see what was being said in that article. In the immediate context, Mr. Mellor was dealing with Myra Hindley, who has been in prison for 28 years. It has a wider application. He had to face the fact that on television the Catholic priest who sees Myra Hindley twice a week testified to her being a reformed character and a religious woman. But Mr. Mellor brushes these things aside. Other testimony was given about her character and Mr. Mellor said, "So what?" That is the crux of the matter. Whatever the character of the prisoner today after 30 years' imprisonment, he has said
222
that certain crimes cannot be forgiven. I cannot imagine anything more utterly opposed to Christian morality or to any morality of significant ethics.
What was Mr. Mellor aiming at in that article? He was writing a kind of trailer so that Mr. Howard could introduce a long foreshadowed and still long-feared announcement that a life sentence will mean life imprisonment. If "life imprisonment" were to mean "life", that would be a novelty introduced into this country by Mr. Howard and this Government. It is based on the idea that some crimes cannot be forgiven. I would say that that is an iniquitous doctrine. I hope that Mr. Howard, who, as we know, is a very intelligent man—I am sure that he is of a highly estimable private character—will never be associated with such an evil policy.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to answer the arguments that were put forward by the noble Lord who attempted to demolish the Bill because, in my opinion, the Bill is a great achievement. Indeed, I wish that Members of both Houses had followed the Government's advice more often than has been the case.
Like the noble Earl, I happen to have a long parliamentary memory. I have taken part in the proceedings on nearly every major Home Office Bill since 1945. I have to tell your Lordships that this is the longest, the most valid, the most far-reaching and, in parts, the most controversial of all those Bills. We have taken 15 days to consider it—and parts of some nights. I think that the Bill is a considerable achievement.
The Bill has been a tremendous challenge to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. As has been said, following as it does the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Sunday Trading Bill, the Bill has meant that my noble friend has had to master a vast amount of criminal law and some laws of evidence. He has never failed to respond, even to the most abstruse arguments—and has done so with marvellous good humour, surprising patience and not by reading out pages of brief offered to him by the Home Office, but by forming his own views on the advice that has been given to him and by giving us his reasons for responding in one way or another to our arguments.
Speaking for myself, I have been glad to accept the Government's views on nearly everything. I most warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I ask forgiveness for this late entry into the debates on this Bill. As your Lordships know, I have been away for a certain amount of what is called "restructuring". I have received surgical attention in various ways. I must pay tribute to the National Health Service and to two hospitals for the skill and treatment that I received. To have a hip replacement at nearly 96 years of age is a bit of a record, and to have had it done successfully is a great comfort to me although I still have weaknesses to overcome.

223
While I was away I tried to keep in touch with the debates on this Bill in your Lordships' House. How I admire the patience and urbanity of the noble Earl who leads for the Government in Home Office affairs. He is a great asset to our debates and adds to our opportunities for full and frank debate on matters of this kind.
I wish to express my grateful thanks for the many messages that I received from colleagues from all sides of the House and for the welcome that I received on my return. It has been a very moving experience and I appreciate it very much.
That rather tempers my state of mind on this Bill— not only about what it does, but as regards some of the things —and one in particular—that it leaves out. However, I cannot agree with the general philosophy behind the Bill, which is that the only way to deal with and to eradicate crime is to have more and stiffer punishment. Of course, that is the natural response of a great many people in the country—probably of the great majority. Although we have listened to the calm and reflective comments of the noble Earl, we have to remember that the voice that we hear in this Bill came straight from the Conservative Party conference when the Home Secretary was challenged to "stand and deliver", which he has certainly tried to do.
I think that we shall have to be bolder and more understanding of the problem before we shall see any reduction in the level of crime. When the Labour Government came into office in 1964 a document awaited us entitled Crime—A Challenge to us all. It was the work of my noble and courageous friend Lord Longford who had established a committee to study this matter from a different angle. It might be worthwhile having another look at that document. We did so little about it in that Labour Government. We did so little about many things because we did not have the time — probably we did not have the experience—and we had more pressing national problems with which to deal, such as our economic difficulties. I hope that another government will be bolder in their approach to this and will try to deal with the problem from a different angle.
In all debates on crime and punishment there is a general under-estimation of the extent of original sin. Children do not start life good. They start life full of original sin. Their potential for good or evil will depend a great deal on the influence, training and education that they receive. I feel that there is a strong case for schooling to start earlier if only to give the children in smaller families, which are now pretty common in the land, a better opportunity of rubbing their rough edges against those of somebody else because they do not get that opportunity within the family as they used to. My grandfather had five children under the age of 11 when his wife died aged 31. He then married another woman who took on those children and then had seven more. That was the sort of family that prevailed in Victorian times. Children learned something about morals from the response that they received to mischief, stealing, assault and other offences as between one child and another. A single child does not stand much of a chance
224
of knowing what the world is about. He will be self-centred, doted on by his parents and will probably be quite unfitted for the evil that awaits him outside.
We must catch them young. But that does not mean more religious indoctrination. There is a secular approach and a pre-religious approach to the basic elements of crime in terms of personal relationships and one's outlook on the world in general. They should be looked at at source. It will probably take time for a new standard of instruction to bear fruit in a more peaceful and less criminal society. But it should be tried. I do not say that it is the complete answer, but a good deal of crime starts with children who are not properly trained and guided in their youth.
Teachers complain that they are asked to do a great deal of the instruction that parents should be doing. Parents should be doing more, but look at them! They are all busy. Mothers are working, and so on. The state must take some responsibility for replacing that with a system of nursery and early education. I started school at three years of age. I learnt a great deal before I reached the age of school entry. I hope that a new Home Secretary in a new government will make a bold start. I know that there is an idea that the community might absorb a good deal of that criminal disposition; that it might gather together a strong community spirit which would discourage those who wish to go their own way.
Some crime is the result of nonconformity. The general public is impatient with nonconformity. I know that because I was a nonconformist child brought up in a nonconformist as well as a rationalist household. To have a mother a devoted nonconformist, and a father who was a rationalist and a great admirer of Charles Bradlaugh and others who stuck out against the imposition of religious doctrine in general walks of life, gave me an insight into both points of view. That is at least one way to deal with crime.
I must finish with what struck me so deeply on Sunday and Monday that I felt I must be here to say it. It is a great shame that we have gone through the Bill without attending to the excesses of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. How can we be said to be dealing with crime and punishment while we retain the restriction upon the jurisdiction of magistrates and have tied up everything in the Act in a spirit of hostility and extermination?
I have been concerned for a year now with a situation that has resulted in complete deadlock. The law cannot help. A man's dog has been held in police custody since November 1991. Nothing has been proved against the dog or the owner. But the police will not release the dog because they have not had a clearance from the courts to say that it is not of the pit bull terrier type. I want to know what the Government will do to end a situation in which knowledgable people predict confidently that that dog will remain in police custody for the rest of its life. It is only five years of age, so it has still a few years to go. That is a monstrous situation to be in at the conclusion of lengthy debates on crime and punishment. I am very sad that nothing has been done.
After all, your Lordships passed without dissent the Bill to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which I introduced. It was introduced into the other place by Mr. Andrew Bowden MP, but it has made no progress there.

225
We should have attended to the matter. It is still on the agenda. The Act came into force three years ago. We have had a report only about how it operated during its first year. We have another year to come, and we shall still be one year in arrears. The statistics are hiding some dreadful discoveries in the operation of that near-police state in the area of dog ownership. That is what we have, and it is unforgiveable. I regain a certain amount of confidence from re-entering the debates in your Lordships' House. I am sure that, whether your Lordships like it or not, you will hear from me again.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I must resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in a discussion of the philosophy of dealing with crime, but I cannot resist welcoming him back to your Lordships' House. It is a great pleasure to see him on both his legs and in such good form. It is reassuring to hear him again on the subject of dogs, which suggests that not much has been changed by the surgeon, except that it is a relief to hear that he now believes in original sin, which goes half way towards correcting the theological error in which he has lived his life. I hope that the rest of it may be recovered. I hope also that he noticed that the names on the cards that he has been receiving were not all from one side of the House.
For the rest, I have only two things to add. First, I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Can-said about the principal amendment that he moved in which I supported him. Like him, I accept, reluctantly but firmly, that there are children of 12 and up to 14 who must be incarcerated. I believe also that the effect of what we proposed will be that more of them will be retained in secure accommodation, because I believe that more magistrates will be prepared to use the sentence if the children do not have to be sent so far away from home. But we have debated all that.
My principal purpose in rising to my feet is that some years ago I occupied the same position at the Home Office as my noble friend and was also faced with a heavy legislative load. I offer him not just congratulations but admiration for the way he has carried out his task. I understand the stress he has been under. Not one of your Lordships has mentioned the other two Bills he has taken through the House. In fact, the Sunday Trading Bill, which was the middle one of the three, overlapped the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. That imposes an enormous strain on the Minister and on his officials because there is no time to catch one's breath and one is commissioning advice on one thing even as one is answering questions on another. To maintain his poise, courtesy and lucidity under those circumstances is a great achievement. I join with everyone else in offering my congratulations.
8.28 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend for those kind remarks and other noble Lords for theirs. I appreciate them. As in all things, one is propelled from behind by, as it were, things to do, and one takes them as best one can. My noble friend
226
Lord Renton is right when he says that the Bill is a great achievement. It is a great achievement. Of course it is a controversial Bill. Anything to do with criminal justice and crime is bound to be controversial. When a Bill covers so many areas, as this Bill does, all parts cannot be attractive to all people. But one cannot get away from the fact that there is crime and that the Government have a responsibility to deal with the fact of crime. In all the measures contained in the Bill, the Government's reaction to crime is to endeavour to make the country a better place. Your Lordships may say that that will not happen as the result of an Act of Parliament. Of course it will not. One does not alter people by passing Acts of Parliament; one addresses the malefaction and deals with that.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton. I too am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, back in the Chamber. The noble Lord made a pertinent observation while talking about the old days when people had large families. He said that his grandfather had five children all under the age of 11. In those days the children learnt from each other and there was a discipline that went with the family. Perhaps that does not happen so much today. In that we are all responsible. People talk about crime as though one cannot do anything about it; as though it is a large cloud under which one will get soaking wet and one can do nothing about it. Of course, everyone can do something about crime. I refer to the way in which parents deal with their children, expose them to television and videos, conduct themselves at home and at school and the way in which teachers conduct themselves at school. All that reflects and reacts on children and on people. It is something for which we all have a responsibility.
That does not mean that the Government do not have their own responsibility in trying to deal with crime and to prevent it. Acts of Parliament do not alter the way people think; they address the things they do wrong.
I did not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would be able to bring into the debate almost the only aspect of our lives which is not covered by the Bill; namely, the Dangerous Dugs Act. He succeeded, which shows how broad and wide your Lordships' procedures are. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, introduced, and made a long speech about, a matter that is not dealt with in the Bill. He castigated the Government—he always does—for the Dangerous Dogs Act as though the Government had done something terrible to poor darling little dogs, maintaining that we must not be horrible to them. I remind the noble Lord that the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced because people were being mauled by dangerous dogs and were having the most terrible things done to them. It is unreasonable for the noble Lord to suggest that the Government should sit back and say, "We can do nothing about it", and allow people to be mauled by such dogs. Of course the Government had to react to that problem and introduce that Act.
The noble Lord then produced one example from among all those dealt with by the Act and asked what the Government proposed to do about that little doggie?

227
It is not the Government's job to deal with the dog; the dog must be dealt with under the normal processes of the courts and that is happening.
We have probably had sufficient on this Bill and I cannot think why the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is leaping up and down. I know that he wants to have his dinner and so do I. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Hill Samuel Bank and United Dominions Trust Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before nine o'clock.

  RWANDA: VISIT OF RPF SECRETARY-GENERAL
  RWANDA: VISIT OF RPF SECRETARY-GENERAL
  RWANDA: MISSING PERSONS
  RWANDA: MISSING PERSONS
  INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLE: UN AID
  INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLE: UN AID
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, PROTOCOL 11: SIGNATURE BY ITALY
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, PROTOCOL 11: SIGNATURE BY ITALY
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE: PASSPORTS
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE: PASSPORTS
  REGULATORY TOXICITY: ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REPORT
  REGULATORY TOXICITY: ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REPORT
  UNITS OF MEASUREMENT DIRECTIVE: IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
  UNITS OF MEASUREMENT DIRECTIVE: IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES
  DRIFT NETTING
  DRIFT NETTING
  HOUSE OF LORDS: VEAL SERVED 20TH-24TH JUNE
  HOUSE OF LORDS: VEAL SERVED 20TH-24TH JUNE
  STUDENT INCOME
  STUDENT INCOME
  CHINESE GOODS; FORCED LABOUR ALLEGATION
  CHINESE GOODS; FORCED LABOUR ALLEGATION
  EUROPEAN UNION: HYPOTHETICAL SAVINGS ARISING FROM WITHDRAWAL
  EUROPEAN UNION: HYPOTHETICAL SAVINGS ARISING FROM WITHDRAWAL
  LONDON TRANSPORT: CHAIRMAN
  LONDON TRANSPORT: CHAIRMAN
  SEATBELTS ON MINIBUSES AND COACHES
  SEATBELTS ON MINIBUSES AND COACHES
  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
  NORTHERN IRELAND PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
  NORTHERN IRELAND PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE